I think it's stubbornness that people can't accept that regardless of one theory/opinion that has been put forward, that people are allowed to have an equally valid opinion that the song is disjointed and not cohesive.
Sure. But personally, when its disjointedness had been brought up, or when people said, "the ambient section kills momentum" or whatever, and I said something like, "The exact same thing occurs in SDOIT," there's always some excuse as to why SDOIT is better. Whether it's the context, or whatever. I just don't see why SDOIT gets a free pass, just because we know what it's about? The simple fact is, it's another piece of music that has all the same "flaws" that IT has. I'm not saying these people need to feel the exact same way about SDOIT, but I'm saying that if I think that SDOIT suffers from these flaws just as much, then suddenly they try to change my opinion about that. And then they complain when we do the same about IT.
Here's a fact: SDOIT is just as disjointed as IT. If you like SDOIT in spite of that, that's fine, you're well within your rights to do so. But don't talk about IT as if it's more flawed, just because it doesn't suit your personal tastes.
It has nothing to do with "knowing what it's about". The music remains the same, and the lyrical context doesn't necessarily change that, even though it can.
It's funny how SDOIT being disjointed is a "fact", and to think otherwise is an "excuse", yet if someone has the same opinion of IT, they're being a hypocrite ignoring interpretations and being stubborn, and must write a counter-essay to back up their opinion.
I have never seen SDOIT get a free pass on anything, so I don't see any basis here for claiming a bias in the general fanbase.
Nothing here is fact, it's all opinion. They're all executed in very different ways, some more successfully than others. If one works better than another, then there's no contradiction, or excuse, it's plain and simple opinion, because this is music! What works in one song does not automatically work in another. As our new friend Ambassador GKar points out, even a minor change can make all the difference to the listener.
SDOIT has a sustained chord at the end of a song, then as the chord fades out, the next section starts over the top of that several seconds later, utilizing that sustained chord as chordal/textural backing as the clean guitar comes in. It's a short break in the sense that there isn't continuity of tempo/meter, but there is a continuity in that the band is still playing throughout the transition without break, and the sense of music/key/note is maintained, working on both ends (all imo of course, as is the following opinion of IT).
IT fades out a chord, but then plays wind chime samples for one and a half minutes, then eventually an orchestral section comes in. For me that is one and a half minutes of dead space, no music, no band. I get the feeling they were browsing a sample collection in the studio and thought it sounded neat, so they stuck it in there. How that might fit into a "concept" doesn't change that for me at all. I love what comes before and after the break, but I don't like the break.
If you can't see how people *might* just differentiate those two sections as listeners, you're not listening to music very hard. You're entitled to whatever opinion you want on both songs, that's not the issue, but the two opinions do not have to be related for anyone.
Topic: So I realized why DT's last 3 big epics have suffered in a way ACOS/8VM don't. (Read 10270 times)