... Now I feel bad for starting this post. It makes me come across as a dick. (I'm not, I swear)
Nah, don't worry about it. Your post sparked a good thread, that's how these things go sometimes; they take on a life of their own that often has very little to do with the original post. I doubt if anyone here thinks you're a dick.
As for the topic, I've had my share of lively debates with my brothers, my wife and her sisters and my in-laws, etc. My two brothers (both younger) enjoyed some pretty decent music as kids and they still listen to stuff that's currently being played on FM Rock Radio (ClearChannel, et al), but they also enjoy quite a few of the old classics like Iron Maiden, Triumph, Rush, etc. One of them listens to some female-fronted progrock band, I think they're called Within Temptation or something like that. Anyway, I've spoken with them about Dream Theater, and showed them a few songs that I thought they might like. They thought it was OK, but one of the things I've noticed with this process of turning people on to Dream Theater and to prog in general: Average music listeners expect vocals pretty much immediately in any song you play for them. Big, long, chaotic and/or bombastic instrumental introductions on many of these tunes result in a "when are they going to sing?" comment almost every time I try to show a band like this to someone not familiar with Progressive Metal.
From a purely objective position, I believe there is a case that one could make in support of the idea that Dream Theater is a functionally superior group of musicians who are all clearly virtuoso-level players. Not too many of today's so-called "popular artists" are anywhere near as accomplished on their instruments, nor in the science of music theory. So, in that sort of dry, detached, analytic description, yes, Dream Theater is a "better" band than Nickleback.
But how does one define "success" in music? In my view, the artist who is "successful" in the music business has very little to do with their music theory prowess or how technically well they play their instruments. It's got more to do with
connecting with listeners on an emotional level than anything else. If you can't connect with listeners, your ability to recite the cycle of 5ths or sight-read a complex musical score isn't worth diddly squat. No one gives a shit that you can blast out a 4-octave mixolydian scale @ 250BPM without even thinking about it. Yeah, sure, that's pretty cool to music theory geeks and aspiring guitar-slingers like me, but to the average person -the average music listener-the only thing that matters is whether or not they can sing along with it and how long it will stay stuck in their heads.
Topic: How can people think DT are bad? (Read 7984 times)
