Jump to content

Talk:Ghost Reveries

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Credits

[edit]

All vocals on the album are credited to Mikael Åkerfeldt, so I'll delete 'backing vocals' from Per Wiberg's credits, he plays the keyboards only. If anyone objects, explain.

Death vocals

[edit]

Is it really necessary to say that the grunting 'returns' here? The articles for Deliverance and Damnation clearly say that they were meant to contrast each other, with Damnation being the mellow album and Deliverance the heavy album, and there wasn't really any doubt that the grunting wouldn't continue to be part of Opeth. It's a bit of an ambiguous sentence. --84.25.225.228 20:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agree--Sheish 6 Sheish 01:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheish (talk • contribs)

Harlequin Forest - Time

[edit]

The song Harlequin Forest is said to be "11:39 (actually 12:43)" long. Could we decide which one to use? I mean, if the time really is 12:43, then why not use that one instead of the 11:39er? --Coldfox 11:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is because of the prelude in the beginning of the track, as opposed to the actual start of the song. —Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 10:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it doesn't follow the actual track listing on the reverse of the CD, but as this is encyclopedic knowledge, shouldn't it read:

  • 4. Atonement 5:19
    • Reverie 1:04
  • 5. Harlequin Forest 11:39

One of the notes already explains the pre-gap situation. Kerαunoςcopia 00:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the cleaned up note on Reverie does its job suitably. – Kerαunoςcopia 09:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Opeth-Ghost Reveries (Special Edition Cover).jpg

[edit]

Image:Opeth-Ghost Reveries (Special Edition Cover).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for Stormbringer claim

[edit]

"Stormbringer ... Note: This is the first Opeth recording to feature Martin Axenrot on drums, which was also a live in-studio recording." Is there a reference? AndrewAntle (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Gothic Metal Genre

[edit]

The album's primary genre is still Progressive Death Metal, but along with Progressive Rock, Gothic Metal should be included as the albums secondary genre. The album contains a moderately strong Gothic Metal elements in several sections of the album. Example: The middle of "The Baying of The Hounds". [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anathema 1001 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.soundchecks.co.uk/reviews/opethgrvs.html

Introduction

[edit]

"This album is similar in style to Deliverance." Says who? 166.181.2.47 (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genres

[edit]

I have removed progressive rock as I think this album should be categorised the same way as the bands previous albums and progressive death metal should be enough and Watershed was the bands first proper progressive rock album. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source saying that Watershed was the band's first proper progressive rock album? The Popmatters review says: "Unlike Ghost Reveries, which comfortably, and impeccably, amalgamated the various sounds and textures Opeth had been toying with for a decade into a spellbinding realization of the band’s signature sound, Watershed is a major turning point for the band, as they’ve now made a significant shift towards the progressive rock sounds of 35 years ago, their extreme metal, which they used to be so firmly rooted in, now cleverly used more as a starting-off point than merely the groundwork of the music." This doesn't say that Ghost Reveries was not prog rock, just that Watershed very much was prog rock. I'm not necessarily saying that "progressive rock" should be kept, although there is some support for it in the Reception section ("was one of Classic Rock's 10 essential progressive rock albums of the decade"). But the reason given for removing it isn't so clear-cut and obvious. What we really need is sources for any genres added or already existing, and if none can be found in, say, a week, then remove the unsourced genres. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am going by what the Wikipedia page for Watershed says, look at the Watershed page and read the paragraph at the top and then tell me what you think. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have. It's sourced to the above Popmatters review (see the review here). That's what I think. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry my mistake. I think that if Ghost Reveries is labelled progressive rock than so should the bands previous albums (excluding the first 3) what do you think?

If sources can be found calling each of those albums "progressive rock", then yes. If not, no. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry my mistake. I think that if Ghost Reveries is labelled progressive rock than so should the bands previous albums (excluding the first 3) what do you think?

If sources can be found calling each of those albums "progressive rock", then yes. If not, no. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.allmusic.com/album/still-life-mw0000000177 that is enough to cover "Still Life" for a start and can you reply to me on the "Heritage" board cheers. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ghost Reveries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ghost Reveries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ghost Reveries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ghost Reveries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghost_Reveries&oldid=1195505107"