Why is Systematic Chaos hated so much?

[KevShmev]

To get back on the idea of this being a fun album, I think of it this way: it's like your movie collection.  You don't want a collection of nothing but serious dramas; you need some cheesy, action movies.  Sure, there isn't a lot of depth to those kinds of movies most of the time, but they are still fun and serve a purpose.  That is what Systematic Chaos is.

[Joshin U]

To get back on the idea of this being a fun album, I think of it this way: it's like your movie collection.  You don't want a collection of nothing but serious dramas; you need some cheesy, action movies.  Sure, there isn't a lot of depth to those kinds of movies most of the time, but they are still fun and serve a purpose.  That is what Systematic Chaos is.

But you still couldn't help feeling slightly cheated if Stanley Kubrick, Chris Nolan, or David Fincher made a cheesy action movie.

[TheGreatPretender]

But you still couldn't help feeling slightly cheated if Stanley Kubrick, Chris Nolan, or David Fincher made a cheesy action movie.

But Systematic Chaos still retains the level of musicianship that DT has always brought along. It still contains elements of what they do best. So in that respect, if Christopher Nolan decided to give his own interpretation of, say, Demolition Man, and still brought the same kind of scale and cinematography that he's known for, then in spite of all the one liners and intentional goofiness, it would probably still be quite spectacular.

[The Boomr]

But Systematic Chaos still retains the level of musicianship that DT has always brought along. It still contains elements of what they do best. So in that respect, if Christopher Nolan decided to give his own interpretation of, say, Demolition Man, and still brought the same kind of scale and cinematography that he's known for, then in spite of all the one liners and intentional goofiness, it would probably still be quite spectacular.

[eviljust]

TMOLS and ITPOE, that's all I can listen from SC. Which was basically disappointing when I've listened to it for the very first time but 6 years have passed and I keep listen to them a lot. Considering them one of the best songs of the last decade, so I really can't say anymore I hate this album, even if for a long time I strenously asserted so.

Oh I have to admit I randomly listen to Forsaken as well, which is so damn catchy for me.

[TheGreatPretender]

IMO, the piano melody in Forsaken is the best DT had since Wait For Sleep.

[eviljust]

IMO, the piano melody in Forsaken is the best DT had since Wait For Sleep.

Yeah, not too mellow, not too heavy.

Came to me another consideration I wanted to do in the previous post that is, SC for me represents a turning point for DT history. Honestly I haven't read all the posts, but not a coincidence it is the first album with RR and opened the DT universe to a new generation of fans.

[The Boomr]

IMO, the piano melody in Forsaken is the best DT had since Wait For Sleep.

It is a DAMN good melody. Beautiful, haunting....in 7/8  And it flows so naturally. I'm not even a pianist but I learned to play that melody cause I loved it so much

[Mosh]

But you still couldn't help feeling slightly cheated if Stanley Kubrick, Chris Nolan, or David Fincher made a cheesy action movie.

But Systematic Chaos still retains the level of musicianship that DT has always brought along. It still contains elements of what they do best. So in that respect, if Christopher Nolan decided to give his own interpretation of, say, Demolition Man, and still brought the same kind of scale and cinematography that he's known for, then in spite of all the one liners and intentional goofiness, it would probably still be quite spectacular.

Meh, to me that's saying SC is a lot of fluff with little substance. Which is an apt description IMO.

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

no

[The Boomr]

no

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

\o

[TheGreatPretender]

Meh, to me that's saying SC is a lot of fluff with little substance. Which is an apt description IMO.

Depending on your definition of substance and fluff. The sheer musicianship and complexity of music displayed in Systematic Chaos is all the substance it needs. If you're talking about the lyrics, well, personally, I'd rather listen to songs with fictitious imagery like Forsaken or ITPOE over reality based songs like Six Degrees or pretty much anything on BC&SL. (Although I don't listen to DT for lyrics anyway, and music takes significant priority.) Opinions differ, but just because it's not to your tastes, doesn't make it fluff. The only lyrics I'd consider fluff are generic ones, like The Answer Lies Within, for example. And even then, I think it's a great song because of the music.

[Mosh]

Meh, to me that's saying SC is a lot of fluff with little substance. Which is an apt description IMO.

Depending on your definition of substance and fluff. The sheer musicianship and complexity of music displayed in Systematic Chaos is all the substance it needs.

I don't agree with that. I like technicality and complicated proggy sections but to me the song comes first. There are a lot of moments on SC where technicality comes first and I don't like that. In some extreme cases (TMOLS I'm looking at you) the song is completely ruined by out of place technical sections. There are plenty of DT songs before and after SC that display sheer musicianship and complexity but don't take away from the song itself.

Wasn't talking lyrics, I don't care for most of the lyrics but whatever, I can put up with them.

[TheGreatPretender]

I don't agree with that. I like technicality and complicated proggy sections but to me the song comes first. There are a lot of moments on SC where technicality comes first and I don't like that. In some extreme cases (TMOLS I'm looking at you) the song is completely ruined by out of place technical sections. There are plenty of DT songs before and after SC that display sheer musicianship and complexity but don't take away from the song itself.

Wasn't talking lyrics, I don't care for most of the lyrics but whatever, I can put up with them.

Well, my point still stands. It depends on your definition of fluff, and differing opinions.

[Mosh]

Fair enough, that's cool. 

[TheGreatPretender]

Gasp! You mean... It's actually possible to agree to disagree without resorting to petty name calling and nerd rage?? We must let the internet know about this right away!

[eviljust]

Meh, to me that's saying SC is a lot of fluff with little substance. Which is an apt description IMO.

Depending on your definition of substance and fluff. The sheer musicianship and complexity of music displayed in Systematic Chaos is all the substance it needs.

I don't agree with that. I like technicality and complicated proggy sections but to me the song comes first. There are a lot of moments on SC where technicality comes first and I don't like that. In some extreme cases (TMOLS I'm looking at you) the song is completely ruined by out of place technical sections. There are plenty of DT songs before and after SC that display sheer musicianship and complexity but don't take away from the song itself.

Wasn't talking lyrics, I don't care for most of the lyrics but whatever, I can put up with them.

So would you call TMOLS instrumental section "fluff"?

[Mosh]

Gasp! You mean... It's actually possible to agree to disagree without resorting to petty name calling and nerd rage?? We must let the internet know about this right away!

You're right, this is weird. What I meant to say was: You suck and your opinion is invalid!

Meh, to me that's saying SC is a lot of fluff with little substance. Which is an apt description IMO.

Depending on your definition of substance and fluff. The sheer musicianship and complexity of music displayed in Systematic Chaos is all the substance it needs.

I don't agree with that. I like technicality and complicated proggy sections but to me the song comes first. There are a lot of moments on SC where technicality comes first and I don't like that. In some extreme cases (TMOLS I'm looking at you) the song is completely ruined by out of place technical sections. There are plenty of DT songs before and after SC that display sheer musicianship and complexity but don't take away from the song itself.

Wasn't talking lyrics, I don't care for most of the lyrics but whatever, I can put up with them.

So would you call TMOLS instrumental section "fluff"?

Absolutely. It kills what would otherwise be a decent 6 minute track IMO.

[eviljust]

Allright, just wanted to be sure of it. Totally disagree with you though

[TheGreatPretender]

Gasp! You mean... It's actually possible to agree to disagree without resorting to petty name calling and nerd rage?? We must let the internet know about this right away!

You're right, this is weird. What I meant to say was: You suck and your opinion is invalid!

Ah, that's the internet I know. It might not be pleasant, but it's reliable... Like an old chair that you've had for 10 years, and it makes your ass sore every time you sit on it.

[Dublagent66]

Gasp! You mean... It's actually possible to agree to disagree without resorting to petty name calling and nerd rage?? We must let the internet know about this right away!

You're right, this is weird. What I meant to say was: You suck and your opinion is invalid!

Meh, to me that's saying SC is a lot of fluff with little substance. Which is an apt description IMO.

Depending on your definition of substance and fluff. The sheer musicianship and complexity of music displayed in Systematic Chaos is all the substance it needs.

I don't agree with that. I like technicality and complicated proggy sections but to me the song comes first. There are a lot of moments on SC where technicality comes first and I don't like that. In some extreme cases (TMOLS I'm looking at you) the song is completely ruined by out of place technical sections. There are plenty of DT songs before and after SC that display sheer musicianship and complexity but don't take away from the song itself.

Wasn't talking lyrics, I don't care for most of the lyrics but whatever, I can put up with them.

So would you call TMOLS instrumental section "fluff"?

Absolutely. It kills what would otherwise be a decent 6 minute track IMO.

Huh?  Are we listening to the same song?  TMOLS is just under 15:00 mins in length and the instrumental section is just under 4:00 mins.  The first half of the song leads into the instrumental which begins at 7:29 (elapsed) and ends at 11:20.  The outro itself is over 2:00 mins.  How did you end up with only a 6:00 min song?  BTW, the instrumental section is a brilliant piece of music and I would not like the song as much without it there.

[The Boomr]

Huh?  Are we listening to the same song?  TMOLS is just under 15:00 mins in length and the instrumental section is just under 4:00 mins.  The first half of the song leads into the instrumental which begins at 7:29 (elapsed) and ends at 11:20.  The outro itself is over 2:00 mins.  How did you end up with only a 6:00 min song?  BTW, the instrumental section is a brilliant piece of music and I would not like the song as much without it there.

[TheGreatPretender]

BTW, the instrumental section is a brilliant piece of music and I would not like the song as much without it there.

[Mosh]

Gasp! You mean... It's actually possible to agree to disagree without resorting to petty name calling and nerd rage?? We must let the internet know about this right away!

You're right, this is weird. What I meant to say was: You suck and your opinion is invalid!

Meh, to me that's saying SC is a lot of fluff with little substance. Which is an apt description IMO.

Depending on your definition of substance and fluff. The sheer musicianship and complexity of music displayed in Systematic Chaos is all the substance it needs.

I don't agree with that. I like technicality and complicated proggy sections but to me the song comes first. There are a lot of moments on SC where technicality comes first and I don't like that. In some extreme cases (TMOLS I'm looking at you) the song is completely ruined by out of place technical sections. There are plenty of DT songs before and after SC that display sheer musicianship and complexity but don't take away from the song itself.

Wasn't talking lyrics, I don't care for most of the lyrics but whatever, I can put up with them.

So would you call TMOLS instrumental section "fluff"?

Absolutely. It kills what would otherwise be a decent 6 minute track IMO.

Huh?  Are we listening to the same song?  TMOLS is just under 15:00 mins in length and the instrumental section is just under 4:00 mins.  The first half of the song leads into the instrumental which begins at 7:29 (elapsed) and ends at 11:20.  The outro itself is over 2:00 mins.  How did you end up with only a 6:00 min song?  BTW, the instrumental section is a brilliant piece of music and I would not like the song as much without it there.

Well, for starters I don't have all these lengths memorized, my sincere apologies. I said 6 minutes because that's about average length for a "short" DT song these days and TMOLS would've been better off as a shorter song IMO.

[The Boomr]

For me, if it had been a short DT song, around 6 minutes or whatever, TMOLS would've then become a boring track. Half the intensity of it would be taken away by lack of that instrumental section, and more than half the emotions would disappear if there was no outro. And those two things would be pretty much guaranteed in order to make the song that short.

[ariich]

if Christopher Nolan decided to give his own interpretation of, say, Demolition Man, and still brought the same kind of scale and cinematography that he's known for, then in spite of all the one liners and intentional goofiness, it would probably still be quite spectacular.

I want to see this.

MAKE IT HAPPEN

[AngelBack]

BTW, the instrumental section is a brilliant piece of music and I would not like the song as much without it there.

Totally agree with this.  The instrumental adds some needed "tension" and JP's solo is just blistering.  I love this song and wish the outro was 5 minutes longer.  The synths are beautiful and the simple but soulful JP melody on the outro just does it for me.

[Zook]

BTW, the instrumental section is a brilliant piece of music and I would not like the song as much without it there.

Totally agree with this.  The instrumental adds some needed "tension" and JP's solo is just blistering.  I love this song and wish the outro was 5 minutes longer.  The synths are beautiful and the simple but soulful JP melody on the outro just does it for me.

The outro seems like it's 5 minutes too long. 

[Nel_Annette]

I've posted it before, but yeah:  I don't like Another Day at all.  And as for songs that I consider "just okay, usually don't have a desire to listen, but they have some good moments that I want to hear every once-in-awhile":  Surrounded, Take The Time, and Under A Glass Moon.

You listed the exact four songs I don't like on the album.  Seriously, the other four are all 10/10s to me, but these four have always kept I&W on the lower part of my DT list.

[Rattlehead]

To get back on the idea of this being a fun album, I think of it this way: it's like your movie collection.  You don't want a collection of nothing but serious dramas; you need some cheesy, action movies.  Sure, there isn't a lot of depth to those kinds of movies most of the time, but they are still fun and serve a purpose.  That is what Systematic Chaos is.

That's a clever comparison  I can definitely agree with that. 

[Jaffa]

To get back on the idea of this being a fun album, I think of it this way: it's like your movie collection.  You don't want a collection of nothing but serious dramas; you need some cheesy, action movies.  Sure, there isn't a lot of depth to those kinds of movies most of the time, but they are still fun and serve a purpose.  That is what Systematic Chaos is.

See, to me, my movie collection doesn't need any cheesy action movies.  True, I don't want a collection of nothing but serious dramas, but it's not like there's nothing to choose from but serious dramas and cheesy action movies.  There are comedies, and romances, and thrillers, and horrors, and mysteries, and plenty of other stuff, including... y'know, non-cheesy action movies.  All of which I would rather have in my collection than cheesy action movies.

... That being said, I like Systematic Chaos.  So I'm not arguing with your point, only with your analogy.   

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

The One demands to be added to your movie collection.

[Mosh]

BTW, the instrumental section is a brilliant piece of music and I would not like the song as much without it there.

Totally agree with this.  The instrumental adds some needed "tension" and JP's solo is just blistering.  I love this song and wish the outro was 5 minutes longer.  The synths are beautiful and the simple but soulful JP melody on the outro just does it for me.

The outro seems like it's 5 minutes too long.

That too. Forgot about the outro. It's a pretty melody but it feels like it goes on forever.

[aprilethereal]

BTW, the instrumental section is a brilliant piece of music and I would not like the song as much without it there.

Totally agree with this.  The instrumental adds some needed "tension" and JP's solo is just blistering.  I love this song and wish the outro was 5 minutes longer.  The synths are beautiful and the simple but soulful JP melody on the outro just does it for me.

This. The outro and the instrumental are some of main reasons why I love TMOLS.