Your Controversial Opinions on DT

[Stadler]

I'm stealing that.  I like it!

[gzarruk]

Mike P didn't phrase it this way here, but the way I understood it, he implied DT tap a lot into their metal side because it's more commercially successful.

He also says, literally, that they've embraced the "nostalgia" thing.

[Kocak]

Mike P didn't phrase it this way here, but the way I understood it, he implied DT tap a lot into their metal side because it's more commercially successful.

He also says, literally, that they've embraced the "nostalgia" thing.

I took it as having a metal side as well as the other side added to DT's success over the years due to the crossover between respective fanbases.

Listening to the interview, I am glad that he has mellowed out and not a control freak anymore.

[MoraWintersoul]

I take it kind of like, it is Dream Theater's secret sauce. They are the original genre creators here, and the genre was creating by adding more metal to something that was already out there, and this is their thing, this injection of metal into prog. And like Kocak said, being able to play metal festivals and being promoted in the metal world as a metal band doesn't hurt.

[Stadler]

Does he have a tongue piercing?  I notice a sibilance to his speaking voice that I don't remember before. 

[Setlist Scotty]

Does he have a tongue piercing?  I notice a sibilance to his speaking voice that I don't remember before. 

I don't believe so. I didn't notice one when I spoke with him after the Chicago show. Then again, I wasn't looking for it either. But still if he had gotten one, I imagine I would've picked up on it.

[nobloodyname]

Does he have a tongue piercing?  I notice a sibilance to his speaking voice that I don't remember before. 

It's just the equipment being used, I think. Or maybe compression. Anyway, something technical.

[Skeever]

Mike P didn't phrase it this way here, but the way I understood it, he implied DT tap a lot into their metal side because it's more commercially successful.

He also says, literally, that they've embraced the "nostalgia" thing.

It makes sense because of the kind of "fan" that MP is. Remembering his Rise of Skywalker post here, but he loved the fan service and call-back elements of that. He has always run DT the way that he would like to see them run as their biggest fan, and to him that means nuggets, nostalgia, and call backs.

[HOF]

Yeah, just think of how he views later day Metallica, Rush, etc. As a fan of those bands he always seemed to not appreciate that they evolved in their later years. It makes sense that he would want his band to stick to their bread and butter.

[TheBarstoolWarrior]

It makes sense because of the kind of "fan" that MP is. Remembering his Rise of Skywalker post here, but he loved the fan service and call-back elements of that. He has always run DT the way that he would like to see them run as their biggest fan, and to him that means nuggets, nostalgia, and call backs.

I would hope that the nuggets, nostalgia, and call backs are limited to Parasomnia. As a super fan I do not want them relying on the past to generate future material.

[WilliamMunny]

Yeah, just think of how he views later day Metallica, Rush, etc. As a fan of those bands he always seemed to not appreciate that they evolved in their later years. It makes sense that he would want his band to stick to their bread and butter.

That's a really good point.

MP always seems to be very period-specific with his favorite bands. Pre-OM QR, Pre-80s Rush, Pre-Black Album Metallica. I've even heard him comment on how he was done with Radiohead post Ok Computer.

It's weird, bc in every one of those cases, my favorite period for each band was further down the road.

It's all good...most people tend to gravitate toward specific periods–it's rare that someone likes 'everything' when it comes to these storied bands. JP and MP seem to fall into that category, and it certainly helps contextualize their approach to modern DT.

[TAC]

I'm willing to hear the next album before I make up my mind on this.

[Kocak]

I'm willing to hear the next album before I make up my mind on this.

I'm not expecting them to reinvent themselves to be honest.

[TAC]

I'm not expecting them to reinvent themselves to be honest.

Neither am I, but that doesn't mean we can't get a different kind of album than Parasomnia and BC&SL.

[Stadler]

As a fan that LOVES the nuggets, I hope that doesn't end. They can be creative, they can pursue their muse, without completely leaving behind the past.  One line or two here, a musical phrase there, over the course of a 70-minute record isn't a huge sacrifice.  I've heard the record a Brazilian times, it's one of my favorite records of all time, and the shoutouts and call-backs on Wind & Wuthering (I know they are from the same album, I get it) are some of my favorite parts. Stephen King drops in characters all the time from other novels and it makes the experience that much more rich.  The Continuing Story of Charlotte the Harlot.   

More importantly, I don't think we can be mad if they stay in a certain period. I mean, I guess you can, they're your feelings.  But it seems sort of arbitrary to me; plenty of bands have done that to rousing success (Rush, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Scorpions, King Crimson, Yes) both financially and creatively, including some of the bands mentioned here, and more than one has faced the wrath for moving too far away from their "certain period" (Queensryche).  But why would we begrudge them mining a vein that THEY feel is productive? 

And I would say this: I'm not sure what some of you are really expecting?  What does that look like in the studio? "Hey let's do something that feels totally unnatural, is uncomfortable to us and is not the sound we hear in our heads!"?  I say that to be funny, but these guys - John and Mike in particular - do not strike me as guys that are going to be energized or creative in a vein that isn't what they want to do.

[TheBarstoolWarrior]

As a fan that LOVES the nuggets, I hope that doesn't end. They can be creative, they can pursue their muse, without completely leaving behind the past.  One line or two here, a musical phrase there, over the course of a 70-minute record isn't a huge sacrifice.  I've heard the record a Brazilian times, it's one of my favorite records of all time, and the shoutouts and call-backs on Wind & Wuthering (I know they are from the same album, I get it) are some of my favorite parts. Stephen King drops in characters all the time from other novels and it makes the experience that much more rich.  The Continuing Story of Charlotte the Harlot.   

More importantly, I don't think we can be mad if they stay in a certain period. I mean, I guess you can, they're your feelings.  But it seems sort of arbitrary to me; plenty of bands have done that to rousing success (Rush, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Scorpions, King Crimson, Yes) both financially and creatively, including some of the bands mentioned here, and more than one has faced the wrath for moving too far away from their "certain period" (Queensryche).  But why would we begrudge them mining a vein that THEY feel is productive?

And I would say this: I'm not sure what some of you are really expecting?  What does that look like in the studio? "Hey let's do something that feels totally unnatural, is uncomfortable to us and is not the sound we hear in our heads!"?  I say that to be funny, but these guys - John and Mike in particular - do not strike me as guys that are going to be energized or creative in a vein that isn't what they want to do.

I wouldn't say anyone is begrudging them but exact term aside I think it's up to everyone - as independent thinkers, listeners, consumers etc - to decide for themselves if THEY think mining a particular vein is productive. The band can say or market whatever narrative they want and we can each listen to it and decide whether we agree.

[Stadler]

I wouldn't say anyone is begrudging them but exact term aside I think it's up to everyone - as independent thinkers, listeners, consumers etc - to decide for themselves if THEY think mining a particular vein is productive. The band can say or market whatever narrative they want and we can each listen to it and decide whether we agree.

Just in the interest of discussion - I'm not looking to fight here - but I don't think this ("it's up to everyone to decide for themselves if THEY think mining a particular vein is productive") is the same thing as ("The band can say or market whatever narrative they want and we can each listen to it and decide whether we agree.")  I 100% agree with the second point, but I can't imagine that anyone can tell me what is "productive" for me.  It takes way too many assumptions that a third party just simply cannot possibly know.  That's not "independent thinking"; in fact it's just the opposite.  It's projecting yourself, your wants, your desires, your goals, onto other people.  I don't understand that.

[TheBarstoolWarrior]

Just in the interest of discussion - I'm not looking to fight here - but I don't think this ("it's up to everyone to decide for themselves if THEY think mining a particular vein is productive") is the same thing as ("The band can say or market whatever narrative they want and we can each listen to it and decide whether we agree.")  I 100% agree with the second point, but I can't imagine that anyone can tell me what is "productive" for me.  It takes way too many assumptions that a third party just simply cannot possibly know.  That's not "independent thinking"; in fact it's just the opposite.  It's projecting yourself, your wants, your desires, your goals, onto other people. I don't understand that.

I haven't seen anyone project himself and his own goals onto the band, but I've seen some opinions that simply do not love the album and aren't impressed by the nostalgia element. On the other hand some people got exactly what they wanted and that's all well and good too. We've had a few threads in the past where people talk about their hopes - 'desires' I suppose - for a future album or what they'd like to see more/less of. All of the above are perfectly legitimate points of discussion I'm sure you'll agree.

[WilliamMunny]

Speaking for myself, I don't 'expect' Dream Theater to do anything. I'm happy (and have said as much) that they are apparently doing what they want to do.

That all said, it's also possible that, even without the burden of expectations, that their recent releases just don't resonate with me. No harm, no foul. No crime has been committed.

But, I think it's fair game to come to the band's unofficial forum, and try to articulate why I think that is the case. And, if in the process of doing so, I project my perspective onto their situation, I'm not sure I'm seeing the issue there.

Bottom line, not everything needs to be a scientific deconstruction. Sometimes, a lot of the times, actually, it's as simple as, "meh, not for me. And here's why..."

After all, we are discussing a band here, not our thoughts on inflation or, God forbid, tariffs

[Kocak]

Actually, the music itself matters very little in the grand scheme of things. They could have not released an album and had the same exact reception that they are getting on tour at the moment. They could have just said, "We are dipping our toes in the water, in the meantime, here's a double album of re-worked I&W and Awake." and still would have gotten the same response from the fans.

Over the years, they have stated that they do not want to be a nostalgia act, which is fair, so Parasomnia is an attempt at sustaining relevance, which is also fair, but the nostalgia factor isn't just in the tour setlists, it's also in the music itself. It is the band in the Dream Theater comfort zone that we all came to know.

It's their choice, their music - in terms of the output itself, the fans do not matter. We, as members of DTF, do not matter. Each individual has the right to perceive Dream Theater's work in whatever way they want and share it as they please. No one is trying to project anything onto the band: They release a product, we judge it according to how we perceive and and state how we would have done it differently or exactly the same. And this isn't projection in any shape, way or form. I was not there when they wrote the album, I was not there during any of the production phases, so all I have are assumptions based on their statements and the music itself, mixed in with my perception of them and my life experiences. If the band somehow contradicts what I'm saying and proves me wrong, I will also accept that, alter my assumptions accordingly and move on.

[hefdaddy42]

But, I think it's fair game to come to the band's unofficial forum, and try to articulate why I think that is the case. And, if in the process of doing so, I project my perspective onto their situation, I'm not sure I'm seeing the issue there.

Agreed.

[pg1067]

As a fan that LOVES the nuggets, I hope that doesn't end. They can be creative, they can pursue their muse, without completely leaving behind the past.  One line or two here, a musical phrase there, over the course of a 70-minute record isn't a huge sacrifice.  I've heard the record a Brazilian times, it's one of my favorite records of all time, and the shoutouts and call-backs on Wind & Wuthering (I know they are from the same album, I get it) are some of my favorite parts. Stephen King drops in characters all the time from other novels and it makes the experience that much more rich.  The Continuing Story of Charlotte the Harlot.   

Is there a bossa nova remix or something?

Did you get Joe to ghost-write this?

I couldn't decide, so I went with both.   

[Stadler]

Well, I'll leave it for the time being after this, but while I agree 100% with the last four posts (Barstool through Hef), to a word, I don't think that's EXACTLY what is happening here.

It's certainly one thing to say "I don't like that", with or without a "why".  There's plenty of songs/works by artists I admire that I don't like.  As big a Kiss fan as I am, I despise "Shandi".  I do not like the sound of the 7-string guitar (generally too dense for me).  Fair game.

I'm talking about the inevitable next step:  "they are doing it for the cash".  Or "they should use different instruments". Or "they're not living up to their potential".  That's not the same thing.  That's NOT saying "I don't like this and here's why", it absolutely IS telling them what to do.  You are LITERALLY telling them to use different instruments!!  This isn't hard, it's not a code, it's not mystery. 

It's like someone coming into my workplace and telling me, because I'm not the head of the entire legal department, or because I don't have a team of 20 reporting to me, that I am "not living up to my potential". NOT for you to say; I personally think my best potential is to be the best son, dad, husband and friend I can be.  Period.  If that means I'm not lawyer of the year, then so be it. And I think, because it's MY decision where my priorities go, that it's disrespectful for any third party to suggest that I should realign my priorities to fit what THEY think I should be achieving. 

Maybe I'm just salty because I see this going in the same direction as many other bands I like; "Kiss should just get Ace and Peter back and do a tour".  "Genesis should just get with Peter and do one tour of The Lamb".  Maybe it's too much semantics for some of you, but that's not at all the same as "wow, my dream concert would be Kiss with Ace and Peter", or "I would love to see Genesis with Pete one more time". 

Look, I get I'm the minority here, and that's fine. It is what it is. I don't expect people to do what I say; I'm just giving my two cents in case anyone wants to think about it. And if you don't that's fine too. 

[WilliamMunny]

Well, I'll leave it for the time being after this, but while I agree 100% with the last four posts (Barstool through Hef), to a word, I don't think that's EXACTLY what is happening here.

It's certainly one thing to say "I don't like that", with or without a "why".  There's plenty of songs/works by artists I admire that I don't like.  As big a Kiss fan as I am, I despise "Shandi".  I do not like the sound of the 7-string guitar (generally too dense for me).  Fair game.

I'm talking about the inevitable next step:  "they are doing it for the cash".  Or "they should use different instruments". Or "they're not living up to their potential".  That's not the same thing.  That's NOT saying "I don't like this and here's why", it absolutely IS telling them what to do.  You are LITERALLY telling them to use different instruments!!  This isn't hard, it's not a code, it's not mystery. 

It's like someone coming into my workplace and telling me, because I'm not the head of the entire legal department, or because I don't have a team of 20 reporting to me, that I am "not living up to my potential". NOT for you to say; I personally think my best potential is to be the best son, dad, husband and friend I can be.  Period.  If that means I'm not lawyer of the year, then so be it. And I think, because it's MY decision where my priorities go, that it's disrespectful for any third party to suggest that I should realign my priorities to fit what THEY think I should be achieving. 

Maybe I'm just salty because I see this going in the same direction as many other bands I like; "Kiss should just get Ace and Peter back and do a tour".  "Genesis should just get with Peter and do one tour of The Lamb".  Maybe it's too much semantics for some of you, but that's not at all the same as "wow, my dream concert would be Kiss with Ace and Peter", or "I would love to see Genesis with Pete one more time". 

Look, I get I'm the minority here, and that's fine. It is what it is. I don't expect people to do what I say; I'm just giving my two cents in case anyone wants to think about it. And if you don't that's fine too. 

I might have missed it, but is anybody literally saying that? Here? (again, I tend to skim, but don't recall seeing it).

As for this: ""Genesis should just get with Peter and do one tour of The Lamb".  Maybe it's too much semantics for some of you, but that's not at all the same as "wow, my dream concert would be Kiss with Ace and Peter", or "I would love to see Genesis with Pete one more time".  "

Definitely might be a case of semantics here. I mean, if you remove that from the conversation, you've probably nixed 90% of the music conversations I've had in my life. I spent a decade or so running a local record store here, where employees and customers alike would literally spend all day saying things like, "Genesis should just get with Peter and do one tour of The Lamb."

These were all good, honest, hard-working people shootin' the breeze about music, and if everytime something like that came up someone came along and said, "Nope...you have no right to tell them what to do."...well, it would've gotten pretty stale pretty quick.

Bottom line, no one is telling anyone what to do. Speaking in a hypothetical is not the same as picking up the phone and attempting to call Peter Gabriel*. If anything, these sorts of conversations are really just indicative of an elevated level of fandom.

*social-media is the exception, as it is a place where people do, in fact, attempt to tell artists what they should be doing. That, I do not condone (nor do I have any social media accounts)

[Kocak]

I'm talking about the inevitable next step:  "they are doing it for the cash".  Or "they should use different instruments". Or "they're not living up to their potential".  That's not the same thing.  That's NOT saying "I don't like this and here's why", it absolutely IS telling them what to do.  You are LITERALLY telling them to use different instruments!!  This isn't hard, it's not a code, it's not mystery. 

I might have missed it, but is anybody literally saying that? Here? (again, I tend to skim, but don't recall seeing it).

He is referring to something I have said. And for reference, it's this:

JP refuses to use any other equipment than his signature stuff. I can understand this because an instrument is a very personal choice in terms of comfort and playability, but it's also sonically limiting.

I am not "telling" JP to use other instruments. I explicitly acknowledge that it is a personal choice. I was referring to the sonically limiting aspect of limiting oneself to certain gear. (Guitars and other gear - JP has signature pedals, amps and other such equipment.) This is not telling them what to do. I do not matter in terms of what decisions the band members make. I'm irrelevant.

Definitely might be a case of semantics here. I mean, if you remove that from the conversation, you've probably nixed 90% of the music conversations I've had in my life. I spent a decade or so running a local record store here, where employees and customers alike would literally spend all day saying things like, "Genesis should just get with Peter and do one tour of The Lamb."

Precisely. No matter which aspect of music we talk about, it's always going to be subjective, opinion-based.

[Stadler]

I might have missed it, but is anybody literally saying that? Here? (again, I tend to skim, but don't recall seeing it).

As for this: ""Genesis should just get with Peter and do one tour of The Lamb".  Maybe it's too much semantics for some of you, but that's not at all the same as "wow, my dream concert would be Kiss with Ace and Peter", or "I would love to see Genesis with Pete one more time".  "

Definitely might be a case of semantics here. I mean, if you remove that from the conversation, you've probably nixed 90% of the music conversations I've had in my life. I spent a decade or so running a local record store here, where employees and customers alike would literally spend all day saying things like, "Genesis should just get with Peter and do one tour of The Lamb."

These were all good, honest, hard-working people shootin' the breeze about music, and if everytime something like that came up someone came along and said, "Nope...you have no right to tell them what to do."...well, it would've gotten pretty stale pretty quick.

Bottom line, no one is telling anyone what to do. Speaking in a hypothetical is not the same as picking up the phone and attempting to call Peter Gabriel*. If anything, these sorts of conversations are really just indicative of an elevated level of fandom.

*social-media is the exception, as it is a place where people do, in fact, attempt to tell artists what they should be doing. That, I do not condone (nor do I have any social media accounts)

And maybe that's really at the root of this. 

I really am not looking to be the semantics police.  I'm not on the spectrum*; I can read context clues as well as the next person.  But I've noticed something about the Dream Theater fandom (and Fish too; I've written about this before). There's an assumed level of familiarity where the context isn't at all suggesting that "they should go on tour with Pete" is really imprecise language for "I'd really like it if...".  It's a level of familiarity that breeds entitlement.  I make the off-hand comment a lot that "I don't have any illusions that I'm friends with these people", but there ARE fans that do. I'm not talking about the ACTUAL friends (like Scotty, or Bosk), I'm talking about people that have met them at two or three meet and greets and maybe got a response tweet from one of the band members, and now think they're entitled to be in these people's heads.   

I'm only switching to Fish to make it less personal, so I don't seem so accusatory, but in the wake of Fish's last tour - where he was clear on three things:  there would be no live album from the tour, the store was shutting down, and for tax and accounting reasons he would be selling for "scrap" (not literally) the extra media that didn't sell as of the close date - there has been a fair amount of controversy.  Go to the Fish forum on Facebook; there are STILL people telling him - and Tara, his daughter, who has a presence on line because she manned his store in the final months - that they were morally wrong for destroying the physical media, and that he "owed" the fans that couldn't attend - through some convoluted logic about his choices of where to play and when - a live product as a souvenir. There are people blaming Fish because they missed out on getting certain disks/products, and bitching that the prices on eBay are now inflated.  It's disgusting frankly, and I can't blame him for wanting to hide out in the Outer Hebrides.  With fans like that, who needs enemies?

It's not as bad here, I will grant you, but it is present, and while I do not think DT are like me, I do have sympathy.  I am literally the same age as John and Mike.  I have lost people close to me, and have had a pretty serious rethink about the priorities in my life (as have several band members, famously).  Retirement is closer to me than the start of my career, and while I'm not dead yet, my horizons have changed. I am starting to realize how little some of the details really matter in the grand scheme of things.  I've recently had occasion to reconnect with a bunch of people I went to high school with. It is literally DIZZYING what they remember, and more importantly what they don't.  Most don't remember what teams I played on, what grades I got, where I finished each sports season. What I wore. One girl remembers that I made fun of her last name once (how humiliating); I don't remember it, but her name is Polish, and I'm Polish, and I want desperately to think that that was my ham-fisted way of flirting with her.  One girl remembers that I always carried gum, and I would once in a while slip a piece into her locker. I actually didn't remember that. One guy lived across from my grandmother and asked why I never walked over when they were hanging in the driveway (I was a year or two younger).  I didn't tell him I was scared shitless and thought they were making fun of me. Haha.  What many of you view as a negative, to me is a profound, life-changing positive.  The world - meaning the cosmos - does not care whether Mike plays the same fill twice. The world does not care if the band plays to a click track.  The world does not care if a song title or five are mentioned in the latest song. I can't prove this any more than you can prove it's not true, but I like to think the cosmos are going to remember Mike and James putting their differences aside; whether it's for money, or family, or whatever doesn't matter.  I like to think the cosmos are going to remember 5,000 people at RCMH standing on their feet for three hours, with smiles (and maybe tears) across their faces.  I think it isn't for me to say what matters more to these people, who create; whether 5,000 people hear their music, and watch them play, in one of the greatest theaters in the world, versus whether 500 people (maybe) see them in the basement of some hotel five blocks away.

I'm suggesting that ultimately, what matters is that wherever John Petrucci is standing, whatever he is doing, as long as he is standing where he wants to be, and doing what he wants to do, as an artist, that's the only thing that will ultimately matter. You look back at the 60s and the 70s, and the artists that were following their muse - for better or worse - are the ones we remember; the artists pandering to fans, or playing to expectations, are the ones that are a in the "where are they now?" file. 


We can speculate all we want; I would never stop any of you from doing that.  I would ask, maybe, that once in a blue moon we sprinkle in an understanding that maybe SOME things are beyond our ken, and beyond our sacred opinions.

* That's not an insult, that's an acknowledgement; my son is on the spectrum, and I am not taking shots here.

[emtee]

Way too deep in the weeds for me. It's just music. We can love it, like it, be indifferent to it, hate it, wish for X or Y...etc.

[hefdaddy42]

It's like someone coming into my workplace

It absolutely is not that.

[Stadler]

What occupation does Mike put on his tax return?  Plumber?  (Oh, wait, that's Ace Frehley.)

[TAC]

What occupation does Mike put on his tax return?  Plumber?  (Oh, wait, that's Ace Frehley.)

I believe Ace reports that he plays the trout.

[MidnightSlice]

So to maybe lighten this up a bit.

This may not be controversial but Wither is great ballad and I don't see the song discussed much.

[TheBarstoolWarrior]

So to maybe lighten this up a bit.

This may not be controversial but Wither is great ballad and I don't see the song discussed much.

Indeed controversial lol.

[BeatriceNB]

I'm on both camps in the discussion: on one hand, I respect the band and their desires/choices, even if I don't "agree" with them; on the other hand, seeing musicians of such caliber deciding to rehash a style, to me, seems like using a Lamborghini to buy the groceries

But that's me, I think music is a beautiful thing, with so so so much diversity, that I really struggle to understand why someone would limit themselves to writing within some boundaries.
But I'm young, and so were Dream Theater when they wrote Images & Words, throwing influences from all over the place in the album. Stadler makes some good points, especially about playing music at an "old" age, which I never considered.

So to maybe lighten this up a bit.

This may not be controversial but Wither is great ballad and I don't see the song discussed much.

I like it too. And Bb minor is one of my favourite tonalities, and I think DT have like two songs in it (Out Of Reach is another, and I can't remember any other).

[CraftyCaleb2483]

I like it too. And Bb minor is one of my favourite tonalities, and I think DT have like two songs in it (Out Of Reach is another, and I can't remember any other)

Well, Dead Asleep is in Bb minor too, but I'm pretty sure those are literally the only three songs in that key

[Kocak]

So to maybe lighten this up a bit.

This may not be controversial but Wither is great ballad and I don't see the song discussed much.

From a pure songwriting perspective, it is the most cohesive attempt in DT history. It is also one of the few DT tracks that was not written in the studio as JP wrote it at home and brought in a finished demo.