Under a Glass Moon - Lost Not Forgotten structural similarity analysis

[Calvin6s]

Plenty of artists repeat song structures. That doesn't mean that the songs that repeat the structures are unoriginal.

Exactly. Someone here already pointed out (almost) every pop song in existence follows the same verse-chorus-etc structure.

That's like comparing Bingo to the Lottery

[Lucien]

Plenty of artists repeat song structures. That doesn't mean that the songs that repeat the structures are unoriginal.

Exactly. Someone here already pointed out (almost) every pop song in existence follows the same verse-chorus-etc structure.

That's like comparing Bingo to the Lottery

How?

[Zook]

You guys and Petrucci are all in denial. While not identical, Lost Not Forgotten is still so similar to UAGM it's ridiculous. For him to disregard it as a rumor is kind of insulting.

[Calvin6s]

More analysis.  Less talk about the validity of analysis.

[BlobVanDam]

OTBOA/PMU is basically just structure, where if you analyze it, they follow the same format, but other than fitting similar roles on their respective albums, have little more in common than any other two DT songs. Most of the stuff I listen to follows the same structure, and even though DT's structures are a bit more unique, it still means little to me.

The strongest similarity to me is the LNF chorus drum pattern, with the alternating bass/snare pattern and the fill placement. But then I got thinking and realized something. The basic drum pattern (bass/snare) was written by JP, not a drummer. It makes sense that JP isn't going to be the most creative drummer, and may sub-consciously have reused the same pattern without realizing it, or came up with the same idea independently. It's just unfortunate that this similar also occurred in a song with a very similar intro. But given that this is the only song where I feel the IaW/ADTOE comparison had any legit comparison to begin with, it's weak proof of any intentional similarity.

Similarities can be provable, but intent is not, and I've never thought there was any stock to the idea that DT intentionally copied themselves.

[Calvin6s]

Ok, I really already did the analyzing years ago, so I'm more happy to just observe others provide their comparisons.

But just to keep the theme of the OP back on track, here's a cut and paste of a quick breakdown I did over at JP's forum.
Let’s check out some Outcry / Metropolis
0:00 to 0:41 Met =
0:00 to 0:44 Outcry
Simple keyboard drone fade in with some echo type effects. Instead of guitar hits, keyboard notes

0:41 to 1:21 Met =
0:44 to 1:36 Outcry
Big guitar power chords, with sliding, slippery type fills. Denser chord work with keyboards.

1:21 to 1:41 Met =
1:36 to 1:58 Outcry
Guitar really takes over with more single note lines. On repeat, keyboard joins single line counterpoint type lines

1:41 to 1:50 Met =
1:58 to 2:10 Outcry
Guitar sets up main verse theme. Drums become more AC/DC like (Kick – Snare – Kick Snare)

1:50 to 2:12 Met =
2:10 to 2:33 Outcry
Main theme continues as vocals finally join in. on the same riff as the previous measures.

2:12 to 2:27 Met =
2:33 to 2:50 Outcry
Big huge guitar chords over “There’s no more freedom”

2:27 to 2:36 Met =
2:50 to 3:01 Outcry
One long guitar power chord that feels like a mini intermission or announcement that the first movement is over.

2:36 to 3:08 Met =
3:01 to 3:29 Outcry
“I was told there’s a miracle” with very clean guitar and keyboard hits. Ending with “lake of fire”. The *mellow* bridge part

3:08 to 3:26 Met =
3:29 to 3:52 Outcry
Met = As a chile, Outcry = Rise up

3:26 to 3:35 Met =
3:52 to 4:03 Outcry
Similar repeat of 1:21 to 1:41 of Met (and corresponding Outcry) no vocals.

3:35 to 3:57 Met =
4:03 to 4:26 Outcry
Like previous section, except guitar keeps playing same/similar riff while keys pull back to make room for the vocals to come back in for another verse

3:57 to 4:13 Met =
4:26 to 4:43 Outcry
Prechorus section similar to 2:12 to 2:27 Met section (corresponding Outcry prechorus)

4:13 to …. Met =
4:43 to … Outcry
The big long “intermission” chord again, except this time it leads into the instrumental jam session as opposed to circling back to a verse like the first time.

As I said back then, I tried to make it nonmusician friendly so everybody could follow along with timestamps

[Cable]

It's not just song structure, but style. PMU/OTBOA has similar moods as achieved by not only structure, but choice of notes. Mellow, big chord lead up, big riff, verse, sweeping chorus, off timed riff (only happens in PMU at end, but riff is similar after 1st PMU chorus to final riff out), verse, mellow reprise, solo, chorus, reprise off timed riff.

LTL/BAI- instrumental intro that is pleasant, bass only verse, big chorus, heavy riff, more instrumental, mellow solo, instrumental, chorus, instrumental closing. The only true difference is having a chorus played three times instrumentally.

Yes, the structures are blatant. But the mentality of a lot of the parts is similar- different notes and keys/progressions and what not yes. But the feel is very similar during much of the songs. LNF's "tickle" section is very close feel wise to the similar UAGM's respective part. Both play with atonality/chromatics or whatever.

The thing was not a note for note copy, and the notes/scales/progression/whatever sound different than I&W. We all see and hear that.  But again, the mood is achieved in a similar way that goes beyond the structures. If JP was shred soloing during the mellow intro of OTBOA, that would change things. But he is not, and as a result, it achieves a similar feeling to PMU, while still having a different notes.

[425]

I have to say, PMU/OTBOA was always way more noticeable to me than UAGM/LNF. The latter pair was like "okay, I guess so" while the former pair has some pretty clear similarities.

Nevertheless, I love both PMU and OTBOA and would probably rank both, but definitely the latter, higher than most people on this forum.

[Darkstarshades]

ITPOE is a blatant copy of ACoS and nobody says a thing.

1.- Long Instrumental intro (Prelude - The Crimson Sunrise)
2.- First Voice Part, active and emotive
3.- Second Voice Part (Carpe Diem and Heretic) calmer and darker.
The structure was deviated here in an attempt to throw us off and preventing us from finding this out. As the instrumental section from ACoS here (The darkest of winters) is completely ommited.
4.- Voice returns. And sings a chorus repeating section that turns agressive.
5.- Mindless instrumental section (Reckoning and The Inevitable Summer)
6.- Both Salvation and The Crimson Sunset begin with an extremely epic reprise of the main theme from their respective introductions, to a final voice part.

The similarities are extreme and can't be denied.

NopleaseletmegoI'mnotinsane

[Madman Shepherd]

OTBOA/PMU is basically just structure, where if you analyze it, they follow the same format, but other than fitting similar roles on their respective albums, have little more in common than any other two DT songs. Most of the stuff I listen to follows the same structure, and even though DT's structures are a bit more unique, it still means little to me.

The strongest similarity to me is the LNF chorus drum pattern, with the alternating bass/snare pattern and the fill placement. But then I got thinking and realized something. The basic drum pattern (bass/snare) was written by JP, not a drummer. It makes sense that JP isn't going to be the most creative drummer, and may sub-consciously have reused the same pattern without realizing it, or came up with the same idea independently. It's just unfortunate that this similar also occurred in a song with a very similar intro. But given that this is the only song where I feel the IaW/ADTOE comparison had any legit comparison to begin with, it's weak proof of any intentional similarity.

Similarities can be provable, but intent is not, and I've never thought there was any stock to the idea that DT intentionally copied themselves.

You summed it up perfectly although while the pattern of UAGM and LNF are similar, they are not identical.  I still don't know what people are trying to insinuate with this so-called structure similarity.  As Blob said, there are similarities with all sorts of songs but DT's are more unique so it stands out a bit. 

Do people really think that they sat down and charted out a "structure" that they had to follow?  Do they think Jordan may have said, "ooo...we should have an instrumental section here" and John responded, "What the fuck dude?  Is there an instrumental section at that point in Pull Me Under?  We made a pact to follow the same fucking structure.  If you don't want to then you can join Portnoy in Adrenaline Mob!"

It's a serious question. 

I thought he explained it pretty clearly, however I believe DT has used the scale/mode for a few other songs too, including Home, the instrumental section of ITNOG, and the sitar bit in Paradigm Shift. It's not too common, but not too unusual either.

Odd that people are so focused on ADTOE and not these other ones. 

[puppyonacid]

Just chiming in to say that the "Most pop songs have similar structures" argument is totally redundant.

That's like comparing companies that build mass produced housing with someone that wants to recreate the Coliseum in Rome.

[Lucien]

Just chiming in to say that the "Most pop songs have similar structures" argument is totally redundant.

That's like comparing companies that build mass produced housing with someone that wants to recreate the Coliseum in Rome.

I really don't want to start the whole 'music is completely subjective' argument like I've done in a few other threads (which tends to derail them), but I completely disagree.
I'd say most pop music isn't 'mass produced', just like most progressive music (as well as classical) isn't some high form of art that should be respected any more than pop music.
In classical music, during the 17th (18th? I forget) century, a structure called Sonata form was invented, and the first movement of all symphonies followed this structure (mostly) until the 19 century or so.
In that regard, SYMPHONIES, the so called HIGHEST form of music, you could say, were mass produced. Mozart wrote 41 symphonies. Haydn wrote 104.

You can't really compare music (completely based in opinions) with architecture (there are indeed objective qualities that make it 'better' or 'worse').

[BlobVanDam]

What Lucien said.

And it spares me from making a similar point in a much more offensive and blunt manner.

[Stadler]

I'm with Lucien too.  Music is, for many people, about connecting.   If a certain relationship in a song helps to form that connection, why not use it, even if that relationship has been done before? 

[puppyonacid]

Im simply saying that if youre going to use the "well many pop songs have similar structure" argument to back up your belief that DT didn't do anything deliberately, I think it's worth pointing out that we're not talking about basic/typical structure. They even went for the same grooves and feel inside a frame work that has many more variables than your average pop song structure.

You can argue that pop music isn't generic. But if you use that argument that says "well many pop songs have a similar structure" then I don't see it as valid as we aren't talking about songs (UAGM) that have typical structure.

That said - my view is that I actually thought it was a really cool and creative thing to have done. I don't see a problem with it. I think it was deliberate and a tip of the hat to some great DT tracks. I personally don't understand how people aren't hearing it or don't accept it was deliberate.

I don't think it's a conspiracy either.

[Setlist Scotty]

Do people really think that they sat down and charted out a "structure" that they had to follow? 

Sure - why not? It's an established fact that the band had previously charted out songs after they had written and arranged them so that it was easier for them to remember the individual parts. At that point, they were without a band member who was good at organizing and arranging the individual parts (and, who I imagine was the one who wrote out those charts) AND wanted bring the band back to something a bit more familiar - why not use the song structures from their most popular album (all of which are well known to the fanbase) and use them as starting points for coming up with something new? I'd expect that they kept photos or notes of every song chart (for every album) along with all the other documentation of each album - for instance, there's a photo of JP next to a chart for UaGM in the IaW demo official bootleg, as well as the aforementioned chart for SoC that was given to the fans for the songwriting contest.

Maybe it just started off as a basic writing challenge and they were happy with the results (not unlike the 2003 contest they did involving the chart used for Stream of Consciousness). Who knows how the idea of doing so might have started. But it's a completely believable possibility, and given the fact that the structures to more than half of the songs on ADToE mirror relatively closely those on IaW, more than just coincidence.
 
 

Do they think Jordan may have said, "ooo...we should have an instrumental section here" and John responded, "What the fuck dude?  Is there an instrumental section at that point in Pull Me Under?  We made a pact to follow the same fucking structure.  If you don't want to then you can join Portnoy in Adrenaline Mob!"

It's a serious question.

Maybe your first question was serious, but the over-the-top ass-hat comments you followed it up (above) with just show that you're trying to make anyone who believes the reused song structures idea is a fool.   

[Stadler]

Do people really think that they sat down and charted out a "structure" that they had to follow? 

Sure - why not? It's an established fact that the band had previously charted out songs after they had written and arranged them so that it was easier for them to remember the individual parts. At that point, they were without a band member who was good at organizing and arranging the individual parts (and, who I imagine was the one who wrote out those charts) AND wanted bring the band back to something a bit more familiar - why not use the song structures from their most popular album (all of which are well known to the fanbase) and use them as starting points for coming up with something new? I'd expect that they kept photos or notes of every song chart (for every album) along with all the other documentation of each album - for instance, there's a photo of JP next to a chart for UaGM in the IaW demo official bootleg, as well as the aforementioned chart for SoC that was given to the fans for the songwriting contest.

Different genre, I get it, but Michael Moorcock charts out many of his books before he writes them; x number of chapters of y pages each, each subdivided into three sections, etc.   Glorianna I believe was written this way, as were his two books on London.  The Elric/Oona series as well.  Plays are divided into acts.   Songs - even "non-boiler plate, non-pop template" songs are often arranged by section.  How many longer pieces begin with an "overture" type piece? 

These things have resonance.   Introduction, tension, release, climax...  there are only so many effective ways of building emotion, and we already know that DT values the role of structure (look at the thought that went into the structuring of ACOS, or 6DOIT, or Erotomania Suite...

[gm5k]

Im simply saying that if youre going to use the "well many pop songs have similar structure" argument to back up your belief that DT didn't do anything deliberately, I think it's worth pointing out that we're not talking about basic/typical structure. They even went for the same grooves and feel inside a frame work that has many more variables than your average pop song structure.

You can argue that pop music isn't generic. But if you use that argument that says "well many pop songs have a similar structure" then I don't see it as valid as we aren't talking about songs (UAGM) that have typical structure.

That said - my view is that I actually thought it was a really cool and creative thing to have done. I don't see a problem with it. I think it was deliberate and a tip of the hat to some great DT tracks. I personally don't understand how people aren't hearing it or don't accept it was deliberate.

I don't think it's a conspiracy either.

Really well put.  All of this   

[Calvin6s]

 

[Madman Shepherd]

Do people really think that they sat down and charted out a "structure" that they had to follow? 

Sure - why not? It's an established fact that the band had previously charted out songs after they had written and arranged them so that it was easier for them to remember the individual parts. At that point, they were without a band member who was good at organizing and arranging the individual parts (and, who I imagine was the one who wrote out those charts) AND wanted bring the band back to something a bit more familiar - why not use the song structures from their most popular album (all of which are well known to the fanbase) and use them as starting points for coming up with something new? I'd expect that they kept photos or notes of every song chart (for every album) along with all the other documentation of each album - for instance, there's a photo of JP next to a chart for UaGM in the IaW demo official bootleg, as well as the aforementioned chart for SoC that was given to the fans for the songwriting contest.

Maybe it just started off as a basic writing challenge and they were happy with the results (not unlike the 2003 contest they did involving the chart used for Stream of Consciousness). Who knows how the idea of doing so might have started. But it's a completely believable possibility, and given the fact that the structures to more than half of the songs on ADToE mirror relatively closely those on IaW, more than just coincidence.
 
 

Do they think Jordan may have said, "ooo...we should have an instrumental section here" and John responded, "What the fuck dude?  Is there an instrumental section at that point in Pull Me Under?  We made a pact to follow the same fucking structure.  If you don't want to then you can join Portnoy in Adrenaline Mob!"

It's a serious question.

Maybe your first question was serious, but the over-the-top ass-hat comments you followed it up (above) with just show that you're trying to make anyone who believes the reused song structures idea is a fool.   

you know, I don't agree with you on a whole lot but I thought that this type of response was below you. I guess not. 

[Calvin6s]

Maybe it just started off as a basic writing challenge and they were happy with the results

That's my take, but I don't even care about the why.  It happened, people noticed it.  Let people talk about it.  It actually seems more "crazy" to me that some people want to endlessly argue the nonsense part of the equation.  Talk about the songs so other musicians that like to deconstruct songs can have a fun and informational discussion.  The only people talking conspiracy are the "defenders of the faith."

[Setlist Scotty]

Do people really think that they sat down and charted out a "structure" that they had to follow? 

Sure - why not? It's an established fact that the band had previously charted out songs after they had written and arranged them so that it was easier for them to remember the individual parts. At that point, they were without a band member who was good at organizing and arranging the individual parts (and, who I imagine was the one who wrote out those charts) AND wanted bring the band back to something a bit more familiar - why not use the song structures from their most popular album (all of which are well known to the fanbase) and use them as starting points for coming up with something new? I'd expect that they kept photos or notes of every song chart (for every album) along with all the other documentation of each album - for instance, there's a photo of JP next to a chart for UaGM in the IaW demo official bootleg, as well as the aforementioned chart for SoC that was given to the fans for the songwriting contest.

Maybe it just started off as a basic writing challenge and they were happy with the results (not unlike the 2003 contest they did involving the chart used for Stream of Consciousness). Who knows how the idea of doing so might have started. But it's a completely believable possibility, and given the fact that the structures to more than half of the songs on ADToE mirror relatively closely those on IaW, more than just coincidence.
 
 

Do they think Jordan may have said, "ooo...we should have an instrumental section here" and John responded, "What the fuck dude?  Is there an instrumental section at that point in Pull Me Under?  We made a pact to follow the same fucking structure.  If you don't want to then you can join Portnoy in Adrenaline Mob!"

It's a serious question.

Maybe your first question was serious, but the over-the-top ass-hat comments you followed it up (above) with just show that you're trying to make anyone who believes the reused song structures idea is a fool.   

you know, I don't agree with you on a whole lot but I thought that this type of response was below you. I guess not. 

Way to completely ignore the majority of my post. 

But as for something being "below" me? Just because I described your comments as "ass-hat" which were definitely looking to stir up more controversy, rile up the opposing side of the argument, or as I said make us look like fools, this is "below" me? So be it. I call it like I see it, and that's what I see.

[Madman Shepherd]

I wasn't trying to make you look like a fool but you've done a pretty good job of it yourself, hence me ignoring the majority of your post. 

[Lucien]

I wasn't trying to make you look like a fool but you've done a pretty good job of it yourself, hence me ignoring the majority of your post.

to be honest he is pretty right about your 'serious question', as I'm sure DT is a very laid back group of 5 people who wouldn't yell at each other over things like structure

[Darkstarshades]

Ignore my theory of ACoS, deny it, sure, DTF, thank you.

[Kotowboy]

Guys guys guys.  Let's stop the bickering. It's just what Portnoy wants !!!!

[Madman Shepherd]

I wasn't trying to make you look like a fool but you've done a pretty good job of it yourself, hence me ignoring the majority of your post.

to be honest he is pretty right about your 'serious question', as I'm sure DT is a very laid back group of 5 people who wouldn't yell at each other over things like structure

haha, I know.  Obviously it was exaggerated to have a little fun with it.  I definitely didn't think people would react in such an overly sensitive way.   But take away my imagining JP threatening to banish JR and I seriously wonder what people think.  Do you think of an instrumental section struck them as the way to go that they would nix the idea because it didn't fit in with the so-called structure?  It just seems a bit ridiculous to me. 

I doubt they had the these charts to look off of from I&W since MP was the keeper of all that anyway and well...he doesn't have a propensity to share at the moment.  I just can't fathom they would chart them all out and then require each other to stick within those confines.

[425]

I doubt they had the these charts to look off of from I&W since MP was the keeper of all that anyway and well...he doesn't have a propensity to share at the moment.  I just can't fathom they would chart them all out and then require each other to stick within those conines.

Trying not to get too deep into this at this point, as I'm somewhere between the two hardline camps, but I have to imagine the guys would have been perfectly able to chart out the IAW songs without the original charts. They've played those songs a lot over the years. I could probably even chart out most of the songs on the album just from listening to them a lot, and I don't play an instrument.

[Madman Shepherd]

I doubt they had the these charts to look off of from I&W since MP was the keeper of all that anyway and well...he doesn't have a propensity to share at the moment.  I just can't fathom they would chart them all out and then require each other to stick within those conines.

Trying not to get too deep into this at this point, as I'm somewhere between the two hardline camps, but I have to imagine the guys would have been perfectly able to chart out the IAW songs without the original charts. They've played those songs a lot over the years. I could probably even chart out most of the songs on the album just from listening to them a lot, and I don't play an instrument.

I totally agree that they could no problem, I just personally find it hard to believe that they would.

[The Dark Master]

I have a theory that it just kind of happened organically. 

I remember checking setlist.fm shortly before Portnoy left, and according to their statistics, the top 7 most played live songs by Dream Theater were all from Images and Words .  "Wait for Sleep" was the odd song out (and even that was still in the top 15), and "Pull Me Under" was the in the lead, having been played over 400 times live as of 2010, with three other tracks from the album also over 400 not far behind, and three others over 300.  Everything about those songs, including their structures, must seriously have been written into their DNA by that point.  If you asked Petrucci for the structure of "Metropolis", he could probably recite it to you off the top of his head, verbatim.

So imagine they are siting down to write A Dramatic Turn of Events, their first album without Mike Portnoy in the band.  Those songs are so ingrained in their mind that I would not be surprised at all if they just started writing songs that (quite unintentionally, mind you) mirrored the structures of tracks from I&W and didn't even notice without someone else pointing it out to them.

So how come it never happened before? 

Because I have a feeling that Portnoy, who was so famously neurotic about details and a major player in the arrangements of their songs, probably prevented it from happening before.  If Petrucci and Rudess had written a song that too closely followed something they had done before, Portnoy probably would have said "we have to change that, because it comes to close to 'X song'", unless he wanted to make it an intentional nugget.  ADTOE was the first time they had ever written an album without Portnoy, so he wasn't there to point out to them that what they were writing was so similar to songs they had been playing for nearly 20 years at that point.

So I don't think there was anything sneaky or underhanded or even conscious about the whole thing at all.  I just think the band subconsciously wrote songs that fit those I&W structures because they were so deeply ingrained in their minds, and Portnoy wasn't there to stop them this time.  That is probably why Petrucci denied the rumors that the band was intentionally ripping off their past, because they didn't do it intentionally; it just kind of happened, and that band probably didn't even notice it until Thaigo started posting about it online.  At that point, they would never admit that they had "accidentally" replicated the charts, because, frankly, it would have sounded embarrassing, and no one would believe it anyways.

Incidentally, it will probably never happen again, because if they weren't keeping an eye out for that sort of thing before, you can be damn sure they are keeping an eye out for it now!

[Darkstarshades]

Agree with the guy above.
Pretty sure a reason why Portnoy noted the similarities between both albums was because he basically has I&W tattooed on his soul permanently. I also think he was kind of expecting this.

[ResultsMayVary]

If I'm remembering correctly, someone brought the analysis up on his forum and then he commented on it.

[Darkstarshades]

Please stop arguing and let me masturbate peacefully to Petrucci's Octavarium solo k thx.

[RaiseTheKnife]

I've always maintained the use of I&W charts had to have been a conscious move by the band and it was a cool concept at that.  The band has gone on record many times saying the ADTOE was intended to be a representation of the band up to that point (and even though Portnoy was gone, it was the still same DT that the fans expected).  What better way to demonstrate this than looking at the I&W charts to draw inspiration for new songs that represented DT's past.

For these reasons I highly doubt any inference that the band wanted to look at the song charts in prior writing sessions, but Portnoy forbid it.  It just seems logical that this idea came about post-MP as the band was contemplating how they could prove to the fans that they were still the same DT.

The ITPOE and ACOS comparison is more of a stretch for me, as it falls under the more common universal tenants of writing a 20 minute epic.  For example, if ITPOE had an acoustic section I would be more open to this comparison, but seems like a case of the fans finding the similarities, rather than the band deliberately looking at the ACOS song chart.

[KevShmev]

I call it like I see it, and that's what I see.

Mike Portnoy, is that you??