Octavarium - 10 Years

[King Postwhore]

I've brought this up at work and everybody is split just like on this forum.

[Kotowboy]

Being told your opinion is wrong because that person doesn't share your tastes is extremely annoying.


But I agree that you can't have an opinion on a fact.


For example you can't say : " Paul McCartney played Tuba in the Beatles ". That's not an opinion.

I remember having an argument on Twitter before with someone who was saying that Mike Portnoy had more technical ability than Mike Mangini. I was trying to

say that Mangini can do things that Portnoy can't and they kept saying " in your opinion ". Well no.

The analogy I came up with was saying  This 6 string bass has more strings than this 4 string bass "

and them going " well that's just your opinion ".

[zecawolf]

Everybody is entitled to argue that he/she likes Portnoy's or Mangini's STYLE better than the other, and even if one or the other fits the band better. But that Mangini is TECHNICALLY superior is unquestionable. If that is important, that's another story.

[Lucien]

The problem, as I see it, is less about your feelings about "opinions" than it is that most people don't understand the difference between "fact" and "opinion".   That one person thinks it doesn't make it "fact" (I'm talking to you, Rachel Dolezal). 

That is precisely why opinions can be wrong.  Facts are objective.  Opinions are not.  However, opinions can and should be based on facts.  Where, for example, an opinion is based on facts that are incorrect, the opinion itself is wrong.  As someone who is trained in the practice of law, I am somewhat surprised that you do not get this, since that is basic strategy for how to attack an expert witness opinion, for example. 

Yes, opinions can be wrong if they are based on provable facts (like if your opinion is that man didn't land on the moon), but not all opinions have to be based on facts, especially as we're talking about music here. There is no objectively good or bad music. That's why we're taught music theory to write songs, and not music facts. Pretty sure you've never had to argue about music quality in a court of law.

this

[ReaPsTA]

Wasn't Octavarium a pretty cool album?

[Stadler]

The problem, as I see it, is less about your feelings about "opinions" than it is that most people don't understand the difference between "fact" and "opinion".   That one person thinks it doesn't make it "fact" (I'm talking to you, Rachel Dolezal). 

That is precisely why opinions can be wrong.  Facts are objective.  Opinions are not.  However, opinions can and should be based on facts.  Where, for example, an opinion is based on facts that are incorrect, the opinion itself is wrong.  As someone who is trained in the practice of law, I am somewhat surprised that you do not get this, since that is basic strategy for how to attack an expert witness opinion, for example.

Okay, I see what you're saying, and - and this isn't a cop out for me to "still be right", I'm just explaining so we can focus on other things - in that case, I'm considering the FACTS to be wrong.  You're right, as a result ("fruit of the poisoned tree"?) the opinion is technically "wrong", and you are also right, I wouldn't hesitate to argue that in a legal situation. 

I was focusing too narrowly, and assuming that the facts weren't in dispute.  I'm talking more along the lines of, you and I both agree that Song A is 12:00 minutes long, and your opinion is "that song is too long" (perhaps your favorite band is The Ramones), and my opinion is "that song isn't long enough" (perhaps my favorite band is Transatlantic).

Fair point.   

[Stadler]

The problem, as I see it, is less about your feelings about "opinions" than it is that most people don't understand the difference between "fact" and "opinion".   That one person thinks it doesn't make it "fact" (I'm talking to you, Rachel Dolezal). 

That is precisely why opinions can be wrong.  Facts are objective.  Opinions are not.  However, opinions can and should be based on facts.  Where, for example, an opinion is based on facts that are incorrect, the opinion itself is wrong.  As someone who is trained in the practice of law, I am somewhat surprised that you do not get this, since that is basic strategy for how to attack an expert witness opinion, for example. 

Yes, opinions can be wrong if they are based on provable facts (like if your opinion is that man didn't land on the moon), but not all opinions have to be based on facts, especially as we're talking about music here. There is no objectively good or bad music. That's why we're taught music theory to write songs, and not music facts. Pretty sure you've never had to argue about music quality in a court of law.

Again, repeating myself here, but we're in a very gray area.  Notwithstanding what I said to Bosk, whose point I concede and with whom I agree, I'm splitting hairs here and saying that the conversation is more complex.    It's NOT the opinion that is technically wrong, it is the facts underlying the opinion.   Whether we as individuals can prove it or not, someone somewhere CAN without doubt PROVE whether man set foot on the moon, or (as the Mythbusters pretty successfully debunked) the evidence, including photographs and audio tapes, were "manufactured in a studio/laboratory.  Perhaps it might even be a combination of both. 

In real life, someone drawing a conclusion from wrong or incomplete facts (but which facts ARE available in some form or fashion) is typically called an "opinion", and as a practicing human, I understand that.  Here, I'm using a more formal definition along the lines of "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty."

I appreciate you all entertaining this discussion; I fully understand that it is inconsequential, and I imagine some find it boring, but for whatever reason, I find other's views on these things interesting, and often enlightening.

[Kotowboy]

Wasn't Octavarium a pretty cool album?

no...

















...it's the best.

[Stadler]

Everybody is entitled to argue that he/she likes Portnoy's or Mangini's STYLE better than the other, and even if one or the other fits the band better. But that Mangini is TECHNICALLY superior is unquestionable. If that is important, that's another story.

But only if we agree on what the factual basis is for "technically superior".  Is it Loudest? Fastest?  Most drums in the kit?  I would venture to say there is at least ONE thing that Mike Portnoy can do with a drum kit that Mike Mangini can't. 

[Stadler]

For example you can't say : " Paul McCartney played Tuba in the Beatles ". That's not an opinion.

The closest he came was the flugelhorn (on "Martha My Dear").  His grandfather played tuba, though not in the Beatles, and there IS tuba on Beatles recordings (also "Martha My Dear").   

Just throwing that in there.

[zecawolf]

Everybody is entitled to argue that he/she likes Portnoy's or Mangini's STYLE better than the other, and even if one or the other fits the band better. But that Mangini is TECHNICALLY superior is unquestionable. If that is important, that's another story.

But only if we agree on what the factual basis is for "technically superior".  Is it Loudest? Fastest?  Most drums in the kit?  I would venture to say there is at least ONE thing that Mike Portnoy can do with a drum kit that Mike Mangini can't.

Sure. That is why it' almost impossible to judge two players from different styles. Who is technically superior? Billy Sheehan or Victor Wooten?
But, if you are to compare two players from the same genre, playing in  the same band, and even the same songs, It gets a little easier to compare the TECHNIQUE. Of course each of them has his strenghts and weaknesses, but overall, Mangini is better.

[Stadler]

Everybody is entitled to argue that he/she likes Portnoy's or Mangini's STYLE better than the other, and even if one or the other fits the band better. But that Mangini is TECHNICALLY superior is unquestionable. If that is important, that's another story.

But only if we agree on what the factual basis is for "technically superior".  Is it Loudest? Fastest?  Most drums in the kit?  I would venture to say there is at least ONE thing that Mike Portnoy can do with a drum kit that Mike Mangini can't.

Sure. That is why it' almost impossible to judge two players from different styles. Who is technically superior? Billy Sheehan or Victor Wooten?
But, if you are to compare two players from the same genre, playing in  the same band, and even the same songs, It gets a little easier to compare the TECHNIQUE. Of course each of them has his strenghts and weaknesses, but overall, Mangini is better.

But surely you see that your post is pretty much:  "fact, fact, fact, fact, my opinion and not based on any readily quantifiable fact."  Even your "same song, same genre" notion is not compelling (especially the song part).  I don't concede as "fact" at all that Mike Mangini is "better" overall, not without some understanding of what "better" means.    I've heard drummers who have played some phenomenal things absolutely butcher AC/DC songs, because for that band the technical requirements are very narrow.  You don't have to play with much variety, but what you do play has to be SPOT ON for it not to be noticeable.   

[zecawolf]

The skill needed to play AC DC is one aspect of technical playing. I am perfectly aware that LOTS of very technical bands are not capable of laying down a simple groove and make it sound as good as AC DC. But I still say  that judging them by what they do, Mangini does it better. If you need a description of what is better to me, I define it loosely as "precision, accuracy, cleanliness and better timing". And I see you have a problem with "fact". Alright, I grant you that it is merely my opinion then, but it is an opinion of a musician that has been playing for mor than 30 years.

One last comparison between the two, I have always been impressed by Portnoy's kick drum precision, but that sometimes works against him. He seems very proud of that too, and it causes him to mix it VERY loud. DARK ETERNAL NIGHT is a very good example of what I'm talking about.

[cramx3]

The first album I had heard by the band, I wasn't blown away by my first listen, but very much intrigued.  Prog was not and still is not a genre of music I listen to too much, but I think it was JP's shredding and the similarities to my favorite band Iron Maiden that had me keep going on them.  I really like the album, but it ranks in the lower half overall for me after I discovered the rest of the discography.  I would however really like to see the title track played live in person.

[Stadler]

The skill needed to play AC DC is one aspect of technical playing. I am perfectly aware that LOTS of very technical bands are not capable of laying down a simple groove and make it sound as good as AC DC. But I still say  that judging them by what they do, Mangini does it better. If you need a description of what is better to me, I define it loosely as "precision, accuracy, cleanliness and better timing". And I see you have a problem with "fact". Alright, I grant you that it is merely my opinion then, but it is an opinion of a musician that has been playing for mor than 30 years.

Which, IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION, means nothing.  I don't mean that to be dismissive of you, you seem to know what you're talking about, but in the discussion of "opinion versus fact", an educated and informed opinion is still.... opinion. 

(And none of this is to say that Mangini is bad, or that you don't know what you're talking about, or that I agree/disagree with you; just talking about "opinions" still.)

[jammindude]

The skill needed to play AC DC is one aspect of technical playing. I am perfectly aware that LOTS of very technical bands are not capable of laying down a simple groove and make it sound as good as AC DC. But I still say  that judging them by what they do, Mangini does it better. If you need a description of what is better to me, I define it loosely as "precision, accuracy, cleanliness and better timing". And I see you have a problem with "fact". Alright, I grant you that it is merely my opinion then, but it is an opinion of a musician that has been playing for mor than 30 years.

One last comparison between the two, I have always been impressed by Portnoy's kick drum precision, but that sometimes works against him. He seems very proud of that too, and it causes him to mix it VERY loud. DARK ETERNAL NIGHT is a very good example of what I'm talking about.

"I define it loosely as 'precision, accuracy, cleanliness and better timing'"....

 

[zecawolf]

I did not understand why you marked "loosely". Perhaps I used it wrong?

[Kotowboy]

I think he was just pointing out the pun. Loose is the exact opposite of everything you said next

[zecawolf]

Hum....I used "loosely" meaning "more or less, among other things"......LOL. as I said in another thread, don't take me wrong if I happen to seem rude or if I say something that doesn't seem to make much sense,  it's more likely that I failed to express myself correctly!

[Kotowboy]

Yes it was just a pun

[jammindude]

Stevie Ray Vaughn's talent is rarely disputed.   Yet his style was epitomized by playing it loose....not precision...not perfectly accurate...not even always perfectly timed. 

[zecawolf]

as I said, the skills needed to play AC DC are different, and same thing applies to the blues. SRV is indeed oneof the best, exactly because he is a master of those specific skills. we were comparing two drummers from the same genre of music.....that's an important distinction.

[Kotowboy]

Stevie Ray Vaughn's talent is rarely disputed.   Yet his style was epitomized by playing it loose....not precision...not perfectly accurate...not even always perfectly timed.

This is the wrong thread I know but  .... my god I hate SRV...Although I'm not saying he couldn't play.




as you were... *running away icon*

[zecawolf]

I used to play in a SRV cover band. I really like him. One of the greatest losses of music, because he died when he was still very young and just had recovered from his drug problem.

[RoeDent]

*looks through the pages of this thread*

  What on earth have I unleashed on the forum...? It's been taken off on tangents that have increasingly little to do with the topic.

[JayOctavarium]

OCTAVARIUM GOOD IT HAS SONGS AND STUFF

[Stadler]

I saw SRV back in '88, on the back of a flatbed truck trailer in the corner of the endzone of a shitty Division I-AA football field, with about 500 in attendance on rainy and relatively cold New England spring day, and to this day, I have never seen a guitar player "own" his instrument like that.   It was like it was a third arm or something, I can't describe it, but I've seen most of the (rock) greats (Page, Clapton, Howe, Van Halen, Fripp, Gilmour, etc.) and I've never seen anything like it.

[hefdaddy42]

I saw SRV back in '88, on the back of a flatbed truck trailer in the corner of the endzone of a shitty Division I-AA football field, with about 500 in attendance on rainy and relatively cold New England spring day, and to this day, I have never seen a guitar player "own" his instrument like that.   It was like it was a third arm or something, I can't describe it, but I've seen most of the (rock) greats (Page, Clapton, Howe, Van Halen, Fripp, Gilmour, etc.) and I've never seen anything like it.

I've seen lots of film of him playing, and I get exactly what you are saying.

One of the few musical regrets of my life is that I never got to see him play live.  He was able to pour more of himself, his essence, into his playing than virtually any other guitarist I've ever seen.

[Dream Team]

Kingshmegland - I know you were not being completely serious in your earlier posts (re: Octavarium being a "good" song and "95%" of fans holding that opinion), but I do want to have it noted that if you played the song Octavarium to 1000 people, I'd imagine more than half would find it 25 minutes of widdly and preposterous tedium. You may be right that 95% of DT fans love it but that proves nothing beyond the notion that Octavarium is an excellent example of the kind of music DT fans tend to like. DT fans are mercifully not the world. 

I like the song quite a bit but I feel the same as those who find it to be an awkwardly strung-together piece, with long stretches of boredom, and the lyrics to Full Circle are distractingly bad (I mention that because almost all song lyrics are 5th-rate writing but generally they don't interfere with enjoyment of the song. Full Circle is an exception, the writing is just so childish). When the song is good, it is absolutely staggering, but to my ears there are not enough good moments to make it a top 20 DT song.

I agree completely with your very last post though, it all makes for a good exchange of opinions.   

You miss a very important pre-existing bias with this assumption. What if it was 1000 people who hadn't been continually brain-washed by terrible 3-minute pop songs all their lives? What if they were musically a blank slate? What if they were from a previous century and were used to 20-minute bombastic classical compositions?

[BlobVanDam]

Until you can find 1000 musical blank slates, I don't think we could even begin to predict the outcome of that. Music is a very cultural thing, in terms of rhythms and notes/scales, so I'm not sure their opinions would be any more meaningful than any of ours. Maybe they'd just prefer whichever one sounded calmer and less jarring compared to the sounds they know, maybe it would be a 50/50 split, who knows.
But I think the basic point would remain that it's still just opinions.

[drmthrfan]

Images & Words and Octavarium were the first 2 DT albums I bought and still my two favorites

[erwinrafael]

Everybody is entitled to argue that he/she likes Portnoy's or Mangini's STYLE better than the other, and even if one or the other fits the band better. But that Mangini is TECHNICALLY superior is unquestionable. If that is important, that's another story.

But only if we agree on what the factual basis is for "technically superior".  Is it Loudest? Fastest?  Most drums in the kit?  I would venture to say there is at least ONE thing that Mike Portnoy can do with a drum kit that Mike Mangini can't.

What is that one thing? Based on the number of MP DT songs that we have heard MM play live, I don't see how you can say that. The Great Debate? Did not even break a sweat. 6:00? MM played it better live than MP, with mostly only one hand playing the hi-hat. Fatal Tragedy? No problem. Metropolis Part 1, he played the drum solo part mostly with one hand. Heck, he even played the cowbell live in Strange Deja Vu.  The only crazy MP thing that MM did not play in an MP DT song already played is the Finally Free outro, and I suspect that MM really just found that part as overdrumming.

MP's possible edge against MM is his drumming composition skills, and I would argue that preferring one over the other would be a matter of taste, not technical ability. They are quite different in composition philosophies, where MP puts the complexity in the fills, while MM puts the complexity within the song structure. MP tends to compose with a conscious effort to stand out, while MM tends to emphasize cohesiveness. They are very different, and most of the time, the effect is that MP makes simple parts sound complex (which "air-drumming" fans love) while MM makes complex parts sound simple because it blends in with the song (which song-first drummers love).

But surely you see that your post is pretty much:  "fact, fact, fact, fact, my opinion and not based on any readily quantifiable fact."  Even your "same song, same genre" notion is not compelling (especially the song part).  I don't concede as "fact" at all that Mike Mangini is "better" overall, not without some understanding of what "better" means.    I've heard drummers who have played some phenomenal things absolutely butcher AC/DC songs, because for that band the technical requirements are very narrow.  You don't have to play with much variety, but what you do play has to be SPOT ON for it not to be noticeable.   

Mangini has played with that kind of style of minimalist precision drumming. Giant Balls of Gold and ]The Black Forest in Steve Vai's Alive in an Ultra World album are some examples.

[BlobVanDam]

What is that one thing? Based on the number of MP DT songs that we have heard MM play live, I don't see how you can say that. The Great Debate? Did not even break a sweat. 6:00? MM played it better live than MP, with mostly only one hand playing the hi-hat. Fatal Tragedy? No problem. Metropolis Part 1, he played the drum solo part mostly with one hand. Heck, he even played the cowbell live in Strange Deja Vu.  The only crazy MP thing that MM did not play in an MP DT song already played is the Finally Free outro, and I suspect that MM really just found that part as overdrumming.

MM plays that outro differently because he's bound to a click track and they had to arrange it differently, it has nothing to do with "overdrumming" at all.
And all of these points are basically just speed, not factoring in musicality, feel, style, etc, ie every other factor of music. Playing more at a time doesn't mean you're necessarily playing better.
Personally I don't think most of the one handed showoff stuff sounds as good anyway, because they don't have the dynamics and accents, it's all straight.
Better is all a matter of opinion.

[bl5150]

But opinions can be wrong you know Blob

[BlobVanDam]

Opinions can only be wrong if your opinion is that opinions can be wrong.