Dave Grohl " I feel so bad for the Dream Theater guys"

[Jaffa]

Nice of him to acknowledge Dream Theater like that. 

[jonnybaxy]

on the foo fighters... i think they were a good rock band but recently they sold out and basically changed their whole idea and went for number 1's and that ruins a band when they are only in it for money and fame 

[countoftuscany42]

It's Dave grohl, he's plenty rich and famous... So I disagree. I love wasting light, it's the album that got me into the foos

[Stonestef]

on the foo fighters... i think they were a good rock band but recently they sold out and basically changed their whole idea and went for number 1's and that ruins a band when they are only in it for money and fame 

I could believe the "selling out" for some albums but if by recently, you mean "Wasting Light", you've got to give it a listen. It's their best album and it definitely doesn't give you the impression that they're sell-outs.

[jonnybaxy]

on the foo fighters... i think they were a good rock band but recently they sold out and basically changed their whole idea and went for number 1's and that ruins a band when they are only in it for money and fame 

I could believe the "selling out" for some albums but if by recently, you mean "Wasting Light", you've got to give it a listen. It's their best album and it definitely doesn't give you the impression that they're sell-outs.

I rarely listen to any other music than DT and transatlantic

[King Postwhore]

Nobody rarely listens to just 2 bands.

[Kotowboy]

Foo Fighters > Adrenaline Mob.

[theseoafs]

I rarely listen to any other music than DT and transatlantic

...

[jonnybaxy]

Nobody rarely listens to just 2 bands.

Is everyone interpreting my comment as I don't listen to DT and transatlantic much? Well read it again.... if you still don't understand, learn English.

[jonnybaxy]

Foo Fighters > Adrenaline Mob.

Everything > AMob

[DebraKadabra]

Nobody rarely listens to just 2 bands.

Is everyone interpreting my comment as I don't listen to DT and transatlantic much? Well read it again.... if you still don't understand, learn English.

Um... YOU need to interpret English, as we're having difficulty comprehending WHY you only listen to two bands when there's so much more out there than DT and TA.

[jonnybaxy]

Nobody rarely listens to just 2 bands.

Is everyone interpreting my comment as I don't listen to DT and transatlantic much? Well read it again.... if you still don't understand, learn English.

Um... YOU need to interpret English, as we're having difficulty comprehending WHY you only listen to two bands when there's so much more out there than DT and TA.

Well obviously I listen to others at parties etc.. but I usually lissten to them 2 at home or whatever

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

Nobody rarely listens to just 2 bands.

Is everyone interpreting my comment as I don't listen to DT and transatlantic much? Well read it again.... if you still don't understand, learn English.

Um... YOU need to interpret English, as we're having difficulty comprehending WHY you only listen to two bands when there's so much more out there than DT and TA.

Well obviously I listen to others at parties etc.. but I usually lissten to them 2 at home or whatever

How is that obvious when you said:

I rarely listen to any other music than DT and transatlantic

Anyway you should broaden your horizon son, it's healthy for you! 

[RuRoRul]

It should have been "music other than" rather than "other music than" (I think), but I thought it was pretty obvious and easy to understand what was meant.

It's not the way I listen to music. But neither do I think the number of bands or genres one listens to increases their level of "music listening superiority", or whatever. If you only like to listen to a select few bands no need to force yourself to stuff you don't like just because other people think that's better.

[jonnybaxy]

My horizon is pretty broad, i usually like anything that isn't top 40's or dubstep but recently I have listened to a lot of DT, probably because i recently listened to the whole SFAM album again and it just made me more obsessed and got me listening to albums I usually skip like FII 

Plus would you not consider DT to be broad?

Pretty wierd being looked down on by you guys for listening to DT 

[King Postwhore]

DEAR GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE?!

As for my question I think others have answered it.

[theseoafs]

Plus would you not consider DT to be broad?

Well, no, listening to only two bands makes for a horizon that is the opposite of broad.

[jonnybaxy]

Plus would you not consider DT to be broad?

Well, no, listening to only two bands makes for a horizon that is the opposite of broad.

Clearly we have different opinions, I just think their many different styles makes them a pretty broad band

[DarkLord_Lalinc]

Plus would you not consider DT to be broad?

Well, no, listening to only two bands makes for a horizon that is the opposite of broad.

Clearly we have different opinions, I just think their many different styles makes them a pretty broad band

Lol.

[rumborak]

DT is very narrow music, sorry. They got their niche and they're sticking to it.

Frank Zappa is broad music.

rumborak

[theseoafs]

Even if DT were an especially varied band (they're really not), it still wouldn't be a good thing to only listen to that one band.  There's too much good music out there that isn't DT to completely ignore everything else.

[DebraKadabra]

DT is very narrow music, sorry. They got their niche and they're sticking to it.

Frank Zappa is broad music.

rumborak

Well said, rumby.

[Jaffa]

I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with listening to only two bands.  I couldn't possibly do it myself, but, to each their own. 

For the record, though...

Pretty wierd being looked down on by you guys for listening to DT 

I don't think anyone's looking down on you for listening to DT.  I think they're confused by your listening to very little besides DT. 

[RuRoRul]

I feel like people must not have listened to many "narrow" bands to consider Dream Theater "very narrow". There are many, many "broader" bands but probably far more with a lot less variation. Kind of like when people ranked Dream Theater a 6 on a scale from 1 to 10 of technicality. It'd be a pretty weird and clustered scale if the vast majority of music was below a 6.

[Jaffa]

It'd be a pretty weird and clustered scale if the vast majority of music was below a 6.

That doesn't mean it isn't the way it is, though.  It only takes one highly technical or highly varied band to throw off the curve for everybody.

(Not suggesting that DT isn't technical or varied, just saying that I don't think it's an unreasonable perspective)

[RuRoRul]

It'd be a pretty weird and clustered scale if the vast majority of music was below a 6.

That doesn't mean it isn't the way it is, though.  It only takes one highly technical or highly varied band to throw off the curve for everybody.

(Not suggesting that DT isn't technical or varied, just saying that I don't think it's an unreasonable perspective)

I suppose you are right. Odd for someone to make up their own subjective scale that way, though.

[Pols Voice]

Clearly we have different opinions, I just think their many different styles makes them a pretty broad band

They're not pretty broads; they're all guys.



I'll get my coat.

[TheGreatPretender]

DT is very narrow music, sorry.

That is a ridiculous statement.

Suddenly every band that doesn't go crazy with experimentation is very narrow? Vast majority of bands out there don't cover HALF the diversity that Dream Theater does. Disturbed, that's narrow. Iron Maiden, that's narrow. I wouldn't even call Megadeth narrow and DT has even more variety.

Zappa is a very extreme example. He shouldn't set the standard for what 'variety' in music means.

Basically....

I feel like people must not have listened to many "narrow" bands to consider Dream Theater "very narrow". There are many, many "broader" bands but probably far more with a lot less variation. Kind of like when people ranked Dream Theater a 6 on a scale from 1 to 10 of technicality. It'd be a pretty weird and clustered scale if the vast majority of music was below a 6.

This.

[slycordinator]

I feel like people must not have listened to many "narrow" bands to consider Dream Theater "very narrow". There are many, many "broader" bands but probably far more with a lot less variation. Kind of like when people ranked Dream Theater a 6 on a scale from 1 to 10 of technicality. It'd be a pretty weird and clustered scale if the vast majority of music was below a 6.

I assume when you're saying "majority of music" you mean "majority of modern, Western music." And with that in mind, why wouldn't the vast majority be below 6 and clustered around each other?

[RuRoRul]

I feel like people must not have listened to many "narrow" bands to consider Dream Theater "very narrow". There are many, many "broader" bands but probably far more with a lot less variation. Kind of like when people ranked Dream Theater a 6 on a scale from 1 to 10 of technicality. It'd be a pretty weird and clustered scale if the vast majority of music was below a 6.

I assume when you're saying "majority of music" you mean "majority of modern, Western music." And with that in mind, why wouldn't the vast majority be below 6 and clustered around each other?

Yeah, sure. Although I find it difficult to imagine that the majority of music is more technical than Dream Theater (which would be the case if the majority of music wasn't more technical than Dream Theater), but I don't really know much about it.

And because it's just a subjective scale, it's essentially being made up, it makes more sense that the scale is designed to best show the degrees of difference - it's not something objective where the scale already exists like, say, the mass of different animals on a linear scale, where a few things like elephants and whales would be scattered at the top and millions of insects and other tiny creatures would be clustered at the very bottom. One could theoretically decide to put all music at a "1", except for nine pieces of most technical music in the world which make up 2-10 respectively. It just seems not to be the best way of doing it and loses huge amounts of information. But this has already gone pretty far into the realms of ridiculousness, talking about the merits of a hypothetical scale. In my opinion, putting something highly technical very low down on the scale just because there's a small percentage that is even more technical isn't a very sensible way of doing it.

[toro]

DT is very narrow music, sorry.

That is a ridiculous statement.

Suddenly every band that doesn't go crazy with experimentation is very narrow? Vast majority of bands out there don't cover HALF the diversity that Dream Theater does. Disturbed, that's narrow. Iron Maiden, that's narrow. I wouldn't even call Megadeth narrow and DT has even more variety.

DT is really narrow.
They don't have that much diversity besides, long "epics"(God I hate that word) the radio "friendly" singles and their ballads.
I still love em.

[Perpetual Change]

There are very few places in the world where Dream Theater would be considered "narrow" music outside of progressive circles.

[Zook]

I was never a Foo Fighters fan. Everlong was good, but the rest of their singles are borderline awful.

[slycordinator]

Yeah, sure. Although I find it difficult to imagine that the majority of music is more technical than Dream Theater (which would be the case if the majority of music wasn't more technical than Dream Theater), but I don't really know much about it.

I can't decipher what you're saying here. You're trying to imagine a situation where DT is less technical than the majority of music out there then saying that this wouldn't happen if the majority of music isn't more technical than them. Umm... wut?

And I was narrowing us down to western music styles only because lots of other "ethnic" styles use stuff like odd-meters and more unusual chord patterns absolutely all the time.

And because it's just a subjective scale, it's essentially being made up, it makes more sense that the scale is designed to best show the degrees of difference - it's not something objective where the scale already exists like, say, the mass of different animals on a linear scale, where a few things like elephants and whales would be scattered at the top and millions of insects and other tiny creatures would be clustered at the very bottom. One could theoretically decide to put all music at a "1", except for nine pieces of most technical music in the world which make up 2-10 respectively. It just seems not to be the best way of doing it and loses huge amounts of information. But this has already gone pretty far into the realms of ridiculousness, talking about the merits of a hypothetical scale. In my opinion, putting something highly technical very low down on the scale just because there's a small percentage that is even more technical isn't a very sensible way of doing it.

Even if you put DT at an 8.5-9, there would be lots of music in the 1-3 range.

[rumborak]

When was the last DT tune that did not feature each member? Vacant? They definitely have very narrow arrangements.

rumborak