Comparing songs from ADTOE with their I&W counterparts

[Enc3f4L0]

Sure, that's fair. I always found your analysis interesting and well-intentioned, but I'd maybe lay off the "they did all of this intentionally" stuff, because all signs are currently pointing to them NOT having done it intentionally. Until one of the band members directly gives us a reason to believe otherwise, we can assume it's coincidence.

That it is a coincidence isn't completely unlikely, anyway. I think it's perfectly rational and legal that JP and JR, during the Great Portnoy Debacle, spun I&W a few times, whose unique structural quirks then got stuck in their heads as they set out to compose the new album. This is called "being influenced by something". This sort of thing happens to artists all the time and I don't find fault with the composers. If anything it gives the hardcore DT listener an intimate look into their compositional minds. Not to mention that the music is 100% original and no particular track calls to mind another artist; it's classic DT all the way through. Structural similarities, meanwhile, mean next to nothing in the world of artistic ethics; the claim that another artist had "stolen another's structure" would not hold water in a lawsuit. Here, something happened which could be mistaken for something else, but if that something else had happened it wouldn't even be that much of a problem.

When it comes right down to it, Dream Theater has (ideally) never been the kind of group to write a verse and a chorus and then repeat them until they fill a four-minute track. They just play what sounds good to them, and what sounded good to them in '91 is still going to sound good to them in '11. DT sounding like DT is not a problem.

Dude, I totally respect your opinion about them not having done it intentionally (and your whole 2nd paragraph elaborating on what might've happened to make this one big coincidence), but that's just not my opinion, and I'd appreciate it if people respect it.
It's MY OPINION and I stated it on a note on my personal fb profile. How evil is that to piss anyone off? I'm just not a coincidence-type person, unless it's super small. Life has taught me that things usually happen for a reason. Chaos leads to randomness, unless people prevent it. What I'm hearing is just TOO MUCH for me to consider a coincidence. You are free to think otherwise, but I'm not gonna "lay-off" an opinion I have because people don't agree with it. Think about what you're asking of me.

And like I said, I stand by my conclusions regardless of the band coming out and confirming/denying it, and I wrote a whole big post (check back) a few minutes ago about my Why's.

[gentaishinigami]

No offense but if you'd stop coming back to the thread it would die on its own eventually.  Coming back and posting (even if you feel it is in defense) is just feeding new fuel to the fire.

[Enc3f4L0]

Or... if people who can't stand ADToE / I&W comparisons remained outside maybe this thread can move on with the OP's intent and be about dissecting and discussing music between those who do enjoy it...

[Chrissalix]

Or... if people who can't stand ADToE / I&W comparisons remained outside maybe this thread can move on with the OP's intent and be about dissecting and discussing music between those who do enjoy it...

And i'm sure we'd do that if you guys weren't slandering the band by saying it is deliberate when you have no primary evidence. Otherwise discuss away.

[Perpetual Change]

Another example of obtuse interpretation of my text is evident when people focus on the "BMU/BMD" / Surrounded and BITS and TTT associations and try to disqualify me and void my article intirely because of them. If you read (my UNEDITED TEXT) you'll notice I wrote a paragraph specifically for these songs, and clearly stated I was just SUSPECTING the matches, because of how the rest of the album paired up with I&W and these were the 2 that were left.

Well, that's because it's evidence that your conclusion (all this clamoring about "the charts! they used the charts!") is such a painful reach. Two, maybe three songs have the same song structure as some Images and Words songs, but so do a lot of songs. It's not really noteworthy.

Plus, there's absolutely no evidence that John or anyone else specifically had any "charts" in mind. Maybe he just likes those structures, and thought it was a shame to only ever use them once or twice? In fact, there's video evidence of him wanting to do a solo spot with the same structure as UaGM from the BC&SL writing sessions, and Mike shot the idea down, so it'd really be no surprise that he'd jump at the first chance to do it now. Have you looked into whether he's written songs with similar structures to that one before Images or after? I don't think so. That's one big problem with your blog post.

What we know is that some songs on ADTOE have the same structure as some songs on Images and Words, which isn't a big deal since there's absolutely nothing wrong with using the same or similar song structures over again. On the other hand, some songs don't match the Images and Words songs at all, and instead of acknowledging this your article tries to fit the square peg into the round hole with some really weak comparisons. 

This is only being blown out of proportion because you pointed out a handful of similarities, glossed over a handful (and much greater number) of differences, and launched into an absurd conclusion that the band must have used the same exact charts they used for Images and Words to write this record.

If you don't see the gaping wholes and jumps in your conclusion now, I doubt you ever will.

[The Dark Master]

Or... if people who can't stand ADToE / I&W comparisons remained outside maybe this thread can move on with the OP's intent and be about dissecting and discussing music between those who do enjoy it...

The problem with that is simply the fact that not everyone agrees with your assertions.  Even if you willingly admit that your theories have a few holes (and it seems like, at least concerning a couple songs, you do), the bottom line is that people who disagree with your findings are going to say so, and by consistently posting with the "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude that you have been thus far, you really are just fanning the flames on this issue.

To make matters worse, the first person to respond on your findings was none other then Mike Portnoy, who then used the opportunity to make a passive aggressive jab at the band's artistic credibility.  Now that was really no fault of yours; you could not possibly have foreseen that MP would be the first person to agree with you, but the assumptions he made in his response to your discoveries have really tainted the discussion of this topic, with some people going so far as to use this issue to attack the creative integrity of the band and their current lineup, and others now view the very mentioning of musical self-referencing as an insult to the band because of that comment by MP

I'm all for having an enlightened debate on this topic, as I do find it fascinating, but I think as the man who first brought this issue to public consciousness, you should, at the very least, expect some very resolute opposition, especially when MP's comments tied this topic of reused song structures to the band's current level of creativity.  You have, in a very real sense, poked a wasp's nest with this issue, so don't be surprised by the occasional sting.

[Enc3f4L0]

Well, that's because it's evidence that your conclusion (all this clamoring about "the charts! they used the charts!") is such a painful reach. Two, maybe three songs have the same song structure as some Images and Words songs, but so do a lot of songs. It's not really noteworthy.

Plus, there's absolutely no evidence that John or anyone else specifically had any "charts" in mind. Maybe he just likes those structures, and thought it was a shame to only ever use them once or twice? In fact, there's video evidence of him wanting to do a solo spot with the same structure as UaGM from the BC&SL writing sessions, and Mike shot the idea down, so it'd really be no surprise that he'd jump at the first chance to do it now. Have you looked into whether he's written songs with similar structures to that one before Images or after? I don't think so. That's one big problem with your blog post.

What we know is that some songs on ADTOE have the same structure as some songs on Images and Words, which isn't a big deal since there's absolutely nothing wrong with using the same or similar song structures over again. On the other hand, some songs don't match the Images and Words songs at all, and instead of acknowledging this your article tries to fit the square peg into the round hole with some really weak comparisons. 

This is only being blown out of proportion because you pointed out a handful of similarities, glossed over a handful (and much greater number) of differences, and launched into an absurd conclusion that the band must have used the same exact charts they used for Images and Words to write this record.

If you don't see the gaping wholes and jumps in your conclusion now, I doubt you ever will.

Since you seem to want to discuss: Please suggest any 2 DT songs that are similar structure-wise in the same way I proposed and demonstrated.
Any 2. It doesn't need to be as complex as say "Metropolis Part 1" or "A Change of Season", go for the popier ones and enlighten me.

No I haven't gone after their back catalog searching for positive matches to an I&W song, but then again I didn't have the need to. Why don't you do this and prove your point to us all?
The reason I made my claim and A/Bed the songs was because I was hearing one similarity after the other, on one song after the other. That motivated me to A/B them. The similarities upon casual listening motivated the thorough comparisons and documentation, not the other way around.

I challenge you, or any other one who popped up on this thread to write out charts that fit well while listening back to 2 DT songs. I don't care what you have to omit to make them look convincing, just do it and let's see the end product!

Endless Sacrifice - Metropolis Part 1?
A Rite of Passage - As I Am - Pull me Under?

Any takers?

And please spare me the "I have better things to do" BS. If you did you'd keep your ass outside and let people who are interested in the matter discuss without derails.

[Enc3f4L0]

The problem with that is simply the fact that not everyone agrees with your assertions.  Even if you willingly admit that your theories have a few holes (and it seems like, at least concerning a couple songs, you do), the bottom line is that people who disagree with your findings are going to say so, and by consistently posting with the "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude that you have been thus far, you really are just fanning the flames on this issue.

To make matters worse, the first person to respond on your findings was none other then Mike Portnoy, who then used the opportunity to make a passive aggressive jab at the band's artistic credibility.  Now that was really no fault of yours; you could not possibly have foreseen that MP would be the first person to agree with you, but the assumptions he made in his response to your discoveries have really tainted the discussion of this topic, with some people going so far as to use this issue to attack the creative integrity of the band and their current lineup, and others now view the very mentioning of musical self-referencing as an insult to the band because of that comment by MP

I'm all for having an enlightened debate on this topic, as I do find it fascinating, but I think as the man who first brought this issue to public consciousness, you should, at the very least, expect some very resolute opposition, especially when MP's comments tied this topic of reused song structures to the band's current level of creativity.  You have, in a very real sense, poked a wasp's nest with this issue, so don't be surprised by the occasional sting.

Once again, someone claiming I said something I haven't, and what's worst, as a "quote".
Where exactly did I say "I'm right, you're wrong"? All I've done so far in this forum is try to get people to RESPECT each other's differences and opinions and allow those interested to have HEALTHY discussions on this matter, to no success.

You know what? I give up. It's like trying to talk a plaster wall into something around here.

I propose the people who want to discuss the matter to get together on another forum (as far away from being a DT fan oriented forum possible) so we can have some peace. One where thread derail = BAN!

[erciccio]

Since you seem to want to discuss: Please suggest any 2 DT songs that are similar structure-wise in the same way I proposed and demonstrated.
Any 2. It doesn't need to be as complex as say "Metropolis Part 1" or "A Change of Season", go for the popier ones and enlighten me.

Thiago (is that you BTW?) sorry but you haven't demonstrated anything special.

Yes, the PMU-OTBOA was quite intersting and mostly correct. The game should have finished there.

All the other "charts" you posted have major flaws. What stands out is that some songs have some parts that have some things similar in the structure. Wow.
Many people (including me) have posted several times all the flaws and omissions, but you are continuing to ignore them.
If we play the game in this way and omit from the analysis things you don't like, you can find similarities with any album
in the world.

To sum up:
Are there some similarities? YES
Are they relevant? NO
Is there a "big picture mirroring scheme between I&W and ADTOE?" (that's your theory by the way) NO

Relax. And stop thinking you're right and the rest of the world is wrong.

It's like driving on a highway where "all the other idiots are driving in the wrong direction (!)".

[erciccio]

  ..

[gentaishinigami]

Seriously though you have got to take one of your own chill pills when dealing with the internet man.  You are making the mistake of continually arguing your point.  It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, it is the internet so it's moot.  You would have better luck smashing your head into a brick wall trying to make it understand pain.

I don't even agree with your conclusion of them doing it on purpose despite no proof or how you are going about things; I'm just trying to save you some grief.  Later on you will probably look back and be like "wtf why did I bother arguing with them all!"  You've already stated your defense numerous times stating it more won't change opinions.

 

[The Dark Master]

Once again, someone claiming I said something I haven't, and what's worst, as a "quote".
Where exactly did I say "I'm right, you're wrong"? All I've done so far in this forum is try to get people to RESPECT each other's differences and opinions and allow those interested to have HEALTHY discussions on this matter, to no success.

You know what? I give up. It's like trying to talk a plaster wall into something around here.

I propose the people who want to discuss the matter to get together on another forum (as far away from being a DT fan oriented forum possible) so we can have some peace. One where thread derail = BAN!

First of all, I never claimed you said  "I'm right, you're wrong" exactly; what I said what that you have an "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude on this matter, and I used quotation marks around that phrase for grammatical purposes, not because I was attempting to quote you, specifically.  Furthermore, I find it rather rich that you claim you were attempting to get people to respect other opinions when you blatantly and condescendingly shoot down anyone who disagrees with even the smallest points of your arguments.  Your inflammatory challenge to Perpetual Change further exemplifies this.  It seems that you are less interested in a lively debate over this topic, and much more dedicated to just attempting to force everyone to agree with you. 

I also can't help but notice that you completely ignored the entire rest of my post, which not only explained why some people may be having problems with your assertions, but was also rather politely worded.  In fact, in previous posts I have agreed with at least parts of your claims, and stated I was more the willing to explore this topic further.  But no, you chose to take offense at the very notion that I did not accept your thesis, the the defense thereof, as flawless, as well as my personal dislike of the tone in many of your posts.  So much for having "HEALTHY discussions" (See, now there, I actually was quoting you, rather then simply generalizing your demeanor.  There is a difference).

So go ahead, and "give up" on us.  If you don't want to actually attempt to persuade people to your side of the debate, and would much rather just claim to be infallible in your arguments, then I guess there is really no "discussion" to be had.

[Ħ]

Even though I disagree with the similar structure thing:

1. OTBOA vs PMU- OTBOA
2. Lost Not Forgotten vs UAGM- tie, both are not good
3. This Is the Life vs. Another Day- This is the Life
4. Far From Heaven/BAI vs WFS/LTL- WFS/LTL
5. Outcry vs Metropolis Pt. 1- Outcry
6. Bridges in the Sky vs Take the Time- Take the Time
7. BMUBMD vs Surrounded- Surrounded

3-3

[gentaishinigami]

1. OTBOA vs PMU - OTBOA
2. Lost Not Forgotten vs UAGM - UAGM
3. This Is the Life vs. Another Day- TITL
4. Far From Heaven vs WFS - WFS
5. Breaking all Illusions vs Learning to Live - BAI
6. Outcry vs Metropolis Pt. 1 - Metropolis
7. Bridges in the Sky vs Take the Time - The Shaman's Trance 
8. BMUBMD vs Surrounded - BMUBMD

ADTOE: 5
I&W: 3

[Perpetual Change]

So go ahead, and "give up" on us.  If you don't want to actually attempt to persuade people to your side of the debate, and would much rather just claim to be infallible in your arguments, then I guess there is really no "discussion" to be had.

My lord, this.

Thaigo has ignored the majority of my posts in this thread, and when he does finally comment on them he completely misses the point and moves the goalpost, as he did here:

*snip*

It's a shame that some people approach their own observations about music with such anger and self-importance, especially if the minute someone questions you you're gonna wave your arms in the air and get an attitude. Thaigo, I've said it once and I'll say it for the billionth time. You blew the ADTOE/I&W similarities out of proportion, you blew James LaBrie's response out of proportion, and now, surprise, you're blowing what the "deniers" here say out of proportion.

I propose the people who want to discuss the matter to get together on another forum (as far away from being a DT fan oriented forum possible) so we can have some peace. One where thread derail = BAN!

Honestly, that's a pretty cruddy idea. There are plenty of people HERE who want to discuss this with you. It's not their fault you're just getting angry at them or ignoring them all.

[Aquila Chrysaetos]

but because I now think all of this was never meant see the light of day and be discussed by the fans.

This is something that I think can't be true.
It's common knowledge that a lot of DT fans are active musicians and admire the complexity and technicality of the music.
Given this, I don't believe they'd just think "let's hope no one ever notices"
Because I'm sure they'd think someone (of thousands of fans over the world) would figure it out.

[reo73]

I'm not sure I would go as far to say none of this is meant to see the light of day.  I can't imagine that JP and JR would be so naive that a great deal of fans, especially those of us who are music nerds, would not pick up on this phenomenon right away and start making noise about it.  Maybe they didn't think it would come to the surface so quickly.  Or maybe they didn't expect it to cause such a shit storm and for MP to get involved.  But at some point I think they should say something about it and if not on their own accord I am hoping an interviewer will ask them directly without letting them off the hook.  At this point, maybe they are enjoying sitting back and watching the fire works go off, but if down the road they dismiss all this as just "fans having fun" and don't cop to it I will be dissappointed.  I also agree that maybe it is not Labrie's place to spill the beans on this one.

I have now compared all the songs on the albums to the I&W disc by charting them myself and have come up with this conclusion....

The songs that to me are an obvious intentional rework/reinterpretation of the existing I&W chart are:

OTBOA * PMU
LNF * UAGM
LITL * AD
OUTCRY * MET P1

Songs that take inspiration but I can't conclude they follow the chart are:

FFH * WFS
BAI * LTL

Songs on ADTOE that seem to be their very own unique creation:  BMU,BMD, BITS and BTS

I just want to make it clear that at this point I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with this.  At first I was quite hesitant about it and unsure how I felt, and actually was a bit distracted by the songs that charted up together.  But now I have come to appreciate the use of this reinterpretation and find those charted songs to be some of the best on ADTOE.  I find Outcry to be an exceptional song, better than Met P1, and love how they injected more of a true chorus in the song.

As for people who come in and say we are making all this up, that DT has done this before, or that we are trying to ruin this album in some way, all I can say is you are entitled to your opinion and how you feel but you are wrong.   

[Perpetual Change]

So using a similar structure is now a "reworking" and "re-imagining"?

My god. I can't argue with this anymore. You guys just keep making more and more out of this. I'm starting to see more and more wisdom in James' twitter response earlier.

[reo73]

So using a similar structure is now a "reworking" and "re-imagining"?

My god. I can't argue with this anymore. You guys just keep making more and more out of this. I'm starting to see more and more wisdom in James' twitter response earlier.

Just semantics.  The song structures (form, chart, or whatever else you want to call it) are still the same, but they have been reworked, reinterpreted, or whatever else word you want to use (I never said re-imagined) with new music.

[BlobVanDam]

As for people who come in and say we are making all this up, that DT has done this before, or that we are trying to ruin this album in some way, all I can say is you are entitled to your opinion and how you feel but you are wrong.   

Stop being so arrogant. This is why nobody is taking you seriously. You have NO proof that this was actually done (the chart that was posted for Outcry/Metropolis has already been picked to absolute shreds), and certainly not enough to assume anything intentional was done by the band. What you have posted in this thread is no more fact that anything else. It is merely your opinion.
I am willing to bet that nobody would have ever noticed or brought this up here if Thiago hadn't posted anything. Otherwise it would have been mentioned for previous albums where they used the same "structures" for a song.

Instead of telling everyone who doesn't agree with your conspiracy to get lost, how about you listen to all of the valid evidence against it and admit that it's quite possibly nothing more than over analysis. Nobody here has denied the vague similarities between a couple of the songs (like 2 at most). And everybody has given fair discussion to these theories.
Just because we don't agree with anything further than this does not mean you're right, or that you're smart enough to find something we missed. It means we're not buying into an over-analysis that as of yet has not proved a single thing rather than "this bit sort of reminds me of this thing". We have judged the evidence and made our minds up based on the evidence presented, rather than making up our minds, then finding evidence to try and substantiate it.

If you aren't willing to discuss this with an open objective mind, then it's no wonder you don't want to allow anybody who disagrees with you near the thread.

[charm.quark]

My first post here, hope it makes sense!
I definitely could not see any similarities in the music, and thought that the people who saw the similarities were crazy. Now after reading this thread I see what they are saying- that it is the structure. That I think could well be true and they have presented enough evidence to support their belief. Although given that I'm a music lay person I do not know how to interpret that evidence myself to agree or refute their conclusions! But what I did like was reo73 and orthogonals attempts at explaining the concept with their analogies ( the pizza and scaffold), because that made me finally understand what they were trying to say. And I really think the concept is really cool. Don't care if it's intentional or not, although I do understand their rationale for thinking it could be ( and I do think they have stated their rationale clearly and logically). If it was intentional I think it's an extremely smart idea.
But I definitely think Thiago and Marla are inhibiting this discussion with their aggressive manner of posting. At this point im not inclined to listen to them even if they stated thr sun rises in the East! And I don't think DT has anything to " admit to" or " confess". In fact they should not even comment at this point IMO because Anything they say at this point will fan the flames. The fact is as someone stated in the prior post-MP with his words gave a negative feel to the whole issue unfortunately. And what I think would have been very cool is now controversial.
I love this album so much, my second fave with awake below IandW. And I have no ane I know in person that I can discuss it with. And I posted inthis thread because I feel that reo 73 and orthogonal and a few others have really been very good at getting their point across- and from being completely disbelieving, I understand what they are saying. So this post is just to support their attitude and politeness!

[reo73]

As for people who come in and say we are making all this up, that DT has done this before, or that we are trying to ruin this album in some way, all I can say is you are entitled to your opinion and how you feel but you are wrong.   

Stop being so arrogant. This is why nobody is taking you seriously. You have NO proof that this was actually done (the chart that was posted for Outcry/Metropolis has already been picked to absolute shreds), and certainly not enough to assume anything intentional was done by the band. What you have posted in this thread is no more fact that anything else. It is merely your opinion.
I am willing to bet that nobody would have ever noticed or brought this up here if Thiago hadn't posted anything. Otherwise it would have been mentioned for previous albums where they used the same "structures" for a song.

Instead of telling everyone who doesn't agree with your conspiracy to get lost, how about you listen to all of the valid evidence against it and admit that it's quite possibly nothing more than over analysis. Nobody here has denied the vague similarities between a couple of the songs (like 2 at most). And everybody has given fair discussion to these theories.
Just because we don't agree with anything further than this does not mean you're right, or that you're smart enough to find something we missed. It means we're not buying into an over-analysis that as of yet has not proved a single thing rather than "this bit sort of reminds me of this thing". We have judged the evidence and made our minds up based on the evidence presented, rather than making up our minds, then finding evidence to try and substantiate it.

If you aren't willing to discuss this with an open objective mind, then it's no wonder you don't want to allow anybody who disagrees with you near the thread.

See the smiley after the sentence meant a light hearted sarcastic jab in fun, but I guess you missed that.  I wrote it because it seems to get you guys all worked up and I guess it worked better that I thought.

As for your analysis of the Outcry/Met chart I presented, all you ever did was give me some ambiguous answer to my question about it being "written half-way between" the two.  I don't even know what this means and is hardly a constructive analysis of anything.  You never even posted anything in response to my question about where the chart AS WRITTEN is wrong to either song.

If you can present to me some intelligent, coherent argument about the charts deficiencies then I will be glad to engage you but as far as i can tell, all you are interested in is attacking these ideas, and the people presenting them, as some kind of conspiracy theory.

[Cruithne]

"I think absolutely nothing of it." is the part I don't get... Is that supposed to mean "He's wrong!"?
To me that statement (key word: statement, not evidence) is much closer to a "No comment." than anything else.

It means "I think absolutely nothing of it".
It means it's neither here nor there to him.
It means he is insouciant about the matter.
It means it is a matter of little importance to JLB.
It means he either doesn't know or just simply doesn't care.
It means that we're one down, 3 to go, from the people involved in the writing who might be able to give a definitive answer as to how intentional the similarities in song structure are.
It means that for now you should remain open-minded about any conclusions you wish to draw.

[erciccio]

I'm starting to see more and more wisdom in James' twitter response earlier.

I'm not JLB, and I'm not Thiago.

So I can only say what would have been my interpretation if I had received such a message from James.

"Dear erciccio. I'm a 48 years old man, a professional musician. You are a nice kid and you play some nice covers of my work. Fine. You are assuming I'm cheating while doing my job. That's...not very nice of you. To be polite.  But I'm a bit older than you, and have something better to do in my life. So for me the discussion is over. If you really have nothing better to do...go on and continue to play the game. Not sure it's going to help your career.  For sure, I'm not really appreciating...Bye."

[BlackInk]

On the Backs of Angels / Pull Me Under:                                      On the Backs of Angels
Build Me Up, Break Me Down / Surrounded:                                 Build Me Up, Break Me Down
Lost Not Forgotten / Under A Glass Moon:                                   Under A Glass Moon
This Is the Life / Another Day:                                                      This Is the Life
Bridges In the Sky / Take the Time:                                              Bridges In the Sky
Outcry / Metropolis Part 1 - The Miracle and the Sleeper:            Metropolis Part 1 - The Miracle and the Sleeper
Far From Heaven / Wait For Sleep:                                              Far From Heaven
Breaking All Illusions / Learning to Live:                                       Breaking All Illusion

[BlobVanDam]

See the smiley after the sentence meant a light hearted sarcastic jab in fun, but I guess you missed that.  I wrote it because it seems to get you guys all worked up and I guess it worked better that I thought.

As for your analysis of the Outcry/Met chart I presented, all you ever did was give me some ambiguous answer to my question about it being "written half-way between" the two.  I don't even know what this means and is hardly a constructive analysis of anything.  You never even posted anything in response to my question about where the chart AS WRITTEN is wrong to either song.

If you can present to me some intelligent, coherent argument about the charts deficiencies then I will be glad to engage you but as far as i can tell, all you are interested in is attacking these ideas, and the people presenting them, as some kind of conspiracy theory.

Uh I actually wrote quite a detailed and intelligent analysis of why the chart was complete BS. You kind of ignored it. The old "ignore posts then claim I'm the one ignoring the discussion" ain't gonna cut it.

But let me summarize it - your chart ignored all but one instrument, then skipped over 1/3 of the entire song. You tried dancing around the entire chorus issue poorly, but it didn't work. That's where we were at. Thanks.

[reo73]

See the smiley after the sentence meant a light hearted sarcastic jab in fun, but I guess you missed that.  I wrote it because it seems to get you guys all worked up and I guess it worked better that I thought.

As for your analysis of the Outcry/Met chart I presented, all you ever did was give me some ambiguous answer to my question about it being "written half-way between" the two.  I don't even know what this means and is hardly a constructive analysis of anything.  You never even posted anything in response to my question about where the chart AS WRITTEN is wrong to either song.

If you can present to me some intelligent, coherent argument about the charts deficiencies then I will be glad to engage you but as far as i can tell, all you are interested in is attacking these ideas, and the people presenting them, as some kind of conspiracy theory.

Uh I actually wrote quite a detailed and intelligent analysis of why the chart was complete BS. You kind of ignored it. The old "ignore posts then claim I'm the one ignoring the discussion" ain't gonna cut it.

But let me summarize it - your chart ignored all but one instrument, then skipped over 1/3 of the entire song. You tried dancing around the entire chorus issue poorly, but it didn't work. That's where we were at. Thanks.

You are arguing from a 'musical' standpoint which is not what we are talking about here.  We are talking about a structural standpoint.  Of course all the music or instrumentation is different.  The guitar riffs all are all different, the keys are all different, the vocals melodies are all different.  No one is debating that.  Even parts where there was a mellow guitar in one song is done with keys in another and parts that sound like a verse in one song sound more like a chorus in the other.  And some sections are expanded on more than the other.

But if you look beyond the instrumentation you will see DT still arranged the music of both in the same order.  The progressions reappear in the same places.  The vocals reappear in the same places.  The dynamics follow the same pattern.  Even some of the more intricate embellishments and style reappear in the same places.  This is what we are talking about, not the instrumentation of how the music sounds.

If you can't see that then our discussion is going to go 'round and 'round.  I am not sure if you are a musician or not but by what you arguing back to me my only conclusion is that you aren't looking at it from a song structure standpoint but rather an instrumentation standpoint. 

[BlobVanDam]

I don't know what you think structure is, but ignoring the sections as they are defined by vocals (ie chorus/verse) is not a valid concession. Even by your own idea of structure with guitar and other things mentioned, it was wonked. You also ignored 1/3 of the song. Remember that point? No, of course not. You skimmed over that one. Your chart was simplified to "guitar goes soft here. Some vocals come in", and still didn't match.

Of course I am talking about structure. I'm yet to figure out what you are talking about though.

[reo73]

I don't know what you think structure is, but ignoring the sections as they are defined by vocals (ie chorus/verse) is not a valid concession. Even by your own idea of structure with guitar and other things mentioned, it was wonked. You also ignored 1/3 of the song. Remember that point? No, of course not. You skimmed over that one. Your chart was simplified to "guitar goes soft here. Some vocals come in", and still didn't match.

Of course I am talking about structure. I'm yet to figure out what you are talking about though.

I think we will have to just come to the conclusion that our minds don't meet on this because we are looking at the songs differently.  You hear the chorus in Outcry but fail to see that they are using the same progression underneath it respective to another part in the song that is arranged in the same order as it is in Metropolis.  The only difference is that in Metropolis this part feels more like an extension of the verse.  This is why I tried to stay away from labeling things verse/chorus because those are melodic terms but don't speak of what is going on underneath with the chord progression or riff that is being played respective to the other parts of the song.

As for the other 1/3 of the song you say I skipped over, if you go back and look at my first chart that I posted (page 1) you will note that I said the instrumental section follows more of a rough sketch but does not follow the chart for Met very strict.  A lot of the elements and feel are the same but they do not chart that close if you write it out.  But, nonetheless this does not bother my opinion on this because the rest of the song does.

[BlobVanDam]

I'm going to keep ignoring you as long as you keep saying crap like I "fail to see" what you do. I checked over the chart. Your simplified your idea of structure until it fitted your concept.

You're not listening to my arguments, so I'll let you think it was intentional. And I will believe it wasn't. Even better, I'll just ask the band themselves and know for sure! No point using that as proof though, because you'll probably claim they're lying to hide the truth.

[iamtheeviltwin]

Reo, the problem with your analysis (and by extension Thiago's original analysis) is that what you are calling the "structure" of the song is being boiled or expanded in ways that supports the opinion that you are positing in the first place (re: confirmation bias). 

Take your TiTL/AD comparison:

0:00  INTRO 1: Acoustic Arpeggio   0:00
0:14  INTRO 2: Guitar Solo over Full Band playing  0:17
0:30  VERSE 1A: Piano Only w/vocals  0:44
0:41  VERSE 1A:  Guitar Volume Swells Enter  1:02
0:57  VERSE 1B:  Progression changes, clean guitar overlay  1:17
1:11  TRANSITION:  Intro 1 Reprise w/solo  1:45

(Note for TRANSITION:  In AD this is the intro chords with the sax solo.  In TITL they expand on this with a Mark Knopfler style guitar solo first and then the Keys solo over the Intro Chords starting at 2:03)

1:24  VERSE 2A:  Full Band  2:19
1:51  VERSE 2B:  VERSE 1B Reprise w/Full Band.  Music Builds   2:36
2:03  BRIDGE 1A:  Sustained Guitars Chords w/keys (No Vocals)   3:04
2:19  BRIDGE 1A:  Vocals Enter  3:25
2:32  BRIDGE 1B:  Progression Changes and builds  3:42
2:58  GUITAR SOLO:  Guitar Solo over verse progression power chords  4:25
3:27  VERSE 2B REPRISE:  Full Band w/Vocals  5:03
3:44  OUTRO:  Intro w/solo over  5:50 

What you are calling the structure of the song is this:
Intro1-Intro2-Verse1A-Verse1A-Verse1B-Transition-Verse2A-Verse2B-Bridge1A-Bridge1A-Bridge1B-Guitar Solo-Verse2B Reprise-Outro

When actually the structure of the song is this:
Intro-Verse-Transistion-Verse-Bridge-Solo-Reprise-Outro

Notice how much extraneous data and expansion you included in your analyis, such as "Sustained Guitars Chords w/keys (No Vocals)".  The song's structure has absolutely nothing to do with instrumentation it is the basic form of the song. 

You took great pains to expand certain parts of the structure and split them out to support your thesis:

1:24  VERSE 2A:  Full Band  2:19
1:51  VERSE 2B:  VERSE 1B Reprise w/Full Band.  Music Builds   2:36
2:03  BRIDGE 1A:  Sustained Guitars Chords w/keys (No Vocals)   3:04

However, when something doesn't support your thesis you minimize those differences such as this:

(Note for TRANSITION:  In AD this is the intro chords with the sax solo.  In TITL they expand on this with a Mark Knopfler style guitar solo first and then the Keys solo over the Intro Chords starting at 2:03)

This is one of the reasons that people question your conclusions.  You manipulate and expand the definition of song structure to fit your conclusion and then ignore or minimize those places that do not fit your conclusion.  This was also the problem with Thiago's orginal post about all of this.

If we are talking song structure, then boil it down to song structure:  Intro-Verse-Transistion-Verse-Bridge-Solo-Reprise-Outro...in this case a structure that I am sure you could find in many songs.

However, you have expanded the definition of structure to talk about instrumentation, arrangement, and other musical ideas that are not the song structure.  If you are going to argue from that expanded definition of structure, then you must be prepared to defend against the complaints from Blob that continue to expand that structural definition.  It is hard to argue/discuss this topic with you in good faith when you expand/contract your definitions and then get upset when the person you are arguing/discussing with does the same.

[weddingnails]

i can't understand why people are comparing LNF to UAGM..I JUST DON'T GET IT!!!..it's driving me nuts.

[reo73]

I'm going to keep ignoring you as long as you keep saying crap like I "fail to see" what you do. I checked over the chart. Your simplified your idea of structure until it fitted your concept.

You're not listening to my arguments, so I'll let you think it was intentional. And I will believe it wasn't. Even better, I'll just ask the band themselves and know for sure! No point using that as proof though, because you'll probably claim they're lying to hide the truth.

You have been just as disrespectful to me so get off your high-horse.

Are you saying you did see it but you intentionally didn't acknowledge it?  And are you admitting that my chart is correct but is so simplified that it proves nothing?  I never quite understand what you are saying in all this because you seem to beat around the bush on it the whole way through.

[Orthogonal]

*snip*

Thanks for keeping an open mind.

[Orthogonal]

*snip*

Valid criticism of the TITL/AD comparison, it is a more generic and widely used structure overall and could be coincidental. However, I find it curious why you used this one to pick on when the others are quite a bit more complex and unique. I would value your criticism on why the A/B compare for LNF/UAGM or Outcry/Metropolis is oversimplified when they are clearly not generic song flows.