Comparing songs from ADTOE with their I&W counterparts

[Cranky]

It really sounds like those who believe the band did this purposefully and are against the idea are just looking for something to hold against the album/music, while others who find it neat just consider it an unfortunate/accidental "nugget" in the growing catalog of Dream Theater.

That's pretty much what it boils down to. I know Images And Words like the back of my hand and I couldn't (and still can't) pick up on a single of those these "stolen chart" things. It's like someone took a stray "maybe this'll be their new PMU" to heart and started desperately linking the two together with blanket fragments like "clean guitar into" and "technical piano" without putting any actual thought into how the songs are actually constructed. If you really wanna find something hard enough, you'll find it. I mean I can see picking up a similar riff or two but I've seen some people insist that on first listen how obvious it was they borrowed from old song structures. First listen for an album full of new music and the first thing you're really zoning in on is the song structure? Really? That's complete bullshit.

I agree with you, this whole ordeal is getting out of hand..

I will say, that before I even caught wind of all his nonsense, when I first got the album, the ONLY songs that I heard similarities in was the beginning of LNF with the introductory guitar riff, and then when the drum and bass pattern comes in at 1:18, it is very reminiscent of Under A Glass Moon, as well as the chorus, with all the breaks in between phrases like in the UAGM chorus, and the guitar solo has some *similar* techniques.

And, the very small bit in Breaking All Illusions at 4:57 sounds similar to the part in Learning to live at 4:46.

But that's all... And, in my opinion, knowing Dream Theater, it was probably intentional.. As in, a nod to their older material.. Nothing bad by any means.

[MarlaHooch]

Why would that make it more important? Plus, this isn't directed at you, but how anyone can listen to ADTOE and say that the album is uninspired/lazy/dishonest and so forth simply because Lost Not Forgotten has a few similarities (structure wise) to an older song is beyond me. That's like saying Transformers 3 was a horrible movie because 2 small tiny meaningless scenes were lifted from The Island. Transformers 3 is a horrible movie for much better reasons than that,

I'll let the people who actually believe that the band purposefully copied the so-called "charts" explain what is so bad about their having copied the so-called "charts". I'm still kind of unclear about it myself.

I've tried to explain over and over and over and over again why it bothers me if you're interested.

And if one more person, like someone from a few posts ago, says I/whoever is bothered by this just wants an excuse to hate on the album (I don't), I'm going to scream.

The Rush comparison is a bad one since Geddy and Alex write all of the music (melodies, arrangements, song structures, etc.).

Okay then, that's why this was presented as a hypothetical exercise.  Suppose Peart contributed (as Portnoy did), then what say you?

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?

The "Rush analogy" is fundamentally flawed. It doesn't bring anything new to the table, it just replaces your view of the situation with the members of Rush. (Not to mention that Rush would NEVER continue if Peart left, but that's pretty far beside the point.)

Was your point only to make the situation less personal? Well, I'll address the "Rush analogy" by saying that if Rush did that (and confirmed publicly that they did it purposefully), that would be kind of a bummer. Though the songs themselves are much simpler than Pull Me Under and Under a Glass Moon and would be a little bit easier to unintentionally replicate, an egregious rip-off would leave a bitter taste in my mouth. The same would happen if DT did that, but they have done no such thing.

I don't understand - it's fundamentally flawed, yet you're saying if they did do it and confirmed it, it would be a bummer?

My point was just that I thought it was a fitting analogy and explained why I thought it was a lame thing for DT to do, in a way that perhaps DT fans could step back and perhaps relate to.  I don't hate the band, I don't hate the album, I just think what they did here wasn't particularly cool in the context of a "new band with a new beginning."  Tribute to I&W?  Great, fun idea.  "New band with a new beginning and a new album"?  Maybe not so much in my opinion.

[Cranky]

Why would that make it more important? Plus, this isn't directed at you, but how anyone can listen to ADTOE and say that the album is uninspired/lazy/dishonest and so forth simply because Lost Not Forgotten has a few similarities (structure wise) to an older song is beyond me. That's like saying Transformers 3 was a horrible movie because 2 small tiny meaningless scenes were lifted from The Island. Transformers 3 is a horrible movie for much better reasons than that,

I'll let the people who actually believe that the band purposefully copied the so-called "charts" explain what is so bad about their having copied the so-called "charts". I'm still kind of unclear about it myself.

I've tried to explain over and over and over and over again why it bothers me if you're interested.

And if one more person, like someone from a few posts ago, says I/whoever is bothered by this just wants an excuse to hate on the album (I don't), I'm going to scream.

Man, all you are doing is looking for an excuse to...

[MarlaHooch]

Hahahahaha that was cute - don't make me change my name to CRANKIER THAN CRANKY!   

[Cranky]

Hahahahaha that was cute - don't make me change my name to CRANKIER THAN CRANKY!   

You don't want to see me when I just rolled my ass out of bed...
I'm not a morning person, per se.   











But, seriously, everyone needs to take a 

[MarlaHooch]

I would but there's no way I can chill with that frightening image in my head!   

[Priest of Syrinx]

Is BMW "uninspired/lazy..." because their 3-series cars have been using the same formula/structure for a half-century?

[ariich]

I have no idea why structure would be this important.

Indeed, so much fuss over nothing.

Although I have to say, with LNF = UAGM, it's not just the structure but some seriously similar stylistic elements as well. Not that it bothers me at all, but it is quite funny. There are also a couple between Outcry and Metropolis.

OTBOA is purely a structural one, and TITL - AD I'm not seeing at all. And the rest are just a big no.

[hefdaddy42]

The reason it's unimportant is that even if you do lift a "structure" you still have to do the composition, the riffs, the melodies, the counterpoints, the lyrics, etc.  So there is no way that lifting a structure is a shortcut or lazy, because assembling the parts is not the "work" part of songwriting.

[serrano]

The real funny part about this thread is the one about intentions. Hearing something that sounds like "I studied music for xx years", "I know the hell more about music theory than you" is not really "polite" but it gets even funnier when this leads into "and that's why I know it has to be an intentional attempt".

Wait, this is the point where I get confused, did I read musician or was it psychologist or even parapsychologist?

Oh s**t, been playing guitar and drums for the last 25 years and I still cannot read minds.

Damn it! I think this is probably the reason I don't make a living out of it. 
-

[charm.quark]

The way i understood it- the comclusion that it is likely intentional is through statistics. That is to say if you pick the same 25 balls out of 30 twice it is less likely to be coincidence than if you pick  3 balls out of 5 balls 2 times in a row. I don't know if I agree cos I don't have enough musical
Knowledge- but I understand the rationale. Again I think if it were intentional it's a super-cool thing to do. I STRONGLY disagree with the recreating the past, not original, running out of ideas and ALL such comments- they don't make sense to me. As Arlich or someone else said above ( I don't know how to use the quote function) it's what the structure is filled with and in this case it's filled with pure goodness I think. It's like a book with chapters- all have chapter 1,2,3 etc but the contents are what matters!
I only got interested in this thread because I was going crazy trying to figure out what was similar b/w the albums! I couldn't see any and frankly still don't see any, except that they are both proggy excellence! Only now I know I'm not abnormal ( this stuff is only relevant to musicians)!

[CrimsonSunrise]

Who's to say, until we here it from the source, that they didn't do it on purpose for a reason?  Either as some have said, to be a "Nod" to I&W's" or like I've mentioned before, with similiar structures I'll bet it could make for some wicked Medleys or meshes live

[theseoafs]

The way i understood it- the comclusion that it is likely intentional is through statistics. That is to say if you pick the same 25 balls out of 30 twice it is less likely to be coincidence than if you pick  3 balls out of 5 balls 2 times in a row.

Songwriting is not a random activity.

[charm.quark]

You are right, bad example I guess! But you know- till this thread I dint know songs were written with such precise structure in mind! I must say I haven't ever thought about how one went about writing a song!
   It's fascinating- I wish I had taken the opportuninity to learn music( I did have a chance, but was not interested then)!

[orcus116]

Who's to say, until we here it from the source, that they didn't do it on purpose for a reason? 

Because it's much more fun to think you've caught someone in the act and "figured out their game". Stuff like that excites people.

[ResultsMayVary]

Who's to say, until we here it from the source, that they didn't do it on purpose for a reason? 

Because it's much more fun to think you've caught someone in the act and "figured out their game". Stuff like that excites people.

It excites people, but makes them look like fools when they try to argue their opinion as fact.

"I know they did it. I KNOW IT. RAWR!" etc.

[erik16]

I feel that two pairs are extremely similar. OTBOA/PMU and LNF/UAGM. The first pair resembles almost 100% in the structure, the acoustic intro (Morphwiz excluded), construction of verses, choruses and bridges and the break is all the same. Having said that, they have at times a different feel and my copy of OTBOA doesn't end abruptly.

Now, with the second, they resemble each other I'd say 75% structure-wise. The 25% difference are the piano intro, longer and a different riff and the unison for LNF. This is very important because the 25% difference gives the song extra character. As far as the rest of the song is concerned, it IS constructed the same way as UAGM. A crunching riff to precede the first verse, a quieter second verse. The beginning of the instrumental section is I think the same signature as UAGM, most of the solo has similar phrasing. Keyboard solo has some bass beneath it, much like in UAGM. And then the outro to finish it off. Also, LNF and UAGM have a much more similar feel than the first pair as well as a few common time signatures.

A good way to discover the similarities is to speed up both OTBOA and LNF and THEN compare them with their counterparts. I used Nero to do it.

Then there are two pairs which have some similarities. They are Outcry/Metropolis and BAI/LTL. Now with them I feel that there's up to 50% similarities and not more. The first minutes of Outcry have a little bit similar feel to Metropolis but then the song sort of comes to a temporary halt at which point Metropolis races away. The instrumental sections do not resemble a lot, only maybe the climax. And the piano that follows it just feels as if the song is about to calm down, whereas the same point in Metropolis feels like it's once again starting to build up. The outros are quite different.

BAI is similar to LTL up until the breakdown part, from there it launches itself off to a whole new direction drawing inspiration from 8VM, ITPOE and TCOT and ending completely different. That said, the first part of BAI is quite similar to LTL, both structure-wise and melodically. Keyboard dominated beginning, 5/4 time signatures and some variations on it, I guess. The first verse is the same time signature as LTL first verse and JMX-dominated as well. But even within the intro, there are differences, like in BAI there is the chorus melody at first but the first chorus itself doesn't appear as soon as it appears in LTL. Then there's the heavy part for both songs but they feel completely different. BAI is stylistically much more similar to TGP or TDS, actually I get an AA-saga feel later after the breakdown as well.

As far as the rest of the songs, I don't see similarities. TITL is not cheesy at all, which I can't say about AD. The rest don't deserve discussing, IMO.

I find it entirely possible that the guys looked at the song structure of PMU and thought, let's try and construct a more modern version of it. After all, PMU was a succesful hit and its unusual structure may be one of the reasons it was so good.

I don't know about LNF, though. Maybe they were listening to UAGM a lot. Or maybe JP just likes it?

[MarlaHooch]

Erik, be careful man!  I think you're 100% right and they're going to tear you apart for it!   

Who's to say, until we here it from the source, that they didn't do it on purpose for a reason? 

Because it's much more fun to think you've caught someone in the act and "figured out their game". Stuff like that excites people.

It excites people, but makes them look like fools when they try to argue their opinion as fact.

"I know they did it. I KNOW IT. RAWR!" etc.

RAWR indeed!  Except they weren't "caught in the act."  That's an insult to DT.  They're not stupid.  They definitely knew people would figure this out.  Someone took the time (PUN!) to figure out that they said "eat my ass and balls" in morse code on INToG, surely people were going to notice that they wrote "new" songs off of "old" structures.

That they used the old structures intentionally is pretty much fact unless we are to believe that by coincidence the three remaining members of the I&W lineup really are that absentminded that they wouldn't notice.  That's the coincidence to end all coincidences.  They're sharp fellows.  I highly doubt they didn't know what they were doing.

Why they chose to use the old structures, however, is entirely a matter of opinion.

[bosk1]

Erik, be careful man!  I think you're 100% right and they're going to tear you apart for it!   

Marla, cut the crap.  You are again exhibiting the same type of attitude and tone in your posts that got you in trouble the first time.  Did you not read the post I told you to read? 

Erik's post is 100% acceptable.  It was not condescending, accusatory, or insulting.  Right, wrong, or somewhere in between, he is entitled to post his opinion the way he did.  In fact, I wish more people would post like he did.  It is well thought out, polite, and articulate, which is exactly what a post here should be.

[MarlaHooch]

Erik, be careful man!  I think you're 100% right and they're going to tear you apart for it!   

Marla, cut the crap.  You are again exhibiting the same type of attitude and tone in your posts that got you in trouble the first time.  Did you not read the post I told you to read? 

Erik's post is 100% acceptable.  It was not condescending, accusatory, or insulting.  Right, wrong, or somewhere in between, he is entitled to post his opinion the way he did.  In fact, I wish more people would post like he did.  It is well thought out, polite, and articulate, which is exactly what a post here should be.

Wait, what did I say here that's offensive?  I said I agreed with his analysis of the similarities (and lack thereof in some songs) 100%, and you're right that he was well thought-out, polite, and articulate.  I very much appreciate how he built up and broke down (PUN!) his argument.  I said the people who don't agree with him will tear him apart, as they have to other posters who subscribe to the opinions Erik has just so eloquently stated.

Perhaps you misunderstood my post?

[erik16]

Thanks bosk, it took quite a while to word out the post as it came to be.

And with two, maybe four songs similar to I&W, there is no I&W part 2. DT are not ripping off themeselves, I don't even think that they sat down huddled around a master chart of PMU and UAGM. They just listened to I&W. Used it as "inspiration corner". But we still have five completely fresh songs, and the four "I&W" songs have all a unique character to them. And as I said, at some points I could hear AA-saga riffs during BAI or Forsaken during Outcry.

Bottom line, this album is really fresh. Lots of material to digest, some nuggets to be found but there is nothing cringeworthy. Everybody has been working their asses off and we should salute them.

EDIT: I'm sure nobody's going to tear me apart. What I posted is as neutral and boring as it gets.

[bosk1]

Erik, be careful man!  I think you're 100% right and they're going to tear you apart for it!   

Marla, cut the crap.  You are again exhibiting the same type of attitude and tone in your posts that got you in trouble the first time.  Did you not read the post I told you to read? 

Erik's post is 100% acceptable.  It was not condescending, accusatory, or insulting.  Right, wrong, or somewhere in between, he is entitled to post his opinion the way he did.  In fact, I wish more people would post like he did.  It is well thought out, polite, and articulate, which is exactly what a post here should be.

Wait, what did I say here that's offensive?  I said I agreed with his analysis of the similarities (and lack thereof in some songs) 100%, and you're right that he was well thought-out, polite, and articulate.  I very much appreciate how he built up and broke down (PUN!) his argument.  I said the people who don't agree with him will tear him apart, as they have to other posters who subscribe to the opinions Erik has just so eloquently stated.

Perhaps you misunderstood my post?

But you assume that just by making a post that agrees about the structural similarities, he is doing something wrong and is automatically going to get slammed, even though I have gone out of my way to say several times that it is perfectly fine to discuss that theory from any point of view you choose.  You are just inviting controversy by doing that.

[MarlaHooch]

Sir, it was a mere expression of support for his analysis.  Some people in this thread have said views such as his are "conspiracies," that there is "no evidence," etc.  I think it's more fair to say those are the people inviting controversy as this thread was specifically started as discussion for people who subscribe to the similarities.

If someone really wants to ban me over this I think that's ridiculous but my life will go on.  When I got called out the first time, I admitted I got carried away, I apologized, and said it wouldn't happen again.  That "attitude" you're talking about was when I said something like "I'm right, you're wrong" re: the structures.  That was inappropriate, I admitted as such, and I have done no such thing here.  I said I agreed with him and in jest warned him to expect an onslaught of attacks for having his views as that has certainly become a pattern in this thread (none of which came from me). 

If joking is a bad idea and you're telling me not to joke anymore, then fair enough I won't joke anymore.  But I wasn't trying to start trouble.

[Orthogonal]

Erik, very good post. Thanks for your contribution. You draw a very similar conclusion to what reo did several pages ago.

Reo73
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.

Although it didn't do much to sway folks opinions and it got the best of him since he is no longer here now

[erik16]

I also read through the thread so I had an idea of what to say and what not. I do actually disagree with Reo about Another Day. But that may be that I haven't paid attention to those two (AD/LITL). I think the chart thing that he was talking about got blown out of proportion. Those charts were his way of pairing the songs but at times he overdid it. And then later on things started to escalate.

I find it quite impossible to think that DT would consciously copy the structure of four songs by drawing out charts like this and then writing new riffs etc. Once again, it's much more likely that they were listening to I&W and taking notes in their mind, or had I&W in the back of their minds.

One thing that I remember is that according to some interview, BITS, BTS and BMUBMD were the last songs to be written, taken on the album. Probably during the early stages of the writing sessions, DT had I&W in the back of their minds when writing, this would explain the similarities of those 2-4 songs. As the writing proceeded they started to experiment more and more (BTS and BMUBMD).

Even with songs such as Outcry and BAI, they are not really that similar to Metropolis and LTL. They start out with similar ideas but then they stray and take off, they form their own paths and become entirely different.

[ResultsMayVary]

That they used the old structures intentionally is pretty much fact ...

No, it's not. You need concrete, factual evidence in order to argue something as fact.

[orcus116]

RAWR indeed!  Except they weren't "caught in the act."  That's an insult to DT.  They're not stupid.  They definitely knew people would figure this out.  Someone took the time (PUN!) to figure out that they said "eat my ass and balls" in morse code on INToG, surely people were going to notice that they wrote "new" songs off of "old" structures.

Except the ITNOG message actually exists.

[Orthogonal]

I also read through the thread so I had an idea of what to say and what not. I do actually disagree with Reo about Another Day. But that may be that I haven't paid attention to those two (AD/LITL).

I understand what you are saying about AD/TITL, they are generally a little closer to a standard mainstream song flow so the similarities could be coincidental. However, the one thing that sticks out to me as more than coincidence is that both songs open with a short and sweet thematic guitar solo. The opening solo's theme is then reprised later in the song (AD w/ the sax instead of guitar) near the end. I can't think off the top of my head how many DT songs do that, but I don't recall any others.

[erik16]

To be honest, I feel (and I'm positive that the band feels that way as well) that the opening guitar theme is so powerful that it had to be used again. And when you think that DT likes to end songs where they began it makes sense to end the song like this. Plus I think that it's really an extraordinary ballad-TITL, there is no other power ballad like this in DT's catalogue.

[Orthogonal]

I find it quite impossible to think that DT would consciously copy the structure of four songs by drawing out charts like this and then writing new riffs etc. Once again, it's much more likely that they were listening to I&W and taking notes in their mind, or had I&W in the back of their minds.

I don't disagree with this either. In fact, they wouldn't even need to draw out the charts. They know the songs on a deeper level than any of us can ever hope to achieve since they have played it for upwards of 20 years and it is ingrained in the psyche. I don't think they would have to listen or take notes in the back of their mind, I would imagine it being a very natural and fluid process for them.

[bosk1]

I think that is probably true of most of their songs, actually.  Remember, JP has been noted for having an absolutely sick "photographic" memory when it comes to musical passages.  Portnoy has commented about how they will jam out long, complex pieces of music, and JP can go back and reproduce them from memory, for example.  Or you have the example of when DT were touring with Queensryche and were going over what songs to play, and JP would off the cuff teach Wilton how to play Queensryche songs that Wilton had forgotten how to play.  When it comes to the songs from I&W especially, since they have been played so many times, I'm sure JP at least (if not the other guys) has them burned into his subconscious.

[senecadawg2]

Wow. My thread is still going strong. 

[erik16]

But it's polite discussion, that's going on here. Which also means that the thread will soon die...

[MarlaHooch]

That they used the old structures intentionally is pretty much fact ...

No, it's not. You need concrete, factual evidence in order to argue something as fact.

The words "pretty much" in my post were included just for you actually haha...not enough apparently 

One man's concrete, factual evidence is another man's speculation I guess.

[Kotowboy]

The reason it's unimportant is that even if you do lift a "structure" you still have to do the composition, the riffs, the melodies, the counterpoints, the lyrics, etc.  So there is no way that lifting a structure is a shortcut or lazy, because assembling the parts is not the "work" part of songwriting.

How many songs are just a 12 bar 1-4-5 progression ?

Yet *IF* DT uses one or two progressions from over 20 years ago, suddenly it's like