Comparing songs from ADTOE with their I&W counterparts

[Chrissalix]

reo, how is 0:00 - 0:40 in Metropolis just an "Intro with Keys"?  Yeah, and guitar.  And drums.  And bass.

If you want to say that both intros are around 40 seconds or so, that is fine, and that can probably be applied to quite a few DT songs, but implying that they are both Intro with Keys is either factually incorrect (as it implies the intro is JUST keys) or it is intentionally misleading.

Like I said earlier, this is a overall structural analysis but the music is different and the instrumentation is not suppose to match up.  Both songs have keys as the main theme with other things going on underneath.  In the Metropolis it's the keys with a guitar doing those delay power chords and the kick drum.  In Outcry its the keys with an electronic synth beat behind it.  And the time stamps aren't suppose to match,  they are just there to give guidance as you listen.

Then explain the presence of a repeated chorus in Outcry when Metropolis lacks one, or the completely differently structured instrumental section?

[jonny108]

Don't know if this has been posted or not but "Hey he's having fun, beyond that, I think absolutely nothing of it. Take care." From JLBs twitter about Thiagos thing. So we know that the band didn't do it on purpose.

[IdoSC]

I'll just say it this way - some of the songs are way too different (yes, even structurally) for it to make sense. Especially Surrounded and BMUBMD. I mean, Surrounded is just a 5 minutes long climactic build-up. BMUBMD is a standard Elements-of-Persuasion esque progressive metal song, nothing builds up there, the structure is nowhere near Surrounded's.

[MarlaHooch]

I've made my points and I think you're sort of picking and choosing what you find convenient to pay attention to.

You are the one talking with sweeping statements like, "The songs are exactly the same," but when some of us point out things that aren't the same, you call it picking and choosing.  That is hysterical.

And actually, it's not my opinion that they used the UAGM chart for LNF. 

Actually, it is.  Even if they are exactly alike, you have no proof that the band actually used a chart to do it.

I never said the SONGS are exactly the same.  I said the ARRANGEMENTS are.  I'm quite sure you know it too.  Wow you're annoying.  Now we have three people on this board that I'm never responding to again.  You're welcome!

And yes, it's a fact.  I and lots of people in this thread expect full-throated apologies from some of you doubters when the band confirm that it's what they did.

[Orthogonal]

Just because FFH and WFS are both vocals/piano, doesn't mean their structurally similar. But they both do have recurring themes in their following songs.

Yep, just one more thing to chalk up. Inter-song play themes within the same album (not part of a suite or concept).

[Chrissalix]

I'll just say it this way - some of the songs are way too different (yes, even structurally) for it to make sense. Especially Surrounded and BMUBMD. I mean, Surrounded is just a 5 minutes long climactic build-up. BMUBMD is a standard Elements-of-Persuasion esque progressive metal song, nothing builds up there, the structure is nowhere near Surrounded's.

Yeah and Bridges In The Sky is so vastly similar to TTT, in that it has a funk section, two totally different almost unrelated verses and a repeated chorus with gang vocals...

[ResultsMayVary]

Feel free to PM me when JP admits this is what they intended to do.  I'll understand 

P.S. Nice pun.  And I have to ask, is your SN a reference to that Limp Bizkit album?  hahahaha

I actually have posted that people need to post evidence from the band if they want these theories to be portrayed as facts. I agree there are similarities, however, I think the similarities take a back seat to the overall new material and ideas on this album. If you want your opinion to be seen as fact, then back it up with concrete evidence (interviews from JP, JMX, JR, MM, or JLB regarding ADTOE to see if they re-used charts intentionally or not). Until then, I disagree with you. If they do confirm that they re-used charts, then cool. If they don't, then cool.

And *IF* JP does confirm that they 'intentionally re-used charts from I&W' on the new album, then I will personally PM you here on the forums. But, they won't, because they've been usually similar structures for 20 years, with and without MP. They've even used structures that resemble other bands' songs structures when MP was in the band, which is even worse than using similar structures that they created. It could be considered copyright infringement, but those other bands don't really care, apparently.

But, as of right now, there is absolutely no evidence to conclude that they intentionally used charts from I&W. That is the fact right now and no matter how many times you recite your opinion, it does not make it a fact.

P.S. Thanks. And my doesn't reference Limp Bizkit. lol.

[Chrissalix]

Just because FFH and WFS are both vocals/piano, doesn't mean their structurally similar. But they both do have recurring themes in their following songs.

Yep, just one more thing to chalk up. Inter-song play themes within the same album (not part of a suite or concept).

THIS IS NOT ANYTHING NEW! GODDAMMIT! Vacant/Stream Of Consciousness. AA Suite? Self referencing is a done thing in DT. I don't know why that's even a big deal.

[ResultsMayVary]

I never said the SONGS are exactly the same.  I said the ARRANGEMENTS are.  I'm quite sure you know it too.  Wow you're annoying.  Now we have three people on this board that I'm never responding to again.  You're welcome!

I thought you said you have been studying musical theory for years?

You said structures before, then arrangements, then structures, and now arrangements again. You do know that structures and arrangments are two COMPLETELY different concepts in music theory, right? The arrangements could not be more different between all these songs that you are comparing. The structures, however, are similar in a few back-to-back sections.

[Orthogonal]

Yeah and Bridges In The Sky is so vastly similar to TTT, in that it has a funk section, two totally different almost unrelated verses and a repeated chorus with gang vocals...

No on is claiming similarities with those songs. Even Thiago, who started all this, said he paired them just because they were the odd-ball's left over. He did kind of fan the fire with his BMU,BMD comment about it being key-driven, but no one has really argued for this.

[ResultsMayVary]

Just because FFH and WFS are both vocals/piano, doesn't mean their structurally similar. But they both do have recurring themes in their following songs.

Yep, just one more thing to chalk up. Inter-song play themes within the same album (not part of a suite or concept).

THIS IS NOT ANYTHING NEW! GODDAMMIT! Vacant/Stream Of Consciousness. AA Suite? Self referencing is a done thing in DT. I don't know why that's even a big deal.

This, exactly.

[MarlaHooch]

Feel free to PM me when JP admits this is what they intended to do.  I'll understand 

P.S. Nice pun.  And I have to ask, is your SN a reference to that Limp Bizkit album?  hahahaha

I actually have posted that people need to post evidence from the band if they want these theories to be portrayed as facts. I agree there are similarities, however, I think the similarities take a back seat to the overall new material and ideas on this album. If you want your opinion to be seen as fact, then back it up with concrete evidence (interviews from JP, JMX, JR, MM, or JLB regarding ADTOE to see if they re-used charts intentionally or not). Until then, I disagree with you. If they do confirm that they re-used charts, then cool. If they don't, then cool.

And *IF* JP does confirm that they 'intentionally re-used charts from I&W' on the new album, then I will personally PM you here on the forums. But, they won't, because they've been usually similar structures for 20 years, with and without MP. They've even used structures that resemble other bands' songs structures when MP was in the band, which is even worse than using similar structures that they created. It could be considered copyright infringement, but those other bands don't really care, apparently.

But, as of right now, there is absolutely no evidence to conclude that they intentionally used charts from I&W. That is the fact right now and no matter how many times you recite your opinion, it does not make it a fact.

P.S. Thanks. And my doesn't reference Limp Bizkit. lol.

I'm glad there are people here who can disagree but still have a substantive discussion.  It's been fun, I think this is as far as it goes until we get further word from the band.  My guess is they're currently figuring out how to handle this from a PR perspective.  I'm guessing it'll be something along the lines of, "Surprise!  Aren't we cute and clever for doing this?" and my response will be "not at alllllllllll..." but it sounds like most people on here are fine with it.

Farewell for now Mr. Angry Conservative - sounds like DT isn't the only thing we'd disagree substantially about!   

[ResultsMayVary]

Yeah and Bridges In The Sky is so vastly similar to TTT, in that it has a funk section, two totally different almost unrelated verses and a repeated chorus with gang vocals...

No on is claiming similarities with those songs. Even Thiago, who started all this, said he paired them just because they were the odd-ball's left over. He did kind of fan the fire with his BMU,BMD comment about it being key-driven, but no one has really argued for this.

Yet he still included it in his analysis. If it wasn't similar at all, then why did he include it?

[Orthogonal]

Yet he still included it in his analysis. If it wasn't similar at all, then why did he include it?

Only he would know, probably just to further his cause, but it was never anything substantive.

[ResultsMayVary]

Yet he still included it in his analysis. If it wasn't similar at all, then why did he include it?

Only he would know, probably just to further his cause, but it was never anything substantive.

If you ask me, it kind of takes away from his credibility because it makes it look like he's intentionally trying to find references. This is how it comes off to me, though.

[reo73]

reo, how is 0:00 - 0:40 in Metropolis just an "Intro with Keys"?  Yeah, and guitar.  And drums.  And bass.

If you want to say that both intros are around 40 seconds or so, that is fine, and that can probably be applied to quite a few DT songs, but implying that they are both Intro with Keys is either factually incorrect (as it implies the intro is JUST keys) or it is intentionally misleading.

Like I said earlier, this is a overall structural analysis but the music is different and the instrumentation is not suppose to match up.  Both songs have keys as the main theme with other things going on underneath.  In the Metropolis it's the keys with a guitar doing those delay power chords and the kick drum.  In Outcry its the keys with an electronic synth beat behind it.  And the time stamps aren't suppose to match,  they are just there to give guidance as you listen.

Then explain the presence of a repeated chorus in Outcry when Metropolis lacks one, or the completely differently structured instrumental section?

Actually, that section is Metropolis that you are calling a chorus in Outcry does repeat in the same spot.  The difference is, in Outcry we perceive it to be more chorus like because of the melody.  But in Metropolis that same section repeats at the same places as it does in Outcry but it sounds more like an extension of the verse in Metropolis.

As for the instrumental section, I explained in my chart that the individual sections seem to vary but do have some common elements.  But everything else around the instrumental section follows the same structural progression.

[ResultsMayVary]

The difference is, in Outcry we perceive it to be more chorus like because of the melody.

Except, that part in Outcry is the chorus...

[MarlaHooch]

I never said the SONGS are exactly the same.  I said the ARRANGEMENTS are.  I'm quite sure you know it too.  Wow you're annoying.  Now we have three people on this board that I'm never responding to again.  You're welcome!

I thought you said you have been studying musical theory for years?

You said structures before, then arrangements, then structures, and now arrangements again. You do know that structures and arrangments are two COMPLETELY different concepts in music theory, right? The arrangements could not be more different between all these songs that you are comparing. The structures, however, are similar in a few back-to-back sections.

Ugh dude you're KILLING me.  Since apparently you know something I don't, give me your definition of "structure" and your definition of "arrangement" and I'll be happy to further nitpick from there.  Just this once.

If structure means the template of the song while arrangement means keys, time signatures, tempos, etc., then yes you got me and congratulations.  All that means is I meant structure and not arrangement.  It doesn't make me wrong and it doesn't change the fact that DT re-used their old charts.

The fact that you may have me on a nitpicky semantic detail does not change my position, for the record.

[XJDenton]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_validation

[reo73]

The difference is, in Outcry we perceive it to be more chorus like because of the melody.

Except, that part in Outcry is the chorus...

You are calling it a chorus because melodically it changes pace but a chorus is still just a vocal over instrumentation like a verse is.  You have to look beyond what they sound like and see that at that point in both songs the music changes from what was previously happening and it changes to the same thing at points in both songs.

[Chrissalix]

reo, how is 0:00 - 0:40 in Metropolis just an "Intro with Keys"?  Yeah, and guitar.  And drums.  And bass.

If you want to say that both intros are around 40 seconds or so, that is fine, and that can probably be applied to quite a few DT songs, but implying that they are both Intro with Keys is either factually incorrect (as it implies the intro is JUST keys) or it is intentionally misleading.

Like I said earlier, this is a overall structural analysis but the music is different and the instrumentation is not suppose to match up.  Both songs have keys as the main theme with other things going on underneath.  In the Metropolis it's the keys with a guitar doing those delay power chords and the kick drum.  In Outcry its the keys with an electronic synth beat behind it.  And the time stamps aren't suppose to match,  they are just there to give guidance as you listen.

Then explain the presence of a repeated chorus in Outcry when Metropolis lacks one, or the completely differently structured instrumental section?

Actually, that section is Metropolis that you are calling a chorus in Outcry does repeat in the same spot.  The difference is, in Outcry we perceive it to be more chorus like because of the melody.  But in Metropolis that same section repeats at the same places as it does in Outcry but it sounds more like an extension of the verse in Metropolis.

As for the instrumental section, I explained in my chart that the individual sections seem to vary but do have some common elements.  But everything else around the instrumental section follows the same structural progression.

Exactly. The vocal melody repeats as part of a structure. It's a chorus. Outcry still has a repeating chorus. Metropolis doesn't. That's the difference. Small, but marked. I appreciate that those 8 bars repeat but packaged differently. In Outcry, they are identical on all levels. You could argue that as a difference in structure too.

Not really debating that there aren't some similarities, there are! They're not as deliberate nor are they as revolutionary in DT's music as some people are making out though

[reo73]

reo, how is 0:00 - 0:40 in Metropolis just an "Intro with Keys"?  Yeah, and guitar.  And drums.  And bass.

If you want to say that both intros are around 40 seconds or so, that is fine, and that can probably be applied to quite a few DT songs, but implying that they are both Intro with Keys is either factually incorrect (as it implies the intro is JUST keys) or it is intentionally misleading.

Like I said earlier, this is a overall structural analysis but the music is different and the instrumentation is not suppose to match up.  Both songs have keys as the main theme with other things going on underneath.  In the Metropolis it's the keys with a guitar doing those delay power chords and the kick drum.  In Outcry its the keys with an electronic synth beat behind it.  And the time stamps aren't suppose to match,  they are just there to give guidance as you listen.

Then explain the presence of a repeated chorus in Outcry when Metropolis lacks one, or the completely differently structured instrumental section?

Actually, that section is Metropolis that you are calling a chorus in Outcry does repeat in the same spot.  The difference is, in Outcry we perceive it to be more chorus like because of the melody.  But in Metropolis that same section repeats at the same places as it does in Outcry but it sounds more like an extension of the verse in Metropolis.

As for the instrumental section, I explained in my chart that the individual sections seem to vary but do have some common elements.  But everything else around the instrumental section follows the same structural progression.

Exactly. The vocal melody repeats as part of a structure. It's a chorus. Outcry still has a repeating chorus. Metropolis doesn't. That's the difference. Small, but marked. I appreciate that those 8 bars repeat but packaged differently. In Outcry, they are identical on all levels. You could argue that as a difference in structure too.

The difference is that in Outcry the vocal melody is the same (more chorus like) where in Metropolis it varies a bit but both songs still have the same chord progression underneath at this point and a different lyric.

I am not suggesting that DT followed every minute detail but the overall big picture follows the similar structure.  But yes DT did mix it up to make it a new song.  BTW...Outcry is my favorite song on the album.

[Freko]

LOL at this thread.

[jdprsaga]

@MarlaHooch

I do hear some "structure/what ever name you want to use" similarities.

I don't understand what is the big deal about it, I&W is a DT album.. DT sounding like DT? whats wrong about it?

Ok, MP is not longer in the band and they are blatantly doing this?? BS.. portnoy was the first one always mentioning similarities from previous albums to describe a new album

Ok, it looks like they just used "The One Album", whats the problem, maybe they are trying to return to their roots (something everybody asked them for years)

And finally, the melody are different, the rift are different, the lyrics are different, the solos are different, the rhythm/time signature are different. conclusion... they are different songs

So i just don't understand why you are so mad with It.

[johncal]

And also, it was MP's choice to leave the band. The idea that they shouldn't do something similar to an old school writing process simply because MP may have had a hand in helping with the structure is ridiculous. Dream Theater is Dream Theater, regardless of what member lineup you use in your argument. The fact that JP and JMX have been in DT for their entire career is a better representation of the DT sound, seeing as they probably wrote the majority UAGM along with KM.

And if we used your logic about the 'moving on' part of your post (which I don't agree with), then I would urge you to contact MP and tell them DT wants the riff from "Lie" back from A-Mob.

I disagree and wholly believe they intended to do this.  Ever see the early Seinfeld episode where the lady is talking about "small coincidences" vs. "big coincidences"?  While I appreciate and miss some of his stamps on the band, I'm no MP fanboy.  I really think AMob is terrible so far, but the "Lie" similarity is a "small coincidence" whereas lifting the entire chart for UAGM is a "big coincidence" under your theory that this was somehow an accident or in any way unintentional.  I'm quite sure - and I'm willing to bet JP will admit - that they intended to rebuild the song from the ground up. 

You're entitled to your view that it shouldn't be a big deal.  My argument is DT are BETTER THAN THIS.  That's an all-caps emphasized compliment right there.  They shouldn't be re-writing the past right as they're moving on from arguably their most influential/controlling member.  It'd be a cool idea for, say, a 20th anniversary tribute EP or something, but not for the first music right out of the gate with Mangini (who, in my opinion, is amazing and deserves better than this approach). 

Overall, my opinion of ADToE was originally that they made a mistake rushing to get an album out without Mangini's contributions and I felt the album sounded rather rushed and uninspired as a result, though by no means did I think it was a "bad" album.  Just a bit flat, perhaps.  Now that this "quirk" about the album has come to light, I'm just disappointed.  I think considering how lame MP has been in the press, the band had a real opportunity to handle this with class and release a badass album that showed they didn't need him to move on artistically.  I originally thought the album was a bit of a step back artistically, and now for me this is the proof.

Thank you for disagreeing in a way that isn't rude or insulting.  Cheers   

You know Marla, if the whole band took lie detecter tests to prove it was a coincidence, you still wouldn't believe it, BUT I bet you sure would like to see them do it.

[Nick]

Hooch, you have accused DT of plagiarism multiple times and yet have provided no proof of such accusations. No one in the band has even hinted at using old charts and the idea that they did is at best a highly contentious issue. Either you can provide substantial evidence, or you can stop slandering the band.

[MarlaHooch]

@MarlaHooch

I do hear some "structure/what ever name you want to use" similarities.

I don't understand what is the big deal about it, I&W is a DT album.. DT sounding like DT? whats wrong about it?

Ok, MP is not longer in the band and they are blatantly doing this?? BS.. portnoy was the first one always mentioning similarities from previous albums to describe a new album

Ok, it looks like they just used "The One Album", whats the problem, maybe they are trying to return to their roots (something everybody asked them for years)

And finally, the melody are different, the rift are different, the lyrics are different, the solos are different, the rhythm/time signature are different. conclusion... they are different songs

So i just don't understand why you are so mad with It.

Mad isn't the right word as my life obviously goes on.  I'm just disappointed as a fan.  I think it's disrespectful to Portnoy and a lazy move on their part.  They're better than this.  Read my prior posts and they'll tell you everything you're asking here.

[jdprsaga]

Mad isn't the right word as my life obviously goes on.  I'm just disappointed as a fan.  I think it's disrespectful to Portnoy and a lazy move on their part.  They're better than this.  Read my prior posts and they'll tell you everything you're asking here.

Ok, fair enough, i can see how you can have your own opinion and feel dissapointed. I do not have a problem with that.

About it being disrespectful to Portnoy, I can't see how it is disrespectful as it's a DT album and not a MP album, but, that's just my opinion, i guess we will have to disagree on that 

[erciccio]

Here is my final summary of this story.

1) OTBOA-PMU- yes, they are quite similar in the structure
2) BMUBMD-Sourrended (??)- no similarities at all. Unless you are really drunk
3) LNF-UAGM some similarities in some parts of the songs, but also major differences (already posted)
4) TITL-AD- this might be controversial, but IMHO I see no relevant similarities. I can see similarities with other DT songs (e.g. TSCO)
5) BITS-TTT (?). It's probably the Shaman (Italian?) that says "Ora che ho perso la vista ci vedo di più" in TTT  . Ah, yes, and they both have an intro. Anything else??
6) Outcry- Metropolis. Very limited similarities. They both have a long and crazy instrumental sections. All the others "charts" I read have major flaws....(where is Metropolis' Chorus?? and the intro?? and what about similarities within the instrumental??)
7) FFF-WFS. The are both piano+voice ballads. But have no relevant similarities in the structure of the song.
8) BAI-LTL. Very limited similarities in the structure...(main bass-based riff and a few more)

+

JLB clearly sent a message (for people that want to understand) that this whole idea of "structure copying" is just...."funny"? 

I think we have enough to proof that the main idea ot the "I&W mirroring" has no real evidence.

But if you like to play games, I think you can find same similarities with any other DT album and even with some TV series. Have fun! 

[MarlaHooch]

Mad isn't the right word as my life obviously goes on.  I'm just disappointed as a fan.  I think it's disrespectful to Portnoy and a lazy move on their part.  They're better than this.  Read my prior posts and they'll tell you everything you're asking here.

Ok, fair enough, i can see how you can have your own opinion and feel dissapointed. I do not have a problem with that.

About it being disrespectful to Portnoy, I can't see how it is disrespectful as it's a DT album and not a MP album, but, that's just my opinion, i guess we will have to disagree on that 

Fair enough.  You gotta read my posts man, I've probably explained this 5 or 6 times now.  Portnoy had a significant hand in writing I & W and I don't think it's appropriate for them to be re-using significant chunks of that album while under their press message of "we're a new band with a new beginning."  They should do something like this AFTER they've established Mangini and made a record with him.  Significantly borrowing from the past as their first move is, in my opinion, lazy, bad timing, and done in poor taste.  My older posts explain in greater detail but I'm not going to re-type the whole thing.  Just look me up and read them if you'd like more of my take.

I respect your opinion as well.  Take care.

[TheGoodDoctor]

Most of us don't take issue with the charts being  the same.

What we take issue with is people like Thiago Campos who want to imply that it was completely deliberate and for the sole purpose of lack of effort or worse "rehashing the past".

[johncal]

Most of us don't take issue with the charts being  the same.

What we take issue with is people like Thiago Campos who want to imply that it was completely deliberate and for the sole purpose of lack of effort or worse "rehashing the past".

Yes especially since Thiago is the Queen of Cover tunes and Mr. Portnoy is the King. A couple of "originals" those two.

[orcus116]

We need another discussion on this fictitious nonsense again?

[theseoafs]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_validation

This was never discussed, so I'll just quote it here. I was never familiar with the psychological concept, but it describes perfectly what's going on here.

Marla, what people here take issue with isn't that you believe this album has structural similarities to I&W (which are separate from similarities in arrangement, by the way). For the most part, we all agree. What we take issue with is that you believe and INSIST the band did this purposefully, which is something you'll never, ever, be able to prove, and which won't ever be proven because it's complete nonsense. There is no reason for them to have done this and "copying charts" - whatever that means, as a "chart" is not a strictly defined musical term - doesn't mean a whole lot because the vast majority of 7-12 minute Dream Theater songs since 6DOIT have followed the same rough skeleton.

You heard the similarities and are assigning the only meaning to it which makes sense to you: that they've lost their creative backbone, Portnoy, and are trying to come up with something clever to compensate. You would've come with another excuse to hate the album if there were no structural similarities. THAT'S why what you're saying is frustrating people.

[senecadawg2]

Wow, I can't honestly say that this is what I intended to start when I created this thread.

1. OBVIOUSLY some of the songs are so different the comparisons don't even really make sense (BMUBMD v Surrounded)
2. OBVIOUSLY even the songs with similar structures sound very different.

I just thought it would be interesting to see how you all compared the songs (using Thiago's theory).

Now this conversation/pointless argument can hopefully end.