Did DT12 break new ground?

[jammindude]

If you accept that "maybe a bit" is essentially a half hearted "yes"....I find it rather interesting that it's pretty much a 50/50 split.   Or pretty close to it.

[Skeever]

But if "maybe a bit" is more like "eh, probably not", it's a blowout

[TheGreatPretender]

I definitely think DT12 broke new ground in terms of how divided the fanbase seems to be on it.

[Miss Bangkok]

No, not in the least bit. It's all familiar territory, same old format, the "tried and tested" formula. They're playing it safe.

It's still definitely DT, but where they did something different is that they focused more on songcraft this time, not letting songs expand and expand to ungainly lengths.  They were concise in their writing.  This gave songs that were more streamlined, and less bloated, than on most of their previous albums.

How is that any different than Octavarium? Your description fits that record perfectly, and fits pretty well for Falling Into Infinity too...

[rumborak]

Yeah, I don't think they particularly covered new ground. The string part in IT is really the only thing that sticks out, but that's not enough IMHO to say they covered new ground.

[TheGreatPretender]

They've done several things on the album that they've never done before. But for DT, that's usually to be expected anyway.

[ThatOneGuy2112]

No, not in the least bit. It's all familiar territory, same old format, the "tried and tested" formula. They're playing it safe.

It's still definitely DT, but where they did something different is that they focused more on songcraft this time, not letting songs expand and expand to ungainly lengths.  They were concise in their writing.  This gave songs that were more streamlined, and less bloated, than on most of their previous albums.

How is that any different than Octavarium? Your description fits that record perfectly, and fits pretty well for Falling Into Infinity too...

Bolded the key word for you.

[Miss Bangkok]

No, not in the least bit. It's all familiar territory, same old format, the "tried and tested" formula. They're playing it safe.

It's still definitely DT, but where they did something different is that they focused more on songcraft this time, not letting songs expand and expand to ungainly lengths.  They were concise in their writing.  This gave songs that were more streamlined, and less bloated, than on most of their previous albums.

How is that any different than Octavarium? Your description fits that record perfectly, and fits pretty well for Falling Into Infinity too...

Bolded the key word for you.

Oh wow, awesome, thanks! That changes everything! NOT....fact of the matter is that DT12 doesn't cover any new ground; shorter more "concise" songwriting doesn't constitute "new ground", hence why I quoted hefwhatever. He cited the songwriting approach as a somewhat different thing, when the fact is, it is not.

[manticore999]

No, nothing new.  Not a bit.  But a good album, nonetheless.

[RaiseTheKnife]

This thread isn't breaking any new ground.  But yeah, I agree with the general sentiment as stated above.

[Mosh]

No, not in the least bit. It's all familiar territory, same old format, the "tried and tested" formula. They're playing it safe.

It's still definitely DT, but where they did something different is that they focused more on songcraft this time, not letting songs expand and expand to ungainly lengths.  They were concise in their writing.  This gave songs that were more streamlined, and less bloated, than on most of their previous albums.

How is that any different than Octavarium? Your description fits that record perfectly, and fits pretty well for Falling Into Infinity too...

Bolded the key word for you.

Oh wow, awesome, thanks! That changes everything! NOT....fact of the matter is that DT12 doesn't cover any new ground; shorter more "concise" songwriting doesn't constitute "new ground", hence why I quoted hefwhatever. He cited the songwriting approach as a somewhat different thing, when the fact is, it is not.

How is it not different? Octavarium has a more "radio-friendly" approach but I would by no means call it concise. 4 out of the 8 songs go above the 8 minute mark, with one (These Walls) getting really close. A lot of that album (while good) is still pretty bloated. Same with Falling Into Infinity, yes they had some shorter songs but there were still a few epics. Plus, a lot of those shorter songs are still stretched out a bit longer than necessary.

DT12 is the first time they've written in a truly concise format. Think about it: Almost every song sticks to a short structure and the instrumental sections are usually trimmed to just a solo or two. The best example is Surrender to Reason. On any other album that song would've been 10+ minutes. There would've been an extended instrumental section, and certain sections would've lasted longer. Probably a longer intro before the first verse too. Instead, they trimmed down the fat and gave us the meat of the song. It's like a 6 minute epic. You can make the same case for The Bigger Picture, even though it's longer.  Or Behind the Veil, which has a different riff/melody going for each verse. Even The Enigma Machine follows a very simple structure: intro-theme-interlude-solos-theme-outro. Compare this to the long Stream Of Consciousness, or Erotomania and Dance Of Eternity which hardly have a structure. That's amazing, DT have never written that concisely before.

Since Six Degrees, DT were writing a lot of songs that were only really long because certain parts were extended and a long instrumental section was thrown in, this didn't usually ruin the songs for me, but I have to say by ADTOE I was pretty sick of the format. And then any shorter songs they'd write (Far From Heaven, I Walk Beside You, Prophets of War) were completely devoid of the progressive elements I love from the band. Not that these songs are necessarily bad, but I would've liked more crossover. DT12 does exactly that. The songs are proggy and there are all kinds of interesting changes, but they stick to a concise format. It's a big difference in songwriting and I definitely consider it new ground for the band.

[BlobVanDam]

FII was very much mostly short songs, especially compared to DT12/DT in general. The longer ones are the exception, and it still has a lot more shorter songs (and much shorter) than the songs on DT12. And while they don't often do whole albums like that, they've regularly done shorter songs throughout their career, like Another Day, CIAW, TSCO, TALW, IWBY, Forsaken, Wither etc. And I think IaW, Awake and FII were all just as concisely written overall.

In no way is writing slightly shorter songs, or even a whole album of shorter length songs breaking new ground for DT. Only for DT/prog would they even be considered short songs to begin with. It's a change compared to recent DT, but it's not new ground for them.

[hefdaddy42]

The difference between DT12 and, say, FII or 8VM is that all of the songs on DT12 (other than IT) are shorter than they perhaps could have been because DT were being concise and avoiding song-bloat, which is a frequent part of their writing.  They weren't writing more commercial songs, or trying to write singles, or writing songs that could be hits.  They were just producing more concise, less bloated examples of what they already do.

That's not what the shorter songs on FII or 8VM were, to me.  They were definitely attempts at more commercial, radio-friendly songs. 

That's a big, big difference to me.  If you don't see it, then whatever.  Opinions.

[Scorpion]

I was trying to find a way to express the difference between the short songs on Octavarium, FII and DT, but I wasn't able to put it in words, but I think hef hit the nail on the head. Mind you, I really like what they did with FII (Octavarium's another story), so this isn't about quality, it's just that the shorter songs on DT feel different than those on FII.

[BlobVanDam]

There is definitely a difference between FII's songwriting and DT12's songwriting. But FII's songs are much more concise imo (in response to Mosh's original point I was replying to), due to that more commercial approach. That's not a comment on quality, just an observation. Concise doesn't have much to do with better or worse.

I still think IaW and Awake were more successful at that same approach as DT12, and I don't see how it could be considered groundbreaking for DT12 to do it, even if a very welcome change from their recent albums.

[hefdaddy42]

I still think IaW and Awake were more successful at that same approach as DT12, and I don't see how it could be considered groundbreaking for DT12 to do it, even if a very welcome change from their recent albums.

It's different because at that time, they weren't trying to be more concise; those were just the songs that came out of them then.  They hadn't started bloating yet.

[BlobVanDam]

I still think IaW and Awake were more successful at that same approach as DT12, and I don't see how it could be considered groundbreaking for DT12 to do it, even if a very welcome change from their recent albums.

It's different because at that time, they weren't trying to be more concise; those were just the songs that came out of them then.  They hadn't started bloating yet.

Does that make the end result groundbreaking in any way? I'm not disputing your point, I just don't see how it matters here.

[King Postwhore]

DT just took some Gas-X to help with the bloating on DT12

[hefdaddy42]

I still think IaW and Awake were more successful at that same approach as DT12, and I don't see how it could be considered groundbreaking for DT12 to do it, even if a very welcome change from their recent albums.

It's different because at that time, they weren't trying to be more concise; those were just the songs that came out of them then.  They hadn't started bloating yet.

Does that make the end result groundbreaking in any way? I'm not disputing your point, I just don't see how it matters here.

It's groundbreaking for DT.  I don't remember offhand any real attempts to self-edit their bloat before.  I am talking approach, not necessarily end result.  You are mentioning I&W and Awake, which were issued before they started any real bloating, which didn't begin IMHO until 6DOIT (as great as that album is).  It continued unchecked by and large, reaching it's peak with BC&SL. 

[metrojam]

Certainly broke "new ground" for me, in that its the first ever DT album that I have had no interest in listening too again after about the first few weeks of its release!!

[King Postwhore]

So you've been a DT fan for all these years, with all the different style they've tried on all the albums and "this" one it the one that stopped you from listening to a full DT album all together?  Seems weird to me.

[ThatOneGuy2112]

No, not in the least bit. It's all familiar territory, same old format, the "tried and tested" formula. They're playing it safe.

It's still definitely DT, but where they did something different is that they focused more on songcraft this time, not letting songs expand and expand to ungainly lengths.  They were concise in their writing.  This gave songs that were more streamlined, and less bloated, than on most of their previous albums.

How is that any different than Octavarium? Your description fits that record perfectly, and fits pretty well for Falling Into Infinity too...

Bolded the key word for you.

Oh wow, awesome, thanks! That changes everything! NOT....fact of the matter is that DT12 doesn't cover any new ground; shorter more "concise" songwriting doesn't constitute "new ground", hence why I quoted hefwhatever. He cited the songwriting approach as a somewhat different thing, when the fact is, it is not.

If you look at my own response to this thread's question, even I said "no, DT12 does not". I get where hef is coming from though and he's already made some good points in DT12's more concise songwriting with it resulting in more commercial and mainstream songs.

Still, to me, DT12 doesn't really tread new ground aside from the string section in IT or that ambient section in the beginning of BTV, but as I've already said, the whole "been there, done that so it sucks" mentality is just asinine. Now if it just doesn't sound great to you, that's a different story.

[emtee]

Sounds like melodic prog metal/prog rock heavily influenced by Rush to me so I'll say no.

You don't have to break new ground though to make an enjoyable album. I've got 100's of albums by bands that never veer
from their formula and they still connect with me.

[rumborak]

So you've been a DT fan for all these years, with all the different style they've tried on all the albums and "this" one it the one that stopped you from listening to a full DT album all together?  Seems weird to me.

I think you misread his post. Unless I am mistaken, DT12 was the first album that fell out of his listening rotation within the first few weeks, instead of the many weeks of previous albums.  I think he was solely referring to the replay value of the album.

[Skeever]

DT12 mostly fell out of my rotation very quickly, but I blame today's technology for that.

Truth is, I probably listened to Octavarium, Systematic Chaos, and Black Clouds a billion times. Neither of the three albums really impressed me at first, but they were albums I had recently bought and invested money into, so of course I listened to them until they clicked.

Then something called "Spotify" came along. When DT12 didn't click right away, it was very easy for me to just go and listen to something else new. 

[?]

No. There were orchestral arrangements on Octavarium already, and earlier albums also had more concise songwriting. In fact, ADTOE broke more new ground with the little electronic elements IMO. However, I don't mind if there aren't big changes as long as the music is good. What bothers me more about DT12 is the lack of variety within the album.

[Miss Bangkok]

Yeah, that and the cheesy choruses. It's just too bubble-gummy. The choruses in behind the veil and bigger picture and enemy inside are cringeworthy...they tried too hard to be trendy and mainstream, with "hooks" and all that crap.

[KevShmev]

Right, because DT's choruses prior to DT12 NEVER had hooks.

[rumborak]

I think whatever new ground they break these days, it has gotten very incremental, versus the big changes of the early albums.  To me this trend started around 8V/SC, so it's not exactly a new thing. For each new album I'm kind of hoping they got tired of sticking to their own guns, but it looks less and less likely they will do a major change before they retire.

[Mosh]

There is definitely a difference between FII's songwriting and DT12's songwriting. But FII's songs are much more concise imo (in response to Mosh's original point I was replying to), due to that more commercial approach. That's not a comment on quality, just an observation. Concise doesn't have much to do with better or worse.

I dunno, I think there are some parts of songs in FII that could've really been trimmed. The only shorter songs I can think of that truly sound concise to me are Anna Lee, Hell's Kitchen, and Hollow Years. Peruvian Skies too actually, that song did it best IMO.

But my main point, which was echoed by Hef, is that their concise approach was always taken on less proggy more commercial sounding songs. DT12 is the first time since at least 6DOIT (and I'd make the argument that the songs on I&W and Awake aren't concise either) that the songs are written in the proggy DT style, but in a concise format. Songs like THe Bigger Picture, Surrender to Reason, and Enigma Machine are great examples of songs that would be bloated on any other album.

And yea, I'm not commenting on quality either.

Yeah, that and the cheesy choruses. It's just too bubble-gummy. The choruses in behind the veil and bigger picture and enemy inside are cringeworthy...they tried too hard to be trendy and mainstream, with "hooks" and all that crap.

Sheesh, since when were hooks a bad thing?

[BlobVanDam]

DT has always written catchy choruses, and DT12 is no different. I do think the AFTR chorus is cheesy, but that's just personal preference, and not because they're writing choruses that are any more mainstream or "bubble-gummy" than they've always done.
What's wrong with hooks anyway?

[KevShmev]

Writing a hook is not easy, to be honest.  Let's face it, if it were, more bands would be doing it. 

[King Postwhore]

So you've been a DT fan for all these years, with all the different style they've tried on all the albums and "this" one it the one that stopped you from listening to a full DT album all together?  Seems weird to me.

I think you misread his post. Unless I am mistaken, DT12 was the first album that fell out of his listening rotation within the first few weeks, instead of the many weeks of previous albums.  I think he was solely referring to the replay value of the album.

No I got that, but I would have thought other albums before this would cause that.

[BlobVanDam]

There is definitely a difference between FII's songwriting and DT12's songwriting. But FII's songs are much more concise imo (in response to Mosh's original point I was replying to), due to that more commercial approach. That's not a comment on quality, just an observation. Concise doesn't have much to do with better or worse.

I dunno, I think there are some parts of songs in FII that could've really been trimmed. The only shorter songs I can think of that truly sound concise to me are Anna Lee, Hell's Kitchen, and Hollow Years. Peruvian Skies too actually, that song did it best IMO.

But my main point, which was echoed by Hef, is that their concise approach was always taken on less proggy more commercial sounding songs. DT12 is the first time since at least 6DOIT (and I'd make the argument that the songs on I&W and Awake aren't concise either) that the songs are written in the proggy DT style, but in a concise format. Songs like THe Bigger Picture, Surrender to Reason, and Enigma Machine are great examples of songs that would be bloated on any other album.

We'll have to agree to disagree. DT12 is no doubt one of their most concise albums, and their most concise in a long time, but I think they've done the same thing just as concise before, probably more so. The conscious effort to trim down the songs is obvious though, and it's a definite departure from the albums before it.

TLG and AFTR are very lean, but EM just feels like endless repetitive riffing to me. I also feel like a couple of the songs were cut down a bit too far for their ideas to develop, but not always more concise in the process. They could have extended them slightly without feeling more bloated. Packing a 10 minute prog song into 7 minutes doesn't feel more concise to me, it just makes it feel crammed. Concise means saying a lot with only a little, not packing a lot into a smaller space. I don't think it was the most successful approach for what they were trying to achieve.

[Mosh]

There is definitely a difference between FII's songwriting and DT12's songwriting. But FII's songs are much more concise imo (in response to Mosh's original point I was replying to), due to that more commercial approach. That's not a comment on quality, just an observation. Concise doesn't have much to do with better or worse.

I dunno, I think there are some parts of songs in FII that could've really been trimmed. The only shorter songs I can think of that truly sound concise to me are Anna Lee, Hell's Kitchen, and Hollow Years. Peruvian Skies too actually, that song did it best IMO.

But my main point, which was echoed by Hef, is that their concise approach was always taken on less proggy more commercial sounding songs. DT12 is the first time since at least 6DOIT (and I'd make the argument that the songs on I&W and Awake aren't concise either) that the songs are written in the proggy DT style, but in a concise format. Songs like THe Bigger Picture, Surrender to Reason, and Enigma Machine are great examples of songs that would be bloated on any other album.

We'll have to agree to disagree. DT12 is no doubt one of their most concise albums, and their most concise in a long time, but I think they've done the same thing just as concise before, probably more so. The conscious effort to trim down the songs is obvious though, and it's a definite departure from the albums before it.

TLG and AFTR are very lean, but EM just feels like endless repetitive riffing to me. I also feel like a couple of the songs were cut down a bit too far for their ideas to develop, but not always more concise in the process. They could have extended them slightly without feeling more bloated. Packing a 10 minute prog song into 7 minutes doesn't feel more concise to me, it just makes it feel crammed. Concise means saying a lot with only a little, not packing a lot into a smaller space. I don't think it was the most successful approach for what they were trying to achieve.

Fair enough. I get what you're saying about songs sounding crammed; there are definitely times where I wish STR was longer, for example, but then I think that if it was longer it'd be extended with parts that seem arbitrary or repetitive (not in a good way), like the long songs on ADTOE. And I do think they did say a lot with a little. Much more than they've said with any of the roadrunner albums IMO.

Next time I'd like them to try longer songs again though. It'd be cool if they could channel this approach in a longer format and write long songs with more unexpected and different parts, ala Six Degrees or Images & Words. Not long for the sake of long like their last few albums.