Did DT miss its chance to mature as a band?

[Samsara]

This thread was inspired by some of the commentary by rumbo and TAC, starting with this post:

I think DT's biggest problem is/was that they painted themselves into a corner. A lot of fans seem to almost have a Pavlovian response to an F#. Look at the YouTube videos where seriously the top comment is ""lol I forwarded to [F#] to see whether he could hit it". If James hits it it was a good concert, if he didn't it wasn't. Seeing this every concert, DT realized that unless their vocals are soaring high and the solos are blistering, people aren't coming. So, each album they pander to the masses and add those. And each year, James struggles more and more.

By choice or necessity, I feel DT missed the chance to mature like other bands of their kin did.

>>>I thought I'd continue it here. Reposting TAC and Rumbo's exchange, followed by my own comments:

That's an interesting thought.  Who exactly are bands of their kin?

The obvious data point would be Rush. They had the same choice of sticking with high-pitched, anthemic rock, or go somewhere else. They went, with much consternation, the 80s pop route for a while. In the end they came out bigger than before.
Or take Opeth. They too clearly could have pandered to the existing fan base and continue their death metal, but they decided to reinvent themselves.
Steven Wilson. Easily could have ridden the Porcupine Tree gravy train, but went entirely different afterwards.

I just have a hard time finding a true peer of Dream Theater. To me, the only time they artistically plateaued was the SC/BC&SL era.
I also think that they could've really upped their game technically with MM, but have failed to do so.

I also found Rumbo's statement interesting. It's a big problem a lot of bands from the 80s and early 90s have. On one hand, those bands want to go different directions. But depending on the tenor of the fanbase, label wishes, and the general musical tastes of those fans of the particular genre, it usually goes too far one way, and then a rebound happens, and then there's a lot of...I guess you could stay retreading?

For me, I watched DT mature and advance through Falling Into Infinity. I felt they had started to mature as songwriters, and with some help from folks that were established songwriters, gain the knowledge to write for the song, as opposed to writing to "wow" people. I'm not saying DT always did the latter, but I do think their idea of songwriting was to give themselves an identity, sometimes at the expense of the song. Falling into Infinity changed that a bit. They finally had an album where changes were made to better THE SONG, and play to the melody, and still be this progressive giant.

And what happened? A lot of people shit on them for it, unfairly.

So what did they do? They "rebounded" by doubling down on that old identity, starting with arguably the fan favorite tune, "Metropolis" and patterned the band after that (and obviously, the record). SFAM was good, for sure, and a lot of good stand alone tunes too, so it's not like they abandoned what they learned. But they also to a degree, regressed back to who they were previously, and sort of stuck in that niche moving forward.

Fans usually have a heightened opinion of the impact of their own opinions (I've been guilty of it for sure), but in this case, the negative vibes from the fans, and MP's bitching about the record, really pushed Dream Theater into a box from which it pushed at, but never really expanded again. It helped them financially, and secured a solid following, but taking the "success" out of the equation, it really did shoehorn them into something.

They tried again with The Astonishing...and you see from the reaction where that got them...

Most bands of this time period of the early 80s to early 90s follow that sort of pattern. Queensryche got a bit more leeway from fans, I think, but their situation is unique to them. And in the end, they ended up moving back into "the box" I referenced above as well.

So yeah, the maturity of a band is a tricky thing. It can only go so far, particularly for acts that are successful. And while that sounds weird, when music is a livelihood, and its being made not just for art, but for money, it sort of just happens that way. That's why I think you see a lot of bands expand their horizons here and there with various songs, instead of complete directional shifts. This way they can take risks, expand, mature with small pieces here and there, but the majority is in the same wheelhouse to keep momentum and success.

Just my .02. Fascinating topic, Rumbo.

[mikeyd23]

So because DT didn't dramatically change their sound like Opeth did going from death metal to 70's prog or like Rush when they decided to be a synth-pop group, that means they haven't matured? That's a big statement. 

I also fundamentally disagree with Rumbys initial assumption that DT are pandering to a fan base by creating the music they create. That's a big, big assumption. I think the safer and far more reasonable assumption is that they are creating the type of music that they want to because they love it.

[emtee]

No way. If you ask me they always took big chances, which usually meant losing some fans and gaining some new ones, by making
different albums every single time.

[Kotowboy]

Agree. Dream Theater have never made the exact same album twice.

Structurally - Systematic Chaos was Octavarium part 2 but sonically and musically they weren't very much alike.

A Dramatic Turn may have been the safest album in a while but I think it was deliberate.

DT12 was to see if they could make an album of shorter songs and The Astonishing is a 2 hour double concept album for goodness sake.

I think a lot of The Astonishing shows maturity and growth. To me - releasing pretty much the same album every single time like Motorhead, AC/DC, Slayer etc can be selling out just as much as going

ultra commercial - because you know the fans will eat it up and if you stray too far from your signature sound - it might not sell as well.

[hefdaddy42]

For me, I watched DT mature and advance through Falling Into Infinity. I felt they had started to mature as songwriters, and with some help from folks that were established songwriters, gain the knowledge to write for the song, as opposed to writing to "wow" people. I'm not saying DT always did the latter, but I do think their idea of songwriting was to give themselves an identity, sometimes at the expense of the song. Falling into Infinity changed that a bit. They finally had an album where changes were made to better THE SONG, and play to the melody, and still be this progressive giant.

And what happened? A lot of people shit on them for it, unfairly.

Not unfairly.  What they did was, in many ways, change what and who they were from I&W and Awake. 

SFAM was a return to form, embracing the progressive and instrumental virtuoso segments of their enormous talented, and not pretending to be anything else.

[Kotowboy]

I think Scenes, Six Degrees, Train of Thought, Octavarium and parts of Systematic Chaos is an exceptional run of albums.

I think they lost something after that. Black Clouds felt a little like going through the motions and I think It took until The Astonishing to sound more like "classic" Dream Theater again.

When I first heard The Gift Of Music - my initial thought was that it could have been on Disc 2 of Six Degrees.

[mikeyd23]

SFAM was a return to form, embracing the progressive and instrumental virtuoso segments of their enormous talented, and not pretending to be anything else.

Yeah, and going back and reading the OP, I totally disagree that SFAM was some sort of "regression" backward from FII. If anything I'd say SFAM was the band maturing, developing and moving forward better than ever.

[gzarruk]

Structurally - Systematic Chaos was Octavarium part 2 but sonically and musically they weren't very much alike.

Never noticed that untill now  And I'm in a minority here, but I like SC much more than OV as a whole 

[Kotowboy]

Slight tangent but

Root of all Evil > Itpoe 1
I walk Beside You > Forsaken
 
Sacrificed Sons > Ministry of Lost Souls
Octavarium > Itpoe 2

( for me )

[Architeuthis]

To me Dream Theater is one of the most mature bands in existence! They present themselves with class and their musicianship is above and beyond most bands.

[TAC]

To me Dream Theater is one of the most mature bands in existence! They present themselves with class and their musicianship is above and beyond most bands.

That's a great comment.

[Dream Team]

"Mature" ( ) sounds like it wants to be boring 3-chord pop rock with nothing of substance but a catchy chorus. Very glad they haven't "matured".

[Adami]

"Mature" ( ) sounds like it wants to be boring 3-chord pop rock with nothing of substance but a catchy chorus. Very glad they haven't "matured".

Huh?

[erwinrafael]

So their point of regression is...when they did a prog-metal concept album?

[BlobVanDam]

I get what is meant by "regress", but I think that's the wrong choice of word, and also not accurate imo. Maturing is not about change for the sake of change. That can also be a sign of not having found your sound, which can show a lack of having matured. Maturing is about getting better at your craft and finding your own identity. SFAM showed all of the signs of a mature band that drew upon the strengths of everything that came before it, mixed with the enthusiasm and energy of their first couple of albums.
A band can evolve and mature while still covering the same area. If you compare how modern DT and early DT approach a similar style of song, you'll hear how they've matured as a band.

[rumborak]

They tried again with The Astonishing...and you see from the reaction where that got them...

I can only speak for myself regarding TA, but TA's problem wasn't them actually daring to try something new. In fact, I can not recall a single online opinion saying so. I think everybody was eager (and looking forward to) something out of ordinary, since the ADTOE-DT12 sequence was definitely "safe territory" for lack of a better term.

[Samsara]

Everyone has good points. we'll just have to disagree on the "maturity" aspect of it.

But to clarify, "regress" was probably a poor choice of words. I was listening to SFAM and was staring at "Regression," so that probably popped in while I was typing. lol. What I meant was, that DT decided to revisit elements that got them noticed in the first place (e.g. Metropolis), and construct the record around that (duh) and to a lesser extent, the band's "sound" around that as well. While it sounds good, and comfortable, and there are a million reasons to do it, my argument (and again, I realize there are holes, but there are in ANY position) it returned DT to a safer direction, rather than naturally move forward.

Did they mature? Well, yes and no. By ditching DS, and getting together with Jordan, they essentially became a different band again, as Jordan became a co-main songwriter with JP. So it's hard to judge. But I think its undeniable that instead of expanding upon their trajectory with FII, they instead went backward and re-focused the band on a certain segment of its sound.

Again, none of this is a bad thing, but I do think doing so sort of (it was, clearly, the right move for them for long term success) derailed them from really expanding and maturing as songwriters to a degree. The tunes got a lot more complex, sure. But to an extent they lost something too, a bit of soul, a bit of atmosphere, etc. Which is, at the end of the day, fine, for 90 percent of the fanbase, and it obviously worked for them.

But the position that moving that way stunted them somewhat as songwriters is still valid. We may not agree, but when you go back and revisit your past so distinctly like they did, you can grow from it, but possibly not as widespread as you might have, had you not. Listen to stuff like Speak to Me, Cover My Eyes, etc. They have never really branched out from those again. Sure, fans wanted more Metropolis-like tunes, but the fact DT was shifting and moving and evolving was, at least in my opinion, a good thing. But I realize I am in the minority on this.

[mikeyd23]

Again, none of this is a bad thing, but I do think doing so sort of (it was, clearly, the right move for them for long term success) derailed them from really expanding and maturing as songwriters to a degree. The tunes got a lot more complex, sure. But to an extent they lost something too, a bit of soul, a bit of atmosphere, etc. Which is, at the end of the day, fine, for 90 percent of the fanbase, and it obviously worked for them.

But the position that moving that way stunted them somewhat as songwriters is still valid. We may not agree, but when you go back and revisit your past so distinctly like they did, you can grow from it, but possibly not as widespread as you might have, had you not. Listen to stuff like Speak to Me, Cover My Eyes, etc. They have never really branched out from those again. Sure, fans wanted more Metropolis-like tunes, but the fact DT was shifting and moving and evolving was, at least in my opinion, a good thing. But I realize I am in the minority on this.

Yeah, I still don't agree. Especially with the bolded. I think you are ignoring the fact that after SFAM, they went on to create SDOIT, an album that a lot of the fan base considered to be the peak of their songwriting, experimentation, atmospheric, moody, technical, proggy, all in one.

Basically, what you are saying is that the band hasn't really followed the sound they created on FII and in your opinion they should have, which is perfectly valid. But that doesn't mean they didn't expand and mature as songwriters. That doesn't mean they have been stunted as songwriters since then.

[rumborak]

I don't agree with using SFAM as the pivot here. Sure, this was their "masterpiece", i.e. in the original sense of the word where you draw on existing skill to create the best piece you can, but they clearly moved on with SDOIT, and even more so ToT. I personally would call Octavarium the pivotal point where subsequent albums were incremental changes, no longer substantial changes.

[Samsara]

Yeah, I still don't agree. Especially with the bolded. I think you are ignoring the fact that after SFAM, they went on to create SDOIT, an album that a lot of the fan base considered to be the peak of their songwriting, experimentation, atmospheric, moody, technical, proggy, all in one.

I do see your point. I am not ignoring anything. There is a difference between writing a great record (Six Degrees -- which I agree is great), and deliberately choosing to not go down a path that may have (I stress MAY) have opened up new and different horizons. It was a choice they made. I don't begrudge them for making it, I just think they could have been something a bit more natural (to my ears) and mature had they stayed the course.

Basically, what you are saying is that the band hasn't really followed the sound they created on FII and in your opinion they should have, which is perfectly valid. But that doesn't mean they didn't expand and mature as songwriters. That doesn't mean they have been stunted as songwriters since then.

Close, but not quite. Yes, in that I personally would have liked them to. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that direction with FII was where JP was naturally going, and the band as a whole. And when they made the decision (in my opinion, because MP throwing his fit, fans jumping on board with MP, etc.) to instead do a 180, and stop that path and jump back aboard at the point of "Metropolis" and take a different path from there, they stunted a natural evolution of their sound in favor of what worked for them prior, and expanded from there.

Yes, they did "mature" from that point, but it wasn't really a natural evolution of their sound. It was more a deliberate forced "restart" they took, and it took away, IMO, some key elements that DT was just beginning to embrace and develop.

Is that more clear? I may have not explained it that well above.

[bosk1]

I think the problem many are having with the premise of the thread, even after explained in the follow-up post, is that using terms like "mature," "regress," "stunted," missed chance/opportunity," those are loaded terms that make a value judgment and tend to couch the subjective in a cloak of objectivity, when there isn't any.  No matter which way the band would have gone, we could look at that and say, "well, yeah, they did just fine going in that direction. But they clearly didn't live up to their potential because they clearly have the talent and ability to have explored direction Y, and they didn't, so missed opportunity."  I mean, they had tossed around the idea of exploring world music as the basis for the overall sonic theme of their sixth album.  But they didn't, thanks in part to a Pantera concert some of the members attended during that timeframe.  Did they somehow fail to live up to their potential because they didn't explore and develop into the subgenre of progressive world music?  I guess one could argue that.  But I think most would say, "no," they went in a direction that made sense and spoke to them as musicians, and grew in that other area.  They clearly have the ability to explore swing.  Did they fail to live up to their potential by not doing so and releasing a progressive swing metal album?  And on and on we could go. 

And as far as using FII as the pivot point, I get it.  But I think it misses something from the band's perspective.  I think they were trying to grow and expand in a certain direction that was more along the lines of what eventually became SFAM.  But, from their perspective (some of them, anyway), the label came in and "stunted their growth" by pulling them in a direction that didn't serve their collective talent/interests as a band, and it was a setback in terms of their evolution.  It goes both ways, and is just a matter of perspective. 

When it comes down to it, I don't discount AL's feelings on the subject, and I realize that a number of fans not only see some positives in the direction they were moving during the time of FII, but wish the band had continued more on that trajectory.  That's all perfectly valid.  But I think that when one tries to frame the discussion as that somehow being a "failing" or a "missed opportunity," we as fans go too far in editorializing DTs' history too much through the lens of our own subjective wants and desires, and I think that does the band and their history an injustice.

[bosk1]

I'm saying that direction with FII was where JP was naturally going, and the band as a whole. And when they made the decision (in my opinion, because MP throwing his fit, fans jumping on board with MP, etc.) to instead do a 180, and stop that path and jump back aboard at the point of "Metropolis" and take a different path from there, they stunted a natural evolution of their sound in favor of what worked for them prior, and expanded from there.

Okay, but see, I don't think that is an accurate description of what happened.  I do not think the studio version of FII accurately reflects where JP (or the rest of the band) actually was "naturally going."  I say this for quite a few reasons:
-JP's own original compositions were altered, in some cases, significantly by the external sources the band were forced to work with.  And while it is true that JP seems to have been fine with that, the point is that somebody else changed what he did, which by definition makes that album (or at least parts of it) decidedly NOT where he was naturally going.
-The "Fix for '96" shows showcase a much different sound for the material that was being written.  That was the band performing some of the new material in the state they meant for it to be heard.  I think that shows, in part, that the final product we ended up with is not "where the band was naturally going."  Couple that with...
-We have the original demos.  And we know that original demos of many of the songs were rejected by the label, which not only led to the band re-writing some of those songs, but also writing songs with a different sound so that the label would let them finally record and put out their album.

So all that said, I don't think it is accurate to say that what we got on FII was where the band was "naturally going."  What we got was an album that had its sound, it's structure, and its very composition heavily influenced by forces outside the band.  That is most decidedly unnatural in terms of where the band was going on its own.  And that's fine.  Although I had a strong negative reaction to the material at the time, I (like many others) came to really embrace it and love it.  But love it or not, it's not accurate to say that that album captured the natural evolution of the band. 

Yes, they did "mature" from that point, but it wasn't really a natural evolution of their sound. It was more a deliberate forced "restart" they took, and it took away, IMO, some key elements that DT was just beginning to embrace and develop.

Maybe it's just semantics, but I don't think "restart" is accurate either.  I mean, they did purposely try to recapture a lot of what they did on the first three albums.  But as was said above, it wasn't so much of a "let's go back to square 1" as much as "let's correct the course and get back on the trajectory we want to be on," which incorporates not only how the band had grown and matured on the first three albums, but actually did incorporate a lot of things from the FII era as well.  So, I dunno...again, maybe it's just semantics, but "restart" doesn't really feel like the right way to describe where they were.  It was more of a "course correction" than a "stop/restart," if that makes sense.

[mikeyd23]

Yeah, basically what Bosk said...

I do see your point. I am not ignoring anything. There is a difference between writing a great record (Six Degrees -- which I agree is great), and deliberately choosing to not go down a path that may have (I stress MAY) have opened up new and different horizons. It was a choice they made. I don't begrudge them for making it, I just think they could have been something a bit more natural (to my ears) and mature had they stayed the course.

That's all well and good, but like I said before it seems based solely on your opinion. I think SDOIT was the band going down a path that opened new and different horizons.

Close, but not quite. Yes, in that I personally would have liked them to. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that direction with FII was where JP was naturally going, and the band as a whole. And when they made the decision (in my opinion, because MP throwing his fit, fans jumping on board with MP, etc.) to instead do a 180, and stop that path and jump back aboard at the point of "Metropolis" and take a different path from there, they stunted a natural evolution of their sound in favor of what worked for them prior, and expanded from there.

Respectfully, I think a couple factors are important here - (1) none of us besides JP can say where he naturally wanted to head after FII, (2) JR became a major songwriting influence and could have naturally shifted things in the SFAM direction and (3) I think you might be overemphasizing the difference between FII and SFAM.

[hefdaddy42]

FII was an aberration and SFAM was a course correction, in a major way.

You just happen to prefer the aberration.

[King Postwhore]

I think to an extent that they've regressed sonically.

That may be the old fart in me but I haven't liked the sound the last few albums. Maybe it's just the modern sound I'm not liking but there are other bands out there that I like their sound.

[bosk1]

FII was an aberration and SFAM was a course correction, in a major way.

You just happen to prefer the aberration.

The art of being concise.

[Skeever]

I'm not a huge Scenes from a Memory fan. It's a good album, but it's somewhat of a dividing line for me. At that time, DT felt like they could not go on without giving the fans exactly what they wanted. Everything since has felt slightly more calculated, with DT measuring their wants against what they think the fanbase will accept. I would have liked to hear another Falling Into Infinity, something with shorter songs and far less of a metal aesthetic. I like Derek and am curious as to what DT would have been had they not replaced him with Rudess. I'm curious about what would have happened if, as per Lifting Shadows, Dream Theater recruited more of a songwriter type vocalist after Six Degrees. A Dream Theater featuring Derek Sherinian and a songwriter as a vocalist - maybe they would have ended up sounding something like Flying Colors. I don't know, but I would have liked to hear that band. Maybe it would have been better than the DT we have now, or worse. No one can say for sure. But imagine a parallel world where Sherinian, Petrucci, Portnoy, and Myung are in Dream Theater and Liquid Tension still exists with Rudess. It wouldn't be that bad.

[hefdaddy42]

@bosky:

lol

[Podaar]

My favorite part is the book on the desk. 

[hefdaddy42]

I do actually swear by the greatest of all writing books, Strunk & White's Elements of Style, and I live by rule 17.

Omit needless words.

And a copy IS on my bookshelf, but I don't keep it by my computer.  Normally.

[Samsara]

bosk - great counter. You're right, those terms are loaded. Not sure how more eloquently to put it, however.

Admittedly, it's hard to argue this, when yes, personally, I would have preferred they went down the route they were following. But I'd like to say that I'm objectively putting things out there as best as possible.

But everyone has good points. However:

FII was an aberration and SFAM was a course correction, in a major way.

You just happen to prefer the aberration.

While I love the conciseness of hef's post, and the latter sentence is indeed true. Why is FII the abberration, and SFAM a "course correction?"

Take what Mike posted --

Respectfully, I think a couple factors are important here - (1) none of us besides JP can say where he naturally wanted to head after FII, (2) JR became a major songwriting influence and could have naturally shifted things in the SFAM direction and (3) I think you might be overemphasizing the difference between FII and SFAM.

He's right in none of us besides JP can say where he wanted to head during or after FII, but the fact is, he did move toward a more melodic, soulful approach on FII, based on his muse, other commentary/influences, etc. What I am saying is that if that was his natural path to a degree (again, only he can answer that question, and now, 20 years later, the answer from him may be distinctly different in retrospect), the criticism from fans, MP's input, etc., may have steered him to revisit elements of Metropolis that lead to SFAM.

Mike is dead on that the keyboardist choice did impact the writing. it does in DT...DT with Kevin is much different than DT with either DS or JR, and vice versa. But remember that while they wanted JR after Kev left, they did go with DS, and saw something of value in what he brought to the band. They ditched that, and him, to go a more technical route, ala Metropolis. So something shifted their direction, that inner muse. And my thought is that shift occurred due in large part to MP and fan criticism that was stoked by MP's opinion. FII was doing really well at radio by me (Long Island) back then. So it was successful...yet...

And to further respond to Mike in regard to SFAM and FII - the albums are vastly different. Soncially, songwriting-wise. Nah, I don't think I'm overstating the difference at all. Completely different albums in almost every way, except for the guys playing (aside from JR being new, of course).

Anyway, I see this conversation going in circles a bit, and I really don't have much else to add, so I'll bow out. I don't necessarily think anyone is wrong (I could easily take the opposite position and counter myself). But thought rumbo and TAC's comments were worthy of fleshing out a bit. If folks disagree, that's fine. We can let the thread die.

Happy Friday everyone! Enjoy the weekend.

[mikeyd23]

Mike is dead on that the keyboardist choice did impact the writing. it does in DT...DT with Kevin is much different than DT with either DS or JR, and vice versa. But remember that while they wanted JR after Kev left, they did go with DS, and saw something of value in what he brought to the band. They ditched that, and him, to go a more technical route, ala Metropolis. So something shifted their direction, that inner muse. And my thought is that shift occurred due in large part to MP and fan criticism that was stoked by MP's opinion. FII was doing really well at radio by me (Long Island) back then. So it was successful...yet...

And to further respond to Mike in regard to SFAM and FII - the albums are vastly different. Soncially, songwriting-wise. Nah, I don't think I'm overstating the difference at all. Completely different albums in almost every way, except for the guys playing (aside from JR being new, of course).

Anyway, I see this conversation going in circles a bit, and I really don't have much else to add, so I'll bow out. I don't necessarily think anyone is wrong (I could easily take the opposite position and counter myself). But thought rumbo and TAC's comments were worthy of fleshing out a bit. If folks disagree, that's fine. We can let the thread die.

Happy Friday everyone! Enjoy the weekend.

Good post, you don't have to bow out, I think its an interesting topic. I'll just say this regarding the difference between FII and SFAM - obviously they are pretty different, I guess I was just trying to say I see some elements that were a progression from FII, not necessarily a huge departure away from FII. While JP did go for a more metal, more technical approach on SFAM in comparison to FII, I think some of the melody and soulful playing he expressed on FII carried through and showed up in spots on SFAM. Also, I have always felt like FII was the first in a series of albums that really established what would come to be known as "the" MP drum sound and style. Just my two cents.

[bosk1]

Yeah, I mean, I think it's great discussion either way. 

[rumborak]

I have to ask into the round though, is it just my perception that the "deltas", i.e. the change from album to album, dropped by a noticeable amount after Octavarium?

[hefdaddy42]

Why is FII the abberration, and SFAM a "course correction?"

Because FII is the one that is most different from the rest of the catalog (until The Astonishing), and everything they've done since then is, more or less, in the style of SFAM and the older albums, rather than FII.

That same span of time is when the band has had complete creative control, and could do whatever they wanted.  If they felt led to do another album like FII (and IMO, Octavarium is the most similar), they could have at any time.

But that album was a lowpoint for the band in many ways, and SFAM was an obvious course correction.