So I realized why DT's last 3 big epics have suffered in a way ACOS/8VM don't.

[TheGreatPretender]

I agree with prioritizing the music itself over the lyrics, but in the case of DSOTM, that album has both fantastic lyrics and astounding musicianship. It might not appear to be the most interesting instrumentally, but I can't help but hear no filler. Even the shorter songs have a purpose and take things in a whole new direction.

In the case of Goodnight Kiss, I actually don't feel that the lyrics themselves are anything too special. What does it for me is JLB's vocal delivery, his sheer emotion behind them, and JP's solemn guitar solo. GK succeeds for me in the "instrumentation" department much more easily for me and I could also see how someone could make a much stronger connection being in a similar situation, or having a child of their own as well.

Meh, I didn't think there was anything particularly amazing about his delivery that's not present in other songs. The lyrics weren't that good, either. I usually can ignore bad lyrics, but hearing JLB say ,"I'm just a poor girl" is just awkward, no matter the context. Not to mention that rhyming "girl" with "world" is like #1 most overdone rhyme in the world.
But even instrumentally, I didn't think it was anything special. I'd take the more 'atmospheric' sections of 8VM, TCOT or IT, over GK any day. Or any other atmospheric sections that DT might have in any other song that I can't think of at the moment.

Bottom line is, I'm not a fan of Goodnight Kiss. And it's the main reason why SDOIT is at the bottom of their "super epics" for me. I do enjoy its other parts a lot more, but it's unfortunate that most of them just bleed into each other, so it's hard to listen to them as separate entities.

But that's still getting a bit off topic. The point is, Goodnight Kiss slows the momentum of SDOIT just like the ambient sections of IT and TCOT do with their respective songs, so I see nothing wrong with slowing a large song down in the middle. Frankly, I think it works to a songs advantage, to be able to take you all over the place in a single song is awesome, and part of what makes DT the band that it is.

[KevShmev]

Havent seen SDOIT live so I cant say, but IT seemed to kill the crowd for a bit.  Of course it comes back strong though.

It let them relax and get absorbed into the atmospheric part of it. The crowd doesn't have to be jumping up and down and cheering to enjoy the music.

Amen to this.  At both DT shows I saw earlier this moment, I stood there with my eyes closed and my hands folded behind my back during the middle section and just let it wash over me.  It was one of the more amazing experiences I've ever had at a live show.

With IT, the break just does not fit the song.

Except that it does.  With all due respect to you and anybody else of a similar mindset, I have to wonder what you are listening to if you think it doesn't fit the song.

Bottom line is, I'm not a fan of Goodnight Kiss. And it's the main reason why SDOIT is at the bottom of their "super epics" for me. I do enjoy its other parts a lot more, but it's unfortunate that most of them just bleed into each other, so it's hard to listen to them as separate entities.

But that's still getting a bit off topic. The point is, Goodnight Kiss slows the momentum of SDOIT just like the ambient sections of IT and TCOT do with their respective songs, so I see nothing wrong with slowing a large song down in the middle. Frankly, I think it works to a songs advantage, to be able to take you all over the place in a single song is awesome, and part of what makes DT the band that it is.

I cannot agree.  After the furiousness of War and Test, Goodnight Kiss does a great job of bringing it down a bit.  It's like it gives you the chance to exhale for a few minutes following the ass-kicking the two previous movements gave you. And personally, the latter half of Goodnight Kiss might be my favorite part of the entire 6DOIT suite/song.

[TheGreatPretender]

I cannot agree.  After the furiousness of War and Test, Goodnight Kiss does a great job of bringing it down a bit.  It's like it gives you the chance to exhale for a few minutes following the ass-kicking the two previous movements gave you. And personally, the latter half of Goodnight Kiss might be my favorite part of the entire 6DOIT suite/song.

I'm not saying the energy shouldn't be brought down. I totally agree that after those two, a breather is in order. I'm just saying I don't enjoy this particular piece all that much.

[KevShmev]

Fair enough. 

[TheGreatPretender]

I'm also saying that it's not fair to say, "Well, the past 3 epics suffer from having that loss of energy in the middle" but then saying that Goodnight Kiss doesn't count because of its context, or any other reason. It does exactly the same thing that those breaks in IT and TCOT do.

[BlobVanDam]

I'm also saying that it's not fair to say, "Well, the past 3 epics suffer from having that loss of energy in the middle" but then saying that Goodnight Kiss doesn't count because of its context, or any other reason. It does exactly the same thing that those breaks in IT and TCOT do.

Only if you want to oversimplify the reasons why one may work but another may not. It's totally fair, because it's subjective.
For me, the first part of the IT break doesn't work because it lacks musicality, it's sound effects. That kills the momentum completely for me, despite the following orchestral section being by far my favourite part of the album. I'm not interested in hearing the latest stock sample collection they were flipping through.

GK and TCOT both similarly bring the music down too, and both break the continuity in some similar ways, so if you don't think it works that's a fair opinion too, but for me they continue the flow of the song much better in terms of tone and key.

But it's all in the execution, rather than simply the concept, and of course that's subjective, much in the same way that some people may find a transition to be disjointed, while a transition in another song that is technically just as disjointed may work very effectively.
It's a case by case thing, not something you can just summarize and objectively state that all things are equal.

[Grizz]

Amen to this.  At both DT shows I saw earlier this moment, I stood there with my eyes closed and my hands folded behind my back during the middle section and just let it wash over me.  It was one of the more amazing experiences I've ever had at a live show.

The first time I strained to see the orchestra; the second time I took advantage of the break to take a piss.
No regrets.

[cramx3]

Amen to this.  At both DT shows I saw earlier this moment, I stood there with my eyes closed and my hands folded behind my back during the middle section and just let it wash over me.  It was one of the more amazing experiences I've ever had at a live show.

The first time I strained to see the orchestra; the second time I took advantage of the break to take a piss.
No regrets.

I think it would have been more enjoyable if Rudess played th orchestral part live like he did in that one youtube video for a keyboard ad.  Personally I cant find enjoyment at a live concert when in the middle of the song the entire band leaves the stage. 

[Orbert]

As I said in other threads before, once you get the narrative of Illumination Theory, the middle section would make a lot of sense.

(lots of great analysis)

That's awesome, really, and helps me understand the song much better.  So thank you for that.

Here's the problem, though.  Most fans are not going to dig into that much analysis, that much detail, in order to understand a song.  Sure, most songs can be appreciated better if you know what it's all about.  But musically, the song still has to be able to stand on its own without someone spending a lot of time researching and/or analyzing the lyrics and context in order to get it.

This song is clearly one of the highlights of the album, and if it's really that deep, you'd think that in some interview, Jordan or maybe JP would have mentioned it, and how it's pretty complex and possibly off-putting, but gone on to explain something about it, or at least give some hints.  Okay, maybe they did; I didn't read any interviews prior to the release because I didn't want to spoil anything, and I guess I haven't read much after either.  Surely, someone asked Jordan about the orchestrated section, and he would have explained it, what it represents, all that.  But based on replies here, people seem to like it, but don't really "get" it.  What we're left with is, as I said, a really great section that seems to come out of nowhere and break things up for no apparent reason.

[erwinrafael]

As I said in other threads before, once you get the narrative of Illumination Theory, the middle section would make a lot of sense.

(lots of great analysis)

That's awesome, really, and helps me understand the song much better.  So thank you for that.

Here's the problem, though.  Most fans are not going to dig into that much analysis, that much detail, in order to understand a song.  Sure, most songs can be appreciated better if you know what it's all about.  But musically, the song still has to be able to stand on its own without someone spending a lot of time researching and/or analyzing the lyrics and context in order to get it.

This song is clearly one of the highlights of the album, and if it's really that deep, you'd think that in some interview, Jordan or maybe JP would have mentioned it, and how it's pretty complex and possibly off-putting, but gone on to explain something about it, or at least give some hints.  Okay, maybe they did; I didn't read any interviews prior to the release because I didn't want to spoil anything, and I guess I haven't read much after either.  Surely, someone asked Jordan about the orchestrated section, and he would have explained it, what it represents, all that.  But based on replies here, people seem to like it, but don't really "get" it.  What we're left with is, as I said, a really great section that seems to come out of nowhere and break things up for no apparent reason.

I get what you are saying, but I disagree that DT should give hints on the explanation of the song. Especially because this is music of the progressive genre. Prog music has a sort of elitist vibe in it, which begs for the listener to go deeper. Some listeners don't like that elitism, but I think it's inherent in the genre. Prog music, to me, is equivalent to reading poetry, or watching a film with an indie  or art film vibe, or reading a comic book from the Vertigo line (or the current Marvel Hawkeye book, hehehe). It's a work of art that asks for analysis. You don't see Jack Kerouac explaining the elements of his poem. Or Akira Kurosawa giving out interviews on how to analyze his films. Or Neil Gaiman or Alan Moore breaking down their comic book scripts, or artist David Aja explaining how he laid out his comic book pages.

[Orbert]

But when you pick up something by Kerouac or Neil Gaiman, you know what you're in for.  You don't just read "On the Road" because you heard it was good.  Hopefully whoever recommended it to you also mentioned why, or at least gave you a little background on it.  Maybe not.  Maybe they know you and know what you like.

DT is prog, but these days, DT is also much more mainstream, and they do need to be aware of their audience.  With the long breakdown in "The Count of Tuscany" it's pretty obvious what's going on, as it has literally just been given to us in the lyrics.  Some people think it drags things down, some are fine with it, but there's no real need for analysis.

The breakdown in "Illumination Theory" IMO doesn't seem to beg for that analysis.  People don't think "Wow, then there's this ambience, then an orchestra.  What can this represent?  I should study the lyrics and think about this some more."  Most people just think "WTF?"  Or maybe "Whoa, an orchestra.  Cool."

Yes, it's good to challenge the listener.  But there's a line between challenging the listener and putting them off.  Obviously this line will be in a different place for each person.  I just think that DT may have miscalculated where to place it this time.

It took me many, many listens to grasp the intro to "Close to the Edge" by Yes.  It took just as many to come to terms with the insane battle scene in "The Gates of Delerium".  So these things can and do take time.  I haven't listened to "Illumination Theory" nearly that many times yet, so maybe that's still down the road for me.  For right now, though, it's just a long song that I don't grok.  Albums are twice as long these days, and that's actually one of the reasons I don't play a lot of newer stuff.  For "Illumination Theory" I would have to specifically seek out that song.  I guess I'm thinking that I shouldn't have to do that to appreciate what they've done.

[TheGreatPretender]

DT is prog, but these days, DT is also much more mainstream,

But how have their past works been any different? I mean, personally, when I first listened to ACOS, I didn't feel the need to research what each passage represented. I just enjoyed the awesome music because it's awesome music. DT has never been that band, that begs for 'research'. The most, I would say, is SFAM, but that's only because it's obvious that there's a plot, and the lyrics don't completely spell it out. Although, if you pay attention to the lyrics, it's still easy to figure out the basics of it.
But even then, I didn't need to do any research to enjoy The Dance Of Eternity, because it's just an awesome little instrumental in the middle of the album. It's a great listen all throughout, and I don't think it requires any kind of research or analysis to be enjoyed.
So in the case of DT, that has never been the case. I mean, deeper analysis can be done with any song, with any kind of music. I can analyze Alice Cooper songs and find some awesome meaning behind certain passages, or certain songs. So it is what it is.
But that's the bottom line, is that it's music. And music can be enjoyed without having to be 'understood', which is something that may not be true for all literary works or art films. And even then, I can enjoy a well put together poem without needing to understand what it means.

[Orbert]

I'm still trying to figure out if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing. 

[TheGreatPretender]

I'm still trying to figure out if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing. 

Well, you're saying that these days, DT is more mainstream, and they understand that their audience isn't always going to be doing that research. I'm just wondering how it was any different before? I mean, I don't know about the fanbase itself, whether back in the 90s, their fanbase consisted of more hardcore Prog fans, but I don't feel like DT's music at any point was at that "Elitist" level.

[erwinrafael]

The breakdown in "Illumination Theory" IMO doesn't seem to beg for that analysis.  People don't think "Wow, then there's this ambience, then an orchestra.  What can this represent?  I should study the lyrics and think about this some more."  Most people just think "WTF?"  Or maybe "Whoa, an orchestra.  Cool."

MOST people? which most people? I think most in this forum actually like IT based on polls.

[KevShmev]

I don't say what DT being mainstream has to do with it.  Orbert, by saying that DT needs to be more aware of their (more mainstream) audience, it implies that they should dumb their music down a bit for the masses.  That's not very prog, is it?

[erwinrafael]

DT is prog, but these days, DT is also much more mainstream,

But how have their past works been any different? I mean, personally, when I first listened to ACOS, I didn't feel the need to research what each passage represented. I just enjoyed the awesome music because it's awesome music. DT has never been that band, that begs for 'research'. The most, I would say, is SFAM, but that's only because it's obvious that there's a plot, and the lyrics don't completely spell it out. Although, if you pay attention to the lyrics, it's still easy to figure out the basics of it.
But even then, I didn't need to do any research to enjoy The Dance Of Eternity, because it's just an awesome little instrumental in the middle of the album. It's a great listen all throughout, and I don't think it requires any kind of research or analysis to be enjoyed.
So in the case of DT, that has never been the case. I mean, deeper analysis can be done with any song, with any kind of music. I can analyze Alice Cooper songs and find some awesome meaning behind certain passages, or certain songs. So it is what it is.
But that's the bottom line, is that it's music. And music can be enjoyed without having to be 'understood', which is something that may not be true for all literary works or art films. And even then, I can enjoy a well put together poem without needing to understand what it means.

That's selling short music as an art form. Also, the analysis of the meaning does not always have to be in the lyrics. The music itself has meaning, and I believe prog music has that element as it has affinity with classical music which almost always lets the music do the talking.

[TheGreatPretender]

That's selling short music as an art form. Also, the analysis of the meaning does not always have to be in the lyrics. The music itself has meaning, and I believe prog music has that element as it has affinity with classical music which almost always lets the music do the talking.

First of all, again, I wasn't just talking about the lyrics. You can interpret Alice Cooper songs, and their musical passages to get deeper meaning from them as well.
And second, I don't see how enjoying the music for the sheer audio aspect of it is selling it short as an art form. A person can look at a painting and appreciate what's in front of them, without having to know about what kind of brush strokes were used, or what kind of paint it was. Art is art, and people should enjoy it in whatever way they see fit. Same with Prog music, and yes, same with Classical music. No matter how you interpret classical music, I think it's undeniable that the most famous classical pieces all have first and foremost, memorable melodies, that can be appreciated by anyone.
If you say, "Well, this type or art or this type of music needs to be interpreted," then it's you as the fan who's being elitist, not the art piece or the artist. And if the artist is the one why thinks their art needs to be interpreted, then that kind of elitism is precisely what will alienate the artist from their audience, and make them seem like a pretentious douche bag, which DT are not. I some people want to listen to DT to hear some awesome riffs and super fast solos, and that's what they want to enjoy in this band, then it's their right as a paying fan to enjoy the band on that level only.
The orchestral breakdown in IT isn't just some weird, abstract sound effects, but rather a very nice, melodic, beautiful, slow piece of music. And if people want to analyze what it means, that's fine, but it's plenty enjoyable without any kind of analysis.

[TAC]

I can analyze Alice Cooper songs and find some awesome meaning behind certain passages, or certain songs.

Quoting simply for the Alice reference!
 

[TheGreatPretender]

I can analyze Alice Cooper songs and find some awesome meaning behind certain passages, or certain songs.

Quoting simply for the Alice reference!
 

 

[Shade]

To me, the whole idea of epics (or music in general) is that there is no set formula to what works and what doesn't, epics obviously have to have phases/transitions...well it'd take one heck of a bit of song writing to keep the same riff/feel interesting for 20+ mins.

My bigger issue certainly with IT is that they set out to make "an epic", providing parameters which must be met by default (mainly that the thing must last 18 mins+), I feel like some parts of IT are excessively drawn out as if to meet that criteria, the interlude orchestral/ambience section being one of those. Heck I sometimes think they throw in the easter egg piano part with a 30s gap at the end so that the track ends up being over 20 mins long.

But I don't believe it's a reason that recent epics have been destroyed. ITPOE I find very cool as it gives you the first part, breaks down, then the second "meatier" part comes along, weaving in small aspects of the first part up till the ending which almost repeats a section of the first part.

TCOT I've always thought to be a beautiful song and I have a bias towards it as it was the first DT epic I listened to, however I also thought it to be on par with ANTR, yet the reason it's considered an epic moreso than ANTR is because it has the breakdown and is sectioned, whilst Nightmare is less so.

Interesting argument but I see a lot more behind it than simply "they're worse because they have big long breakdowns".

[Orbert]

The breakdown in "Illumination Theory" IMO doesn't seem to beg for that analysis.  People don't think "Wow, then there's this ambience, then an orchestra.  What can this represent?  I should study the lyrics and think about this some more."  Most people just think "WTF?"  Or maybe "Whoa, an orchestra.  Cool."

MOST people? which most people? I think most in this forum actually like IT based on polls.

I never said that people don't like the song.

[ninja1125]

Interesting argument but I see a lot more behind it than simply "they're worse because they have big long breakdowns".

[Tis BOOLsheet]

I was listening to "The Count Of Tuscany" this morning as I was in the shower and I realized something about that song, as well as "In The Presence Of Enemies" and "Illumination Theory" - They all have breaks in the middle that slow-down or kill the momentum of the over-all epic.

For ITPOE, the song was broken up on the album, but even when put together, the second movement clearly ends and the wind sounds only offer a small segue between it and the third movement with the bass guitar beginning it. It feels a bit sudden and the build-up at the end of the second part loses momentum when it just...ends.

For TCOT, the ambient/guitar solo section, while beautiful, just kills the momentum a bit, but at least getting to it is a nice coast into that section, and getting out of it is a better build-up.

And for IT, the ambient/orchestra section is a bit of a buzz-kill, and the band comes back in a la "The Necromancer"-style, which is a bit jarring and sudden. But many fans find the orchestral section to be a bit out of place and killing the momentum built up by the first parts of the epic.

Now when I look back and think about "Octavarium", the song slowly builds up all the way from the beginning to the end, just up to the 4x screamed "TRAPPED INSIDE THIS OCTAVARIUM", then the climax coasts down in to the epic finish of "Razor's Edge". It's very uphill with a lot of momentum built-up to that climactic ending. "A Change Of Seasons" is a bit of a sine wave, so to speak, there nothing really slows the whole piece down or stop it dead in its tracks, but it does go up and down a bit. And "Six Degrees" is segmented in such a way that analyzing it compared to these others would be a bit unfair.

Has anyone else realized this? The thread about "where IT sits with the other epics" brought this to mind, and seeing how SDOIT, ACOS and 8VM still tend to top people's lists of DT epics, it's made me wonder why the other three would be so low, and so this all came to mind.

-Marc.

Having a slow down somewhere in the middle of a 20 minute song is not on its face what would make a song "suffer." It depends what's in the slow down section. Three minutes of volume swells in the middle of the song? Yes, that will put your audience to sleep. But that isn't the only option.

How about "Close to the Edge"? Do you think the slow down section in that song kills the momentum and causes the overall song to suffer? There is no one standard template for how to write a 20 minute song. A song does not "suffer" simply by virtue of containing a slower section in somewhere other than the beginning or end. It depends on what is in there, and how it is executed.

[bosk1]

I don't say what DT being mainstream has to do with it.  Orbert, by saying that DT needs to be more aware of their (more mainstream) audience, it implies that they should dumb their music down a bit for the masses.  That's not very prog, is it?

Not only that, but if you are looking to please a more "mainstream" audience, I don't think ANY 20-minute epic is going to fit the bill. 

[King Postwhore]

I don't say what DT being mainstream has to do with it.  Orbert, by saying that DT needs to be more aware of their (more mainstream) audience, it implies that they should dumb their music down a bit for the masses.  That's not very prog, is it?

Not only that, but if you are looking to please a more "mainstream" audience, I don't think ANY 20-minute epic is going to fit the bill. 

Captain Obvious to the rescue!!

[erwinrafael]

The breakdown in "Illumination Theory" IMO doesn't seem to beg for that analysis.  People don't think "Wow, then there's this ambience, then an orchestra.  What can this represent?  I should study the lyrics and think about this some more."  Most people just think "WTF?"  Or maybe "Whoa, an orchestra.  Cool."

MOST people? which most people? I think most in this forum actually like IT based on polls.

I never said that people don't like the song.

You said mot people think WTF. Please.

[bosk1]

Not getting the song is not the same as not liking it.

[erwinrafael]

My bigger issue certainly with IT is that they set out to make "an epic", providing parameters which must be met by default (mainly that the thing must last 18 mins+), I feel like some parts of IT are excessively drawn out as if to meet that criteria, the interlude orchestral/ambience section being one of those. Heck I sometimes think they throw in the easter egg piano part with a 30s gap at the end so that the track ends up being over 20 mins long.

So "they set out...providing parameters which MUST be met by default" is based purely from conjecture on what you think DT was thinking when they wrote the song?

Not getting the song is not the same as not liking it.

Because we say "What The Fuck" to songs that we like.

[bosk1]

Not getting the song is not the same as not liking it.

Because we say "What The Fuck" to songs that we like.

No, not typically.  But what you do not seem to grasp, is that it might be appropriate in some circumstances for people to have a confused ("WTF") reaction to a song they do not dislike. 

[erwinrafael]

Not getting the song is not the same as not liking it.

Because we say "What The Fuck" to songs that we like.

No, not typically.  But what you do not seem to grasp, is that it might be appropriate in some circumstances for people to have a confused ("WTF") reaction to a song they do not dislike.

OK, if we would be anal about it and disregard that we could, using common sense, imply that a WTF reaction is most likely tied to a feeling of dislking a song, then i will just rephrase the question.

What's the basis for claiming that MOST people (meaning more than 50%) who listened to IT had a WTF reaction to the Embracing Circle?

I did not make the claim. And somehow I am the one being questioned here as if I am the one who is making a claim.

[Orbert]

Within this thread, there seemed to be more people who didn't "get" the breakdown in "Illumination Theory" than those who did.  I didn't actually count.  Also, after the release of the album, there was of course a lot of discussion about it, and "Illumination Theory" in particular, and it seemed that most people felt that the breakdown came out of nowhere.

This is not the same as people saying they disliked it.  In fact, most people seem to like it.  I don't see why you're leaping to the conclusion that something confusing is automatically disliked.  I've even stated that it's good to challenge the listener, and that there are pieces of music that I didn't really get until after many listens.  If people are questioning you, it's because you've jumped a conclusion, and are defending it, but it's not what I said at all.

Orbert, by saying that DT needs to be more aware of their (more mainstream) audience, it implies that they should dumb their music down a bit for the masses.  That's not very prog, is it?

Why does being aware of your audience imply that you have to dumb your music down?  It seems that you too are putting words into my mouth.  What I said was that they've put this complex piece of music out there, with a extended instrumental section, and if it's really meant to encourage the listener to dig deeper, maybe they could say something about it.

In all of the interviews following the release of the album, did no one ever ask about the breakdown in "Illumination Theory"?  I remember hearing that there were two songs on the album with an orchestra, one of which was the epic "Illumination Theory".  I'm sure the band was asked about it.  What did they say?  Was it just "Oh yeah, we just put it in there because we thought it sounded cool" or was it more like "Well, that section is meant to take the listener on a journey, something that fits into the theme of the song itself"?  Did they even throw us a bone.  I really don't know; I don't read a lot of interviews.  But erwinrafael seems to think that even saying that much is "selling short music as an art form".  You're supposed to just put it out there and not talk about it at all?

Classic prog bands have put out complex works that a lot of people don't get at all, but that's not the band's fault.  Tales from Topographic Oceans is an 80-minute piece of music in four movements which is often held up as the epitome of prog excess, but its impetus is well documented and really, is not that hard to get.  "Supper's Ready" is seven movements, well over 20 minutes total, but it too comes down to a fairly simple story, which has been explained many times.

When I said that Dream Theater needs to be more aware of their audience, I wasn't talking about dumbing down the music; I was pointing out that not everyone wants to take the time to analyze the fuck out of it in order to understand it.

[Rodni Demental]

Ambient sections are awesome. It's definitely something where it's application and presentation is very important, otherwise it'll be what we could call a 'momentum killer'. I don't think this happens in any of the Dream Theater song examples though. Also I'd never consider that these sections make a song too long. Or that the epics are bloated or 'self indulgent'. I remember a Geddy Lee interview which defended the idea of 'epics' and long songs in the sense that himself as a composer, never found it to be a kind of self indulgence or act to show off, but more considered the excitement in creating a concept that had bits and pieces that could be fitted together like a puzzle. It was just 'typical boyish enthusiasm' having fun constructing these ideas just happened to result in these 20 minute long songs. They never set out to deliberately try and be better or longer than the preconception of 'normal' songs, it is what it is, and whatever.

Anyway, back to DT. Illumination Theory, the Orchestra section was just  at first listen, and the ambient section preceding it, allows the Orchestra to subtly come in quite naturally in the context of such a 'full on' song. On First Impression it was probably one of my favourite moments of the album.

The Count of Tuscany's bit works aswell, the musical foreshadowing of upcoming melodies is fun but most importantly it's breathing room, up and down, acceleration and decline, tension and release. I mean the comment about A Change of Seasons kind of flowing like a sine wave, it still applies to these other examples where the 'flow' has polarising elements that were intended and necessary for the song. Of course you can focus on one side of the coin and even write a song that only focuses on one aspect (like the kind of the non stop relentless thrashy songs that most modern metal seems to stem from). But I think these sections all have their place in DTs music.

In The Presence Of Enemies break is easy enough to defend because the break was deliberately used to bookend the album. It's a presentation thing and maybe, for all we know this break could have been considered a 'momentum killer', but even if it was, the way it's presented doesn't have that effect unless you intentionally put the 2 parts together and personally feel that way. Also, I think you could argue that the change in tone relates to the storytelling elements of ALL of these songs, this song being no exception.

Six Degrees Of Inner Turbulence NEEDS Goodnight Kiss (or something like it) after The Test That Stumped Them All. Whether you like or appreciate the lyrical content or not doesn't matter. If the song was going to be any longer at that point, it needed to adjust itself to balance things out. Although I can understand it not being universally accepted because I've had music playing in the past, had a friend comment on Overture saying how amazing it sounded. By the time About To Crash came on I literally got a comment from the same guy blatantly expressing how much he thought the song sucked. I told him it was the same song that was on 5 minutes ago and he established that "they really let that one turn to shit". By the time War Inside My Head came on he said something along the lines of, "this is more like it, much better song than the last one". I told him it was the same song and he was a bit like  . By the time it got to Goodnight Kiss I didn't hear a word out of him but he could very well have been thinking that he didn't like it. 

Octavarium. This one's weird because it's definitely better as a sum of a greater whole. Including the context and indirect concepts of the album in general. It took many listens to grow on me, and some of that appreciation came from being aware of certain elements in it's writing and composition that don't come across unless you analyse the song on different levels. Now, you shouldn't HAVE to do this to appreciate a song, but if this sort of content helps increase ones enjoyment of the song then ultimately there's nothing wrong with it. It just might not click with some individuals.

I think Illumination Theory is the ultimate epic for DT. It not only stands out on your first listen (like TCOT), but it has a lot of subtle bits that you wouldn't notice at first so the song can grow on you without getting repetitive. It's clearly had a lot of thought put into it's arrangement and it feels like it has something happening on a different level like Octavarium, puzzles to figure out, which gives it some intrigue and mystery. It's also a grower like ACOS in that it seems to get better the more I listen to it. I really think it's the perfect summary of everything that Dream Theater is good at. It does everything well, including the silence. Yes even the silence at the end before the outro seems to be the perfect amount of time. 

[KevShmev]

Orbert, by saying that DT needs to be more aware of their (more mainstream) audience, it implies that they should dumb their music down a bit for the masses.  That's not very prog, is it?

Why does being aware of your audience imply that you have to dumb your music down?  It seems that you too are putting words into my mouth.  What I said was that they've put this complex piece of music out there, with a extended instrumental section, and if it's really meant to encourage the listener to dig deeper, maybe they could say something about it.

In all of the interviews following the release of the album, did no one ever ask about the breakdown in "Illumination Theory"?  I remember hearing that there were two songs on the album with an orchestra, one of which was the epic "Illumination Theory".  I'm sure the band was asked about it.  What did they say?  Was it just "Oh yeah, we just put it in there because we thought it sounded cool" or was it more like "Well, that section is meant to take the listener on a journey, something that fits into the theme of the song itself"?  Did they even throw us a bone.  I really don't know; I don't read a lot of interviews.  But erwinrafael seems to think that even saying that much is "selling short music as an art form".  You're supposed to just put it out there and not talk about it at all?

Classic prog bands have put out complex works that a lot of people don't get at all, but that's not the band's fault.  Tales from Topographic Oceans is an 80-minute piece of music in four movements which is often held up as the epitome of prog excess, but its impetus is well documented and really, is not that hard to get.  "Supper's Ready" is seven movements, well over 20 minutes total, but it too comes down to a fairly simple story, which has been explained many times.

When I said that Dream Theater needs to be more aware of their audience, I wasn't talking about dumbing down the music; I was pointing out that not everyone wants to take the time to analyze the fuck out of it in order to understand it.

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth; it just seemed like you were implying something that you say you weren't.  I'll take you at your word.

I don't think, however, that Tales and Supper's Ready are fair comparisons.  Sure, they have both been explained to death, but they have been around for 40 years!! Illumination Theory has only been around for seven months, so it hasn't had the advantage of decades of analysis and whatnot.  If this were 1974 on a message board somewhere, you'd probably still have people wondering what the hell Tales is all about.  

Besides, even if the breakdown does come out of nowhere (which is debatable), I am not sure why that is an issue.  Sudden left turns, or whatever, are a trademark of DT's music, by their own admission, so if we can assume for the sake of argument that that breakdown IS a sudden left turn, it's like the 184th sudden left turn in DT history!

Know what I mean? 

[Orbert]

Fair points, all.

I guess to me it's the combination of things.  Maybe not everyone thinks it comes out of nowhere, but clearly some people think so, possibly most.  Maybe not everyone thinks it kills the momentum up to that point, but clearly some do.  But it's also a very new piece of music compared to those others I cited, and hasn't been analyzed over and over.