Did DT12 break new ground?

[Anguyen92]

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.

I love the choruses in Behind The Veil and The Bigger Picture.  In fact, I found those choruses less bubble-gummy than the chorus to The Count of Tuscany (and I sing that song in its whole very often).  Good to sing along to which somewhat does matter a lot to me.  Does that mean that I try to hard to be trendy and be in mainstream crap?     I've become what I've hated!!!!

[Scorpion]

I'm not even entirely sure what a "bubble-gummy" chorus is, but I can't think of any reasonable definition of the term where TEI's chorus would be called "bubble-gummy".

[King Postwhore]

Anything that's a major chord and has no ROOOOROOOO's.

[TheGreatPretender]

The conscious effort to trim down the songs is obvious though, and it's a definite departure from the albums before it.

I don't know if I agree with that. I mean, I'm pretty sure we didn't find out most of the songs would be "radio friendly" so to speak, until we got that very first review of the album. The band has never said anything about wanting to create a concise, trimmed down album. I don't see why it's so hard to believe that they just kind of came up with the shorter compositions naturally this time around.

[Mosh]

Actually the band has mentioned a more concise format several times. It sounds like they were very aware of what they were doing.

And that makes sense; you don't just randomly start to come out with shorter songs after writing a certain way for 10 or so years.

[rumborak]

Maybe SC was on the same path, but DT12 broke new ground with the level of compression they put on it. The Loudness Database lists it with a value of 6, which is smack in the "bad" range.

[TheGreatPretender]

Actually the band has mentioned a more concise format several times. It sounds like they were very aware of what they were doing.

And that makes sense; you don't just randomly start to come out with shorter songs after writing a certain way for 10 or so years.

Yeah, but it's not like they've NEVER done short songs before. Every DT album has shorter songs. At least 1, even on BC&SL. I wouldn't have been surprised if it's just how it happened to come out. But I honestly don't remember any interviews where they did mention it.

[Mosh]

Yea but like I said before, the shorter songs on the past albums have always been more commercial sounding and not really written in DT's progressive style. This is the first time they've written songs in their epic progressive style in a more concise format.

From Rudess:

Sure, first of all it's an album that we're very proud of. In typical style we go into these album recording projects with a pretty strong conceptual idea of what we want to do. With this album we wanted to take our various stylistic elements, remain true to them but see if we could make them a little bit more on point, a little bit more concise. So there are a lot of songs on there that are a bit shorter. It doesn't mean they're all shorter. (Laughs)

https://www.lithiummagazine.com/interview-jordan-rudess-dream-theater-%E2%80%93-march-20-2014#sthash.l3Clkj3z.dpuf

[TheGreatPretender]

Wow... Considering I was the one who transcribed that interview, it's pretty shameful that I didn't remember that. 

[hefdaddy42]

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.

Not sure where you are getting that.

[LCArenas]

Not for me. Not that it's a bad thing, though: It was more of a return to form than a breaking of new grounds.

[BlobVanDam]

The conscious effort to trim down the songs is obvious though, and it's a definite departure from the albums before it.

I don't know if I agree with that. I mean, I'm pretty sure we didn't find out most of the songs would be "radio friendly" so to speak, until we got that very first review of the album. The band has never said anything about wanting to create a concise, trimmed down album. I don't see why it's so hard to believe that they just kind of came up with the shorter compositions naturally this time around.

I think the album speaks for itself there. Their history doesn't suggest that this happened without conscious decision. The songs are much shorter than their recent average (IT aside of course), and the album is under 70 minutes long, while all of their other recent albums are 75+ minutes (and I believe it's their shortest since IaW).
Given the average song length on DT12, they didn't appear to keep writing until they filled the disc as they usually do. Their natural inclination is to write longer songs, so I think it was a very conscious decision. Which is good. I like each album to have its own slightly different direction.

[mikeyd23]

Late to the party on this vote, I voted for "maybe a bit" because, like most others have said, it doesn't seem to be something completely different and groundbreaking, but there are a few new or unique things to pop up.  I also strongly echo the idea that an album does not need to be ground breaking to be a great album.

[LTE3]

I don't think they broke anything with this album other then for me the string of me having the new DT cd in my car for at least a year. This one was pulled fairly quickly from my 6 disc changer and is one of my least fav. Same poll for ADToE and I would have voted yes, as the the album has some of the best songs on it since Octavarium and the sound of that album for me is much better than the latest. Still dislike the new drum sound, they just don't sound natural at all.

[Dublagent66]

Compared to the first half of their discography, I would say no.  Especially considering that ADTOE is much better than DT12 despite the two ballads FFH and BTS being subpar at best.  Also, shorter and more concise writing doesn't make songs better, just like writing longer songs doesn't necessarily make them better either.  IT, for example is my least favorite of all their 20+ min epics.  IMHO, they would have to top SDOIT to start breaking new ground as far as DT standards go, and I'm not even sure if that's possible.

[Mosh]

This isn't a question of which is better though. Something can break new ground and not be very good at the same time.

[Dublagent66]

  yeah well, I suppose the thread title question is a little vague and open to interpretation.  But, I assumed the OP was suggesting that "breaking new ground" meant not only something different, but better as a result.  I don't think DT12 is all that different than anything they've done before or better for that matter.  I guess it's all based on one's opinion anyway.  If someone thinks that DT12 is not as good as previous works, then "yes" would also be a valid answer I guess.

[TheGreatPretender]

This isn't a question of which is better though. Something can break new ground and not be very good at the same time.

Meanwhile, DT12 may not have broke new ground all that much, but it's actually an amazing album.

[Rodni Demental]

^^^
Pretty much.

I mean, if DT12 is Dream Theater on autopilot then I hope it continues in whatever way this DT autopilot leads them, because DT12 is still pretty good, even if there's been conscious compromises on the length of the songs.