Comparing songs from ADTOE with their I&W counterparts

[duncan3dc]

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). 

*snip*

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. 

I'll agree that when I am doing this analysis I am not sticking solely to structure, but including instrumentation when it's relevant (ie when both match up)
But to me that's the whole point, it seems to me like they took an existing structure and built a new song around it, with various nods to the previous track's instrumentation along the way. However, they did not do so at the expense of the new song, so if they thought of a cool section/fill/riff that caused the new track to diverge, then they went along with it.

Now of course when doing these comparisons I am aiming to make a match up between the 2 songs, and I do take some liberties with them to make them match up. However when I have tried to do so with other match ups that people have suggested (earlier in this thread) using the same "loose" translation between the songs, I've been unable to match them up. This, coupled with the fact that both sets of tracks are from a single album, is what is significant about this to me.

Again, this is all my opinion. I think they have done this on purpose, as it seems far too extreme to be merely coincidence. If Petrucci or Rudess come out and say it wasn't intentional, then of course I'll take their word for it. But I'll be disappointed, because I think this is a really awesome idea, and I think it worked really well.

One final point about the loose translation, I don't believe that's what I'm doing with Pull Me Under/On The Backs Of Angels, those 2 just seem so spot on to me. So if you could point out some areas in those breakdowns that are murky then I'd be interested to read them.

[Orthogonal]

Duncan, I must have missed your breakdown of PMU/OTBOA. I know you've stated they follow very closely, but I don't remember an A/B compare.

[reo73]

@iamtheeviltwin....I see your point.  My structures are as detailed as I can make them to the point where the structure I have written fits both songs.  For instance, I call out a VERSE 1A and 1B.  This is because in both songs the chord progression changes, and the vocal melody changes during the verse so I note the change by labeling it A & B.  This happens in both songs.  But you are correct in that I have formulated the chart to fit both songs.  But, I was also careful to note how the songs were different in some of of these sections such as the Transition and the Outro.

I think what it comes down to then is how you interpret these similarities.  Even though I simplify the charts to fit both songs the charts are still quite detailed, enough so that I believe them to be intentional.  Too coincidental for me, even thought the reinterpretation takes a lot of liberties along the way.

[BlobVanDam]

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.

There are some vague similarities from PMU/ATBOA, and LNF/UAGM. These do not extend to the song structures. Your chart was not correct, even after you simplified it down to beyond the point where was actually a true structure, or anything of relevance at all to the argument.

I'm not beating around the bush. I spent more than enough time discrediting your charts. I don't care to repeat myself.

[iamtheeviltwin]

I used that one for two reasons:

1) Laziness - I didn't want to dig through the thread and find the original post to quote from.  That particular one was in the same summary page so I could easily snip and quote.

2) The criticism is the same.  The problem with his analysis and his definition of song structure are the same in both the outcry/metropolis post and the TiTL/AD post.  Yes, Metropolis (and Outcry) have a more complex song structure and in my opinion are far more representative of a unique DT-style song structure.  However, when Reo chooses to include instrumentation in his structural analysis he is no longer analyzing song structure.  When he breaks his detailed breakdown of the structures to ignore the instrumental sections, which by his own admission are quite different, it brings down the quality of his analysis and hurts his argument.

BTW - there is nothing wrong with breaking a basic song structure (Intro-Verse-Chorus-Bridge-Verse-Outro) up to analyze the underlying sections more closely, however, once again if you are going break up the Intro into IntroA/IntroB, then don't just go Instrumental Section and expect someone to take the first part seriously.  Moreso when the part you don't break down doesn't show the similarities that you are claiming about the structure.

[Mebert78]

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.

I don't want to get involved in the debate, but I just wanted to point out that I said earlier in this thread that "Disappear" is structurely similar to "Space-Dye Vest."  It begins and ends with a haunting piano melody like bookends, it has a full-band climax toward the end, and it is the song to end a CD.  In addition, I seem to recall Portnoy saying at some point that "Disappear" was that lineup's "Space-Dye Vest."  Not sure where I read that, so I can't provide a link.  So, to me, it's kind of strange that Portnoy would criticze the band for possibly revisiting past song structures, when he acknowledges the same thing was done under his watch with Disappear/SDV.

Anyway, I think it's great if DT realized they lost their sound a bit in recent albums and returned to their roots structure-wise. 

[erciccio]

*snip*

I would value your criticism on why the A/B compare for LNF/UAGM

There are at least 3 MAJOR differences in the structure of these songs (not considering the horses...). To be more specific, there are parts in LNF there are not in UAGM

A Piano intro (that somebody claims was added just to "hide the cheating"... )
A long and crazy unison section
A much longer instrumental section, including a "3 parts" guitar solo.

Plus many other minor differences if you go down one level (e.g. guitar kicks in with piano arpeggios in the background...unlike UAGM..)

But is seems like you continue to ignore them.

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

[duncan3dc]

Duncan, I must have missed your breakdown of PMU/OTBOA. I know you've stated they follow very closely, but I don't remember an A/B compare.

I don't think I've posted any previously. Here it is, I've not done timestamps though

clean riff - played by guitar only
basic drums building, with simple keyboard lead
kicks into a distorted full band version of the first riff
then a palm muted riff, with the 2nd half accompanied by a keyboard lead
fill into the verse
basic verse, simple chords
bridge 1
bridge 2 using keyboard lead
fill into the verse (this is a vocal break in pull me under)
basic verse, half the length of the first one
bridge 3
guitar lead into the chorus
chorus
post-chorus
post-chorus with vocals
bridge
bridge using keyboard lead
guitar lead into the chorus
chorus
keyboard break
drums join the keyboard while it continues
guitar solo
guitar lead into the chorus
chorus
repeated chorus with slightly different rhythm
bridge variant
repeats while keyboard plays a lead
outro

[reo73]

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.

There are some vague similarities from PMU/ATBOA, and LNF/UAGM. These do not extend to the song structures. Your chart was not correct, even after you simplified it down to beyond the point where was actually a true structure, or anything of relevance at all to the argument.

I'm not beating around the bush. I spent more than enough time discrediting your charts. I don't care to repeat myself.

Well, I am still not seeing how it was not correct.  Like I stated, I do not call things out by verse/chorus on that one but by the main underlying music progression or riff being played.  I openly acknowledged that they made the part in Met that sounds more like the 2nd part of the verse (the part that I label RIFF 2) sound like a Chorus in Outcry.  I even said it was a great change.  The two parts are drastically different, except that they occur in the exact same location in each of the songs which supports my conclusion.

[iamtheeviltwin]

On a note about the topic of comparing song structures in general between I&W and ADTOE. 

There are some structural similarities between sections of certain songs on ADTOE to I&W.  However, with the possible exception of OTBOA/PMU there are quite a few differences between those same songs.  It is clear that DT went into their past and pulled elements from previous works that they felt were part of their classic DT sound (which they have admitted doing in interviews).  However, I think if you seriously looked at some of these tracks you would find structures that fit into other more modern DT forms as well.

The instrumentation and overall sound of this album definately harkens back to past DT albums, so it really isn't a big deal that they went back to older song structures as well.  I guess there are just alot of people who feel that by making the comparison you are diminishing the current work.  (Which was the point of MP's post and at least Marla in this and the other thread).

I actually find the analysis interesting, if not a bit obsessive.  While I appreciate that others are doing it, I personally avoid that level of analysis when listening to the music.

[Orthogonal]

Duncan, I must have missed your breakdown of PMU/OTBOA. I know you've stated they follow very closely, but I don't remember an A/B compare.

I don't think I've posted any previously. Here it is, I've not done timestamps though

clean riff - played by guitar only
basic drums building, with simple keyboard lead
kicks into a distorted full band version of the first riff
then a palm muted riff, with the 2nd half accompanied by a keyboard lead
fill into the verse
basic verse, simple chords
bridge 1
bridge 2 using keyboard lead
fill into the verse (this is a vocal break in pull me under)
basic verse, half the length of the first one
bridge 3
guitar lead into the chorus
chorus
post-chorus
post-chorus with vocals
bridge
bridge using keyboard lead
guitar lead into the chorus
chorus
keyboard break
drums join the keyboard while it continues
guitar solo
guitar lead into the chorus
chorus
repeated chorus with slightly different rhythm
bridge variant
repeats while keyboard plays a lead
outro

Thanks, very nice breakdown.

fill into the verse (this is a vocal break in pull me under)

So you admit it, they aren't the same. It's all in your head. 

[Dream Team]

*snip*

I would value your criticism on why the A/B compare for LNF/UAGM

There are at least 3 MAJOR differences in the structure of these songs (not considering the horses...). To be more specific, there are parts in LNF there are not in UAGM

A Piano intro (that somebody claims was added just to "hide the cheating"... )
A long and crazy unison section
A much longer instrumental section, including a "3 parts" guitar solo.

Plus many other minor differences if you go down one level (e.g. guitar kicks in with piano arpeggios in the background...unlike UAGM..)

But is seems like you continue to ignore them.

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

Excellent. We'll see if he replies. 

[tweeg]

*snip*

I would value your criticism on why the A/B compare for LNF/UAGM

There are at least 3 MAJOR differences in the structure of these songs (not considering the horses...). To be more specific, there are parts in LNF there are not in UAGM

A Piano intro (that somebody claims was added just to "hide the cheating"... )
A long and crazy unison section
A much longer instrumental section, including a "3 parts" guitar solo.

Plus many other minor differences if you go down one level (e.g. guitar kicks in with piano arpeggios in the background...unlike UAGM..)

But is seems like you continue to ignore them.

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

Excellent. We'll see if he replies. 

I think length of the sections is irrelevant if we're just talking about structure. That's getting more into the "arrangement" aspect, which is less general of a concept. I haven't read the whole argument between you guys but if they're the only differences you can spot in the song's structure than I think you might be on the losing side of this argument.

[Enc3f4L0]

Since people chose to keep discussing it here and added a few interesting posts since my last I will contribute.

There are at least 3 MAJOR differences in the structure of these songs (not considering the horses...). To be more specific, there are parts in LNF there are not in UAGM

A Piano intro (that somebody claims was added just to "hide the cheating"... )
A long and crazy unison section
A much longer instrumental section, including a "3 parts" guitar solo.

Regarding the "3 differences" in LNF / UAGM
Wow, 3 whole differences? Even if I agreed on them I'd still have a hard time convincing myself that everything else matched up coincidently.

I really only agree on 1 difference however. The piano intro.

The unison in "UNDER A GLASS MOON" can be heard from 1:05 to 1:19. For those of you who don't know, both the guitar and keyboard are in UNISON. You might not think so just because they aren't playing a flurry of linear patterns, but that is a unison. They're playing accents (diminished chords) with a few arpeggios in between.

The solo in LNF follows the exact same structure as in UAGM, also having "3 parts" (listen to what the bass is doing to keep track of the different parts).

As I mentioned on my original note, on ADToE the parts are longer/expanded and more "over the top".

[Orthogonal]

*snip*

I would value your criticism on why the A/B compare for LNF/UAGM

There are at least 3 MAJOR differences in the structure of these songs (not considering the horses...). To be more specific, there are parts in LNF there are not in UAGM

A Piano intro (that somebody claims was added just to "hide the cheating"... )
A long and crazy unison section
A much longer instrumental section, including a "3 parts" guitar solo.

Plus many other minor differences if you go down one level (e.g. guitar kicks in with piano arpeggios in the background...unlike UAGM..)

But is seems like you continue to ignore them.

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

Ok, I'll take a stab at it. Other's in this thread have a better grasp on it than I do. This is Thiago's original LNG/UAGM A/B compare.

LOST NOT FORGOTTEN – UNDER A GLASS MOON:



     **piano intro presenting the theme** (this is only present on "Lost not Forgotten" and actually attempts to throw you off. I personally believe this  "chopin" moment was added after the song was done)
     Guitar + key plays the theme (guitar: Root + Octave, slides up and down the neck)
     Drums join in: Double Bass patterns (doubled by the bass guitar) + 4/4 snare feel
     Drums/Bass continue the pattern, guitars are harmonizing over the theme
     Guitar joins drums and bass on the "Pattern" they were doing (+unison riff to lead to the next part)
     Weird-ass guitar/key unison (diminished, full-tone type vibe) / drums & bass speed it up (double feel)
     Verse 1 Riff (4/4) *no vocals yet*
     Verse 1 Riff (4/4) + keys (serving the pad role) + Vocals
     Verse... (getting hotter to lead into the chorus)
     Chorus: Double-bass drums + /8 snare feel + intricate unison riffing in between chorus lines (fast bit at the end)
     Verse 1 riffing again (no vox)
     Verse 2 riff: guitar cools down, Bass guitar is supporting the rhythm more predominantly
     Bridge: Bass still holding it together, guitar doing higher single dotted 4th notes (keys supporting these notes)
     Chorus: (same style)... with the in-between vocal lines riffing and the "quickie" finishing it off
     break: Keys playing the whole weird break lines + guitar and bass just accenting a few notes (lots of pauses)
     Guitar joins keys on the lead lines, bass still holds the accents
     Guitar plays a power-chord type variation of this theme + bass: keys are now pad-style
    (band pauses just before the guitar solo)
     Guitar solo, over 3 different accompaniment/progressions/moods
     Instrumental bit "in-between solos"
     Keyboard solo ("airy/dreamy" ascending chords)
     Weird Full-Band Unison/Break (the type you need to count through until you memorize)
     Chorus (with slight vocal variations on the 2nd part) - no more in-between riffing like on the previous choruses
     "quickie" riff once again
     Main epic theme from the intro (Root + Octave guitar) + that double bass drum pattern with the bass guitar
     Closing riff

From your post, you point out in the comparison that:

There are at least 3 MAJOR differences in the structure of these songs (not considering the horses...). To be more specific, there are parts in LNF there are not in UAGM

A Piano intro (that somebody claims was added just to "hide the cheating"... )
A long and crazy unison section
A much longer instrumental section, including a "3 parts" guitar solo.

Not sure what the horses have to do with anything regarding structure, but whatever.
In respect to the noted 3 major differences. Yes, the piano intro is a unique addendum to LNG structure, that is already acknowledged. Thiago's comment about "hiding the cheating" was uncalled for, but whatever.

UAGM has a unison after the intro theme and before the 1st verse. It isn't nearly as long or diverse, but it is still present. We've never been comparing thematic ,riff, style similarities or even the length of sections, only the order of sections in the song layout, which is what we call structure.

LNF instrumental section is longer, yet what again does that have to do with the order of the sections?

The order of the "instrumental" sections are still the same. Band instrumental -> Guitar Solo (Including Whammy Bar) -> transition -> Key Solo -> Unison/Break.

The only real difference is the prelude keys in the intro...

[Chrissalix]

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.

Disappear and Space Dye Vest. I'm not typing the charts out because I don't have time but they aren't dissimilar at all. Nor are I Walk Beside You and Forsaken which are the same when you figure that the second half of the vocal bridge in IWBS = guitar solo in Forsaken - no more of a reach than you have made in a couple of your charts. Disregarding quasi identical structures, it's also obvious that this band have attempted to write songs in the vein of their past songs or even songs written by other bands on more than one occasion. Never Enough/Stockholm Syndrome, Peruvian Skies/any metallica ballad, Solitary Shell/Solsbury Hill for examples outside of the band and within the band itself, they have a whole self referencing suite, Metropolis Pt.1. references are all over SFAM (i know it's a concept but they still need not have done it. I presume you were cool with this when it came out...) and several self references in Octavarium (medicate and The Answer Lies Within) as well as songs written as attempted spiritual successors to other songs (see MP's description of Black Clouds - Learning to Live, ACOS, Pull Me Under, The Glass Prison all on one album etc). There is a section in TCOT for example which is basically the same as that ambient one in Trial of Tears and riffs in in On The Backs of Angels which made me think of As I Am before I even thought of Pull Me Under.

My point is thus; don't be so sensationalist about stuff that has been there all along on most levels for a while now, whether that reflects itself in the structure (sometimes) or just sections and/or motifs irrelevant. So if you want to stir shit like you have been doing (fucking appalling timing by the way) by slandering the band for trading on past glories/plagiarising themselves, I'd go elsewhere and think again and get some primary evidence (not some charts written by a good, but none theless amateur, cover artist such as yourself.

p.s. why do you think your band sounds so much like DT? Is it because that's what you obsessively listen to? I'd wager so (maybe you should AB Constant Motion and Crowded Sky!) What if DT decided to listen to DT for once? Think about it...

[Enc3f4L0]

Disappear and Space Dye Vest. I'm not typing the charts out because I don't have time but they aren't dissimilar at all. Nor are I Walk Beside You and Forsaken which are the same when you figure that the second half of the vocal bridge in IWBS = guitar solo in Forsaken - no more of a reach than you have made in a couple of your charts. Disregarding quasi identical structures, it's also obvious that this band have attempted to write songs in the vein of their past songs or even songs written by other bands on more than one occasion. Never Enough/Stockholm Syndrome, Peruvian Skies/any metallica ballad, Solitary Shell/Solsbury Hill for examples outside of the band and within the band itself, they have a whole self referencing suite, Metropolis Pt.1. references are all over SFAM (i know it's a concept but they still need not have done it. I presume you were cool with this when it came out...) and several self references in Octavarium (medicate and The Answer Lies Within) as well as songs written as attempted spiritual successors to other songs (see MP's description of Black Clouds - Learning to Live, ACOS, Pull Me Under, The Glass Prison all on one album etc). There is a section in TCOT for example which is basically the same as that ambient one in Trial of Tears and riffs in in On The Backs of Angels which made me think of As I Am before I even thought of Pull Me Under.

My point is thus; don't be so sensationalist about stuff that has been there all along on most levels for a while now, whether that reflects itself in the structure (sometimes) or just sections and/or motifs irrelevant. So if you want to stir shit like you have been doing (fucking appalling timing by the way) by slandering the band for trading on past glories/plagiarising themselves, I'd go elsewhere and think again and get some primary evidence (not some charts written by a good, but none theless amateur, cover artist such as yourself.

p.s. why do you think your band sounds so much like DT? Is it because that's what you obsessively listen to? I'd wager so (maybe you should AB Constant Motion and Crowded Sky!) What if DT decided to listen to DT for once? Think about it...

When you do have time to type out the charts please drop by and prove your points on the many similarities you proposed.
The fact that you mention Space-Dye-Vest / Disappear, Forsaken / I walk Beside You, Never Enough / Stockholm Syndrome,  Peruvian Skies/any metallica ballad, Solitary Shell/Solsbury Hill, Octavarium, and even "Scenes from a Memory" as a whole just because it's a concept album based on Metropolis Part 1, is proof to me that you have no idea of what we're talking about. You threw a bunch of songs/albums together to show that "similarities" isn't a new concept in DT world, when we aren't really questioning any of that. We are being very specific on the similarities we're discussing. I really don't know how to explain/demonstrate what we're talking about any better than I already tried so far, so I hope some other forumer can help you out.

Regarding the "slandering the band for trading on past glories/plagiarising themselves" bit I bolded in your text... If I repeat myself any more on this matter I'm gonna get a brain cancer or something, so I'll just make a nice FAQ and add it to my signature, so the sensitive "groundhog" forumers may have a chance to reread it whenever they get confused and angry.

[gentaishinigami]

What if DT decided to listen to DT for once? Think about it...

Full of win.   

[KevShmev]

Yeah, it sounds like DT's inspiration corner for this album (if they even had one) were themselves!  The CD has now been out for several days, and has been out there for a few weeks now (which we can now say), and I haven't seen a single case of someone saying a melody or a riff or anything sounds like a song from another band (except for maybe the moog solo in Beneath the Surface, but that is more or less a case of the solo being in the vein of ELP's Lucky Man than sounding like anything borrowed).  I cannot remember that ever happening with a DT release since I've been on the 'net (which is 11 years now).

[Chrissalix]

Disappear and Space Dye Vest. I'm not typing the charts out because I don't have time but they aren't dissimilar at all. Nor are I Walk Beside You and Forsaken which are the same when you figure that the second half of the vocal bridge in IWBS = guitar solo in Forsaken - no more of a reach than you have made in a couple of your charts. Disregarding quasi identical structures, it's also obvious that this band have attempted to write songs in the vein of their past songs or even songs written by other bands on more than one occasion. Never Enough/Stockholm Syndrome, Peruvian Skies/any metallica ballad, Solitary Shell/Solsbury Hill for examples outside of the band and within the band itself, they have a whole self referencing suite, Metropolis Pt.1. references are all over SFAM (i know it's a concept but they still need not have done it. I presume you were cool with this when it came out...) and several self references in Octavarium (medicate and The Answer Lies Within) as well as songs written as attempted spiritual successors to other songs (see MP's description of Black Clouds - Learning to Live, ACOS, Pull Me Under, The Glass Prison all on one album etc). There is a section in TCOT for example which is basically the same as that ambient one in Trial of Tears and riffs in in On The Backs of Angels which made me think of As I Am before I even thought of Pull Me Under.

My point is thus; don't be so sensationalist about stuff that has been there all along on most levels for a while now, whether that reflects itself in the structure (sometimes) or just sections and/or motifs irrelevant. So if you want to stir shit like you have been doing (fucking appalling timing by the way) by slandering the band for trading on past glories/plagiarising themselves, I'd go elsewhere and think again and get some primary evidence (not some charts written by a good, but none theless amateur, cover artist such as yourself.

p.s. why do you think your band sounds so much like DT? Is it because that's what you obsessively listen to? I'd wager so (maybe you should AB Constant Motion and Crowded Sky!) What if DT decided to listen to DT for once? Think about it...

When you do have time to type out the charts please drop by and prove your points on the many similarities you proposed.
The fact that you mention Space-Dye-Vest / Disappear, Forsaken / I walk Beside You, Never Enough / Stockholm Syndrome,  Peruvian Skies/any metallica ballad, Solitary Shell/Solsbury Hill, Octavarium, and even "Scenes from a Memory" as a whole just because it's a concept album based on Metropolis Part 1, is proof to me that you have no idea of what we're talking about. You threw a bunch of songs/albums together to show that "similarities" isn't a new concept in DT world, when we aren't really questioning any of that. We are being very specific on the similarities we're discussing. I really don't know how to explain/demonstrate what we're talking about any better than I already tried so far, so I hope some other forumer can help you out.

Regarding the "slandering the band for trading on past glories/plagiarising themselves" bit I bolded in your text... If I repeat myself any more on this matter I'm gonna get a brain cancer or something, so I'll just make a nice FAQ and add it to my signature, so the sensitive "groundhog" forumers may have a chance to reread it whenever they get confused and angry.

roughly, both of Forsaken and I Walk Beside You have (loosely from memory) the following structure:

Intro> Verse 1> Pre Chorus> Chorus> Post Chorus> Verse 2> Prechorus> Chorus> Bridge A (vocal)> Bridge B (solo in forsaken, second vocal in IWBY)> Chorus B (this is in a different key in IWBY but nothing to do with structure, right?)> Outro riff.

We can ignore the piano intro to forsaken as you did the same with LNF in your under a glass moon comparison. I don't think that represents a massive difference. The timings don't match up exactly but neither do they in any of your comparisons, so whatever.

Songs don't have to be structurally similar to have been inspired or written in same vein as something. I know full well what you're getting at. There are similarities yes, but you're blowing it out of proportion as to how interesting/significant/sensational it actually is by repeatedly coming in here and going on about it like it's certain that this is all a huge cover up.

I don't see how Never Enough being a Stockholm Syndrome clone is all that different actually, it's just the influence on that album and song was different to on ADToE, where DT's influence is not another band, but themselves.

[bosk1]

@ MarlaHooch, reo73, and Orthogonal, you really need to read the following, which I am quoting from another thread.  I know it is long, but you need to read it anyway.  Note that this is not a request.  This is an instruction to you if you want to remain on this forum.

This thread has devolved to the point where I simply can't let it continue.  The sniping back and forth at each other, the mods, Mike Portnoy, and anyone else I might have missed needs to stop, and it needs to stop immediately.


@Thiago:  You came up with an interesting theory.  Cool.  You want to discuss it.  Cool.  Here are the problems with how you went about it:
1.  The tone of your "analysis" and your posts here are condescending.  Whether you intend them to be or not, they are.
2.  Several items in your "analysis" imply the band is somehow being disingenuous.  Again, giving you the benefit of the doubt, maybe that's not how you intended it.  But that is how it is coming across.  Your tone is incredibly accusatory, and that's not cool.
3.  Your timing is horrible.  As others have said, the timing of your post IS a problem, whether you realize it or not.  You heard a leak and you assume other "hard core fans" must have as well?  That's all well and good, but it doesn't fly here.  We do not allow people to even hint at leaked material on this forum, and I can tell you for a fact I have NEVER sought out leaked DT material (or leaked material from ANY band, for that matter).  Normally, I would not even have allowed discussion of the album until Monday when most people have it.  Unfortunately, since the German site made it available for an extended period of time, it didn't make sense to ban discussion.  So that's fine.  But MOST DT fans will not have heard it and definitely will not have bought it yet.  As others have said, the unfortunate effect of your timing is that it makes it seem like you are indeed trying to poison opinion of the album before it is even out.  Maybe that is also not your intent.  But that is how it looks to an objective outsider.

Thiago, this forum is run based on respect for the band and respect for the other forum members.  You either intentionally or unintentionally displayed neither.  If that continues, you will not be welcome here.  You are welcome to discuss your theories, and others are welcome to call you out on the fact that they think you are reaching.  You are not welcome to post things that are likely to be inflammatory or that accuse the band of dishonesty or lack of integrity.  You can do that on someone else's server space.


@Everyone else:  As most have said, if you think there is are similarities, cool.  You can start a thread and discuss that in a civil way.  Let's start over and do it right without all the outside noise.  That means no bashing of MP (and I am not defending his words or actions; but I am not going to allow personal attacks either).  No sniping at one another.  Etc.  This place functions when people discuss things civilly.  Let's keep it that way.

Same thing applies to this thread (and any others on this forum, for that matter).  I'm not taking sides in the debate.  You are all entitled to your opinions.  The problem is not with your opinion, it is the fact that you are arguing it in a very aggressive, accusatory, and condescending manner.  That is not allowed.  And telling people they need to leave the thread is also not allowed.  That is for the mods to decide, not any of you.  If you believe a post violates the rules, report it.  Otherwise, leave the modding to the mods. 

Anyway, so we're clear on what is and is not allowed:
1.  You may continue to insist your opinion is right, and to argue for it.  That's fine.  You may present whatever legitimate evidence and arguments you want, including quoting relevant and appropriate parts of Thiago's analysis.
2.  You may NOT say things that come across as "I studied music for X years, so I'm automatically right and you aren't."
3.  You may NOT, directly or indirectly, accuse teh band of wrongdoing.
4.  You may NOT tell people where they can and cannot post.
5.  You may NOT attack or insult other users who disagree with you.

These are the rules of the forum, and exceptions will not be made for you just because you have a cool theory and believe you have the education to back it up. 

@MarlaHooch:  Marla, I appreciate that after being warned by a couple of forum moderators, you seem to have changed your tone.  Your posts early in the thread crossed the line, but it seems that you have changed your posting style.  Please keep the above in mind, and as long as you keep it respectful, please feel free to continue. 

Same with Orthogonal.   EDIT:  Actually, @Orthogonal, after going back and looking at your posts, you were fine, other than telling people not to post in the thread.  And even there, I think you mostly did it in a respectful way.  I'm not calling you out for a rule violation here, but please read and take the above into account to make sure you continue to stay on the right side of the rules, okay?

@Thiago (Enc3f4L0), you've already been warned and chose to ignore that warning.  As a result, you are no longer welcome here.  Goodbye.

@Reo, consider this your last and final warning.  Your tone here in this thread has been just as unreasonable and inflammatory as in the threads in the P/R section that you have been warned about in the past.  Honestly, I feel you have already earned yourself a ban, but I am going to give you one final chance.  But make no mistake about it:  If you so much as hit the "Enter" key in a manner that irritates me, you are gone.

@Infinite Cactus, I'm not sure why you reacted the way you did early in the thread, but nobody was attacking you.  I believe you have followed the rules in the way you have been posting.  No reason why you can't continue. 

[bosk1]

Oh, and people need to get off senecadawg2's back.  He's allowed to start a thread like this, as long as it doesn't violate the forum rules.

[Orthogonal]

^You got it Bosk1.

Argue the idea's, not the people.

[bosk1]

Exactly.

[erciccio]

Final comment on my side.

Jordan and John already gave us many insight on the way they built the songs

https://www.musicradar.com/news/drums/dream-theaters-jordan-rudess-on-a-dramatic-turn-of-events-491674/3
https://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/dream-theaters-a-dramatic-turn-of-events-full-album-preview-488940/4

E.g. "Lost not Forgotten"
- "One of the things that was a lot of fun to do is this diminished passage of unison playing. I wrote it out and built it piece by piece, programming drums as I went. I showed it to Jordan, who said, 'That's crazy!' He learned it and put a harmony to it.
- "That's a wild adventure! [laughs] John was playing with this interesting scale on the guitar, and we had a big theme that kind of kicks in after the piano. But then we decided we wanted to start the song off with the piano, and I thought that a Chopinesque type of arrangement would work well. I used to play a lot of Chopin nocturnes – nice, moving basslines with single-note melodies from the right hand. I took that approach in Lost Not Forgotten"

Honestly, way more interesting that all the pages and the "conspirancy theories" read here.

[reo73]

@Reo, consider this your last and final warning.  Your tone here in this thread has been just as unreasonable and inflammatory as in the threads in the P/R section that you have been warned about in the past.  Honestly, I feel you have already earned yourself a ban, but I am going to give you one final chance.  But make no mistake about it:  If you so much as hit the "Enter" key in a manner that irritates me, you are gone.

If I'm going to go out might as well go out with style...

Bosk1, you are a joke of a moderator in my opinion and I should of expected this would be coming from you.  What is most apparent is you like to roll in and out of threads supporting your "buddies".  As far as I can tell most of the time you post off-topic inflammatory nonsense anyway.  You are as guilty as anyone else.

This just so happened to be a thread about the similarities and when those of us started discussing them legitimately a whole bunch of other people came in and started harassing us in just as much, if not more, of an inflammatory manner.  But I don't see you calling any of them out?  All I did was try to clarify my position and defend myself against people calling me laughable and ridiculous.

I'm with Thiago on this.  I have been a musician for 25 years, studied music at a college level,  and have been a DT fan since '93 and spent many of hours learning DT music.  If Thiago hears it, MP hears it, and others here with musical knowledge hear it then I consider that good credible company.  The fact that the rest of you don't doesn't sway me one bit.  You can now get on with congratulating each other on how you ran those crazy conspiracy theorists off the board and get back to your extreme fanboy love affair with DT.

Maybe I will catch some of you over at the DT site forum.  Or maybe not...I got a life to live.

/out

[AngelBack]

Na Na Na Na.....Na Na Na Na......Hey Hey Hey.......(all together now )

[bosk1]

Bye, Reo.

Probably not the best idea to come into someone's "house" and tell them the way they run their "household" makes them a joke.  But you didn't seem to get that the times you were warned in P/R either.   

[duncan3dc]

roughly, both of Forsaken and I Walk Beside You have (loosely from memory) the following structure:

Intro> Verse 1> Pre Chorus> Chorus> Post Chorus> Verse 2> Prechorus> Chorus> Bridge A (vocal)> Bridge B (solo in forsaken, second vocal in IWBY)> Chorus B (this is in a different key in IWBY but nothing to do with structure, right?)> Outro riff.

We can ignore the piano intro to forsaken as you did the same with LNF in your under a glass moon comparison. I don't think that represents a massive difference. The timings don't match up exactly but neither do they in any of your comparisons, so whatever.

The reason I disagree with this comparison being as relevant, is that the breakdowns I'm looking at are between 25-30 sections long. Where as yours there is in 12. I think that is over-simplified to make it fit.
When I went through both tracks just now I could kinda agree that the chart you did is similar to what I would do for I Walk Beside You, but it's a much too forced fit for Forsaken in my opinion. If that was the comparison level we were talking about here then I'd have taken your side a long time ago

[bosk1]

Lol at this thread again. This is so fucking daft.

You should all go dig out your Metallica albums and A>B any two of Fade To Black, Welcome Home Sanitarium and One. Then check the similarities, remind yourselves of how few people give a shit that these three classic metal songs BY THE SAME BAND ON CONSECUTIVE ALBUMS are all considered stone wall classics, then go and rethink your lives. If you want, you can do the same with any of the opening tracks on a Metallica thrash album. 5-7 minute long songs in E Minor with heavy use of the flatted 5th. It's called having a signature sound. Christ you lot.

Chrissalix, you make some good points.  But as I pointed out to the people on the other side of this argument, it's not always about whether you make a good point, but in how you make it.  There's no need for the insulting tone just because you disagree with the argument.  Please keep it respectful.

[Chrissalix]

roughly, both of Forsaken and I Walk Beside You have (loosely from memory) the following structure:

Intro> Verse 1> Pre Chorus> Chorus> Post Chorus> Verse 2> Prechorus> Chorus> Bridge A (vocal)> Bridge B (solo in forsaken, second vocal in IWBY)> Chorus B (this is in a different key in IWBY but nothing to do with structure, right?)> Outro riff.

We can ignore the piano intro to forsaken as you did the same with LNF in your under a glass moon comparison. I don't think that represents a massive difference. The timings don't match up exactly but neither do they in any of your comparisons, so whatever.

The reason I disagree with this comparison being as relevant, is that the breakdowns I'm looking at are between 25-30 sections long. Where as yours there is in 12. I think that is over-simplified to make it fit.
When I went through both tracks just now I could kinda agree that the chart you did is similar to what I would do for I Walk Beside You, but it's a much too forced fit for Forsaken in my opinion. If that was the comparison level we were talking about here then I'd have taken your side a long time ago

Timing = irrelevant to some extent, the sections are there and in the same order. That's structure, is it not? Besides,There is the best part of a 3 minute difference in the lengths of the songs between LNF and UAGM (less when you forget about the piano at the start of LNF). There is only a minute's difference between Forsaken and IWBS. Relatively speaking, the sections are therefore no less closely matched on the whole in terms of length in my comparison than in Thiago's comparisons. That said, I fail to he how he has tried to "simplify things to make things fit" any more or less than I have in the 2 minutes it took me to type out that structure. It's not over simplified per se, i just can't be arsed. If you do scrutinise the tracks a bit more, the similarities are there.
However, in the same vein, Thiago's comparison of outcry neglects an entire 3 min+ solo section, making that one even more of a reach. So I don't buy your school of thought that my comparison is in any way more forced, no matter how much more effort he has gone into than me. Sorry.

Lol at this thread again. This is so fucking daft.

You should all go dig out your Metallica albums and A>B any two of Fade To Black, Welcome Home Sanitarium and One. Then check the similarities, remind yourselves of how few people give a shit that these three classic metal songs BY THE SAME BAND ON CONSECUTIVE ALBUMS are all considered stone wall classics, then go and rethink your lives. If you want, you can do the same with any of the opening tracks on a Metallica thrash album. 5-7 minute long songs in E Minor with heavy use of the flatted 5th. It's called having a signature sound. Christ you lot.

Chrissalix, you make some good points.  But as I pointed out to the people on the other side of this argument, it's not always about whether you make a good point, but in how you make it.  There's no need for the insulting tone just because you disagree with the argument.  Please keep it respectful.

Sorry bosk! was in 5/8 mode when I posted that one.

[duncan3dc]

The reason I disagree with this comparison being as relevant, is that the breakdowns I'm looking at are between 25-30 sections long. Where as yours there is in 12. I think that is over-simplified to make it fit.
When I went through both tracks just now I could kinda agree that the chart you did is similar to what I would do for I Walk Beside You, but it's a much too forced fit for Forsaken in my opinion. If that was the comparison level we were talking about here then I'd have taken your side a long time ago

Timing = irrelevant to some extent, the sections are there and in the same order. That's structure, is it not? Besides,There is the best part of a 3 minute difference in the lengths of the songs between LNF and UAGM (less when you forget about the piano at the start of LNF). There is only a minute's difference between Forsaken and IWBS.

I think you misunderstood me, I wasn't talking about timing either. I was saying I broke up songs like On The Backs Of Angels and Pull Me Under into 30 sections. And got them to match.
When I broke up Forsaken into 20 sections I couldn't get it to reasonably match up to I Walk Beside You.

I was pointing out that you got them to match my only splitting them in 12 parts. And that if I had to do that to get the other tracks to match, I wouldn't be interested. As that is a slight similarity, and not that interesting.

it's also worth nothing that the 2 tracks you mention are relatively straight forward tracks (verse bridge chorus verse bridge chorus type things), but Pull Me Under is a bit more unconventional, in that it does 2 verses before getting to the 1st chorus, and then never returns to a verse. That alone would be an interesting nugget, but the fact that the rest of the structure is also very similar, makes it very interesting. Well, interesting to me of course 

[MarlaHooch]

Wow this sure is entertaining to read.

It'd be nice if someone would address my Rush analogy.  I'll give up if no one does this time and just move on to other topics, but thought I'd give it one last shot because I think it's a valid debate to have.  I've noticed people are happy to point out that I confused the terms "structure" and "arrangement", they accuse me of finding any reason to dislike the album (I don't dislike it, it's just not my favorite DT album, Mangini is my favorite part about it), those of us who hear the structural equivalencies in a few of these songs are told we're conspiracists with no evidence, etc.  But no one ever responds to my main gripe with what DT have done.  So let's try this Rush hypothetical again for anyone who subscribes to the structural similarities in some of these songs:

Neil Peart quits Rush. Geddy and Alex subsequently find a new (awesome) drummer and do a bunch of interviews claiming they are a new band with a new beginning and that the writing process was so much smoother without Peart around...and then proceed to release a record containing songs built off the exact structures to "The Spirit Of The Radio" and "Tom Sawyer", which Peart contributed to.

Is there any difference with what DT have done here?  I think the idea is a cool concept, but am I not allowed to be of the opinion that this was an ill-timed thing for them to do?  Why now when they have something to prove and not as a 20th anniversary tribute down the road or something?

Finally, in Thaigo's defense or anyone who subscribes to his theories, regardless of if he's said offensive things in his posts or whatever, I think it's worth pointing out that anyone who dissects the music at that deep of a level is obviously a huge fan of the band.  Even if, for whatever reason, you disagree with his findings, I think DT are lucky to have fans who are that passionate about what they do.

[Chrissalix]

The reason I disagree with this comparison being as relevant, is that the breakdowns I'm looking at are between 25-30 sections long. Where as yours there is in 12. I think that is over-simplified to make it fit.
When I went through both tracks just now I could kinda agree that the chart you did is similar to what I would do for I Walk Beside You, but it's a much too forced fit for Forsaken in my opinion. If that was the comparison level we were talking about here then I'd have taken your side a long time ago

Timing = irrelevant to some extent, the sections are there and in the same order. That's structure, is it not? Besides,There is the best part of a 3 minute difference in the lengths of the songs between LNF and UAGM (less when you forget about the piano at the start of LNF). There is only a minute's difference between Forsaken and IWBS.

I think you misunderstood me, I wasn't talking about timing either. I was saying I broke up songs like On The Backs Of Angels and Pull Me Under into 30 sections. And got them to match.
When I broke up Forsaken into 20 sections I couldn't get it to reasonably match up to I Walk Beside You.

I was pointing out that you got them to match my only splitting them in 12 parts. And that if I had to do that to get the other tracks to match, I wouldn't be interested. As that is a slight similarity, and not that interesting.

it's also worth nothing that the 2 tracks you mention are relatively straight forward tracks (verse bridge chorus verse bridge chorus type things), but Pull Me Under is a bit more unconventional, in that it does 2 verses before getting to the 1st chorus, and then never returns to a verse. That alone would be an interesting nugget, but the fact that the rest of the structure is also very similar, makes it very interesting. Well, interesting to me of course 

Well maybe it's a case of a simple song needing a simpler breakdown. Like you said, PMU and OTBOA are both almost 9 minutes long. Forsaken and IWBY are 4 and 5 mins respectively so while the sections may be shorter, so are the songs. Would you break Wait For Sleep/Far From Heaven into 20 sections? probably not. IMO that doesn't make it any less valid. Plus i'm fully aware that those songs are simpler, I was asked by Thiago to find another example of songs with the same structure so I did. I do think the songs are similar in vibe (radio friendly, but not exactly slow) and serve the same purpose on their respective albums, so they are comparable.

[bosk1]

Finally, in Thaigo's defense or anyone who subscribes to his theories, regardless of if he's said offensive things in his posts or whatever, I think it's worth pointing out that anyone who dissects the music at that deep of a level is obviously a huge fan of the band.  Even if, for whatever reason, you disagree with his findings, I think DT are lucky to have fans who are that passionate about what they do.

I get that.  But, again, it isn't what he said, but how he said it.  You don't have to be a huge DT fan to post here.  In fact, you don't have to be a DT fan at all.  But you do have to post in a respectful, tactful way.  He didn't do that, and that is why he is not welcome to post here. 

I'll let others address your Rush analogy.  Since I'm trying to stay fairly neutral, no need for me to point out where I see the flaws in it.