How do you rate Mangini's work on the latest album?

[rumborak]

I would never rate anything 10/10.

That's like saying it has absolutely no flaws at all.

I wouldn't even rank my favourite album of all time a 10.

I think the 10 is kinda reserved for your death bed, where you can look back on all the music you heard, identify the best one, and say "yup, 10 out of 10. It is the peak of all the music I ever experienced."
But yeah, I agree, voting anything 10/10 is kinds silly since it implies the inability to ever be improved upon. No offense, but MM's drumming is not even in the same parking lot as that rank. Especially when so clearly the drum sound could have been improved upon.

[erwinrafael]

And your description of "orchestral" drumming is rather nebulous. Perhaps you mean he's keeping the beat? Still not sure what you mean...

Not merely keepign the beat. It is treating the whole drum kit as an orchestral instrument, and playing not just rhythmically but also melodically and, more importantly, purposively. It's drumming like you are writing an orchestral piece, where each of the instrument's pieces are written to complement each other and bring an overall feel to the music.

Is it still nebulous? While MM follows / syncs the beats with what the other instruments are playing, he's not really just replicating their notes. He also does other things that complements, not replicates, what the other instruments are doing. Listen to Surrender to Reason closely. Not all hits, specially the snare and the hi-hats/cymbals, are timed to coincide with a note played by the other instruments, but all hits complement what the others are doing. The drums sync with the other instruments rhythmically and melodically during important moments, and MM's limb independence allows him to use the bass drums, for example, to highlight what the bass guitar is doing, while at the same time use the cymbals to highlight what the keyboard is doing.

Following are some MM quotes on how he describes his orchestral drumming:

"Me going into Dream Theater means going into a band where we like the same kinds of things but what I bring that is different is the way that I orchestrate on the drums because I play ambidextrously and I kind of match frequencies a little more exactly. I have a few more things in my kit that were designed for the higher end of the keyboard and some things for the lower ends, like smaller drums and bigger drums. So the difference is in my orchestration and how I am tying in the music to the drums.

The other thing that I do is that my coordination allows me to appear as if I am in one time signature with one limb or one part of my body while the rest of it appears to be in another one. So those are the two different things; I can play polyrhythms and I orchestrate a little bit more orchestral-y." https://canadianmusician.com/blog/2013/11/21/cm-talks-drums-with-dream-theaters-mike-mangini/

"Yeah, check us out with headphones. I don't even know if you even like it or not, but at least check the album out with headphones. You are going to FEEL a bunch of guys in a room having a good time. And what you'll HEAR?? You'll hear how every little drum hit has a place, like it matches something in the music. I'm very proud of that. I would love for you to enjoy that."  https://www.lithiummagazine.com/interview-mike-mangini-dream-theater-august-28th-2013#sthash.mXCVBeis.dpuf

[Tis BOOLsheet]

Great post. It's obvious that there is a lot of room for someone like MM to educate the fans (especially me) in what exactly his style and approach are. It appears that this classical approach to drumming is foreign to a lot of people. I think the more he opens up about this stuff and his drum parts, the more people are going to appreciate him and the music, perhaps instead of dismissing everything as uninteresting and uncreative.

[Addy]

Voted 9. Why? Because I feel like they didn't take advantage of his insane polyrhythmic/polymetric abilities.

[Kotowboy]

I would never rate anything 10/10.

That's like saying it has absolutely no flaws at all.

I wouldn't even rank my favourite album of all time a 10.

I think the 10 is kinda reserved for your death bed, where you can look back on all the music you heard, identify the best one, and say "yup, 10 out of 10. It is the peak of all the music I ever experienced."
But yeah, I agree, voting anything 10/10 is kinds silly since it implies the inability to ever be improved upon. No offense, but MM's drumming is not even in the same parking lot as that rank. Especially when so clearly the drum sound could have been improved upon.

What's worse is that type of fanboy who gives his favourite band a 10/10 for everything they put out.

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

Maybe they just like it. People have favorite bands for a reason, generally because they like that band's output.

[KevShmev]

Sure, but no band has put out nothing but perfect records, so, unless you are one of those people who declares a band with only one or two albums your favorite , giving your favorite a 10/10 for everything makes it hard to take that person seriously.

[Kotowboy]

Especially if they're a Metallica fan - who haven't done anything worth a 10 for 20 years or more

[hefdaddy42]

I would never rate anything 10/10.

That's like saying it has absolutely no flaws at all.

I wouldn't even rank my favourite album of all time a 10.

I think the 10 is kinda reserved for your death bed, where you can look back on all the music you heard, identify the best one, and say "yup, 10 out of 10. It is the peak of all the music I ever experienced."
But yeah, I agree, voting anything 10/10 is kinds silly since it implies the inability to ever be improved upon. No offense, but MM's drumming is not even in the same parking lot as that rank. Especially when so clearly the drum sound could have been improved upon.

What's worse is that type of fanboy who gives his favourite band a 10/10 for everything they put out.

I give this post a 10/10.

[Kotowboy]

You are of course, correct.

[robwebster]

I would never rate anything 10/10.

That's like saying it has absolutely no flaws at all.

I wouldn't even rank my favourite album of all time a 10.

/
I think the 10 is kinda reserved for your death bed, where you can look back on all the music you heard, identify the best one, and say "yup, 10 out of 10. It is the peak of all the music I ever experienced."
But yeah, I agree, voting anything 10/10 is kinds silly since it implies the inability to ever be improved upon.

What? It doesn't imply that at all. It just means it's within the top percentile.

Bring the resolution up, rate something 10,000/10,000 and that's a rating that would suggest nigh-on perfection, but the integers one to ten are imprecise, they're stubby, they're a gist. If you check into a five star hotel you wouldn't expect the yardstick that all future hotels will be compared against for all time, complete with dream recorders and infinite cocktails served by hyperintelligent androids. It's just a badass hotel that excels in all categories. 10/10 isn't a great deal more precise than starring one to five. Ten just denotes an album (for example) that's excellent, and the flaws are minor enough that they aren't worth deducting an entire point.

If musical quality (whatever that means) is evenly distributed, you could expect a full 5% of all albums ever made to legitimately rank 10/10. Everything from 9.5 upwards. Distribution of quality isn't even, but 10/10 is still totally fair game.

[ReaPsTA]

Rob Webster is alive!!!

You can't just come in out of no where and make that much sense.  It will freak people out.

[erwinrafael]

I would never rate anything 10/10.

That's like saying it has absolutely no flaws at all.

I wouldn't even rank my favourite album of all time a 10.

/
I think the 10 is kinda reserved for your death bed, where you can look back on all the music you heard, identify the best one, and say "yup, 10 out of 10. It is the peak of all the music I ever experienced."
But yeah, I agree, voting anything 10/10 is kinds silly since it implies the inability to ever be improved upon.

What? It doesn't imply that at all. It just means it's within the top percentile.

Bring the resolution up, rate something 10,000/10,000 and that's a rating that would suggest nigh-on perfection, but the integers one to ten are imprecise, they're stubby, they're a gist. If you check into a five star hotel you wouldn't expect the yardstick that all future hotels will be compared against for all time, complete with dream recorders and infinite cocktails served by hyperintelligent androids. It's just a badass hotel that excels in all categories. 10/10 isn't a great deal more precise than starring one to five. Ten just denotes an album (for example) that's excellent, and the flaws are minor enough that they aren't worth deducting an entire point.

If musical quality (whatever that means) is evenly distributed, you could expect a full 5% of all albums ever made to legitimately rank 10/10. Everything from 9.5 upwards. Distribution of quality isn't even, but 10/10 is still totally fair game.

So you are using an alpha of 5%? They have not rejected the null hypothesis then? 

[Kotowboy]

Back in 1997 - Q Magazine gave Ok Computer a perfect 10 score.

I think The Bends is better but I still wouldn't give it a 10.

But since you didn't ask - i'd give Amnesiac a 0

[LKap13]

If musical quality (whatever that means) is evenly distributed, you could expect a full 5% of all albums ever made to legitimately rank 10/10. Everything from 9.5 upwards. Distribution of quality isn't even, but 10/10 is still totally fair game.

Robwebster, your overall point is well taken but this last bit might have a faulty assumption -- that musical quality is "evenly" distributed rather than distributed along a bell curve. It'd be hard to believe that there are just as many 10's as there are 6's. I think it makes more sense that above 9.5 makes up a very very small percentage of total albums out there while the 6-7 range makes up a much large percentage. Granted this necessarily  mean that there are no 10's , just much fewer than by your model

[Mosh]

I'd give him a 10. I had doubts about him after ADTOE, but any of those doubts were quickly crushed by DT12.

[ReaPsTA]

Back in 1997 - Q Magazine gave Ok Computer a perfect 10 score.

I think The Bends is better but I still wouldn't give it a 10.

But since you didn't ask - i'd give Amnesiac a 0

Putting any stock in a review score isn't really worth while.  They're usually written to coincide with the album's release.  At most, the journalist has a few months with the album, and it's not like he's devoting all his attention to it.

When has your opinion of an album been the same months after it released as it was when it came out?  A year after it came out?  Shit, my opinion of Systematic Chaos stayed the same for literally over half a decade until, at some point this year, I found myself thinking it was very underrated.

Music is about so much more than what goes into writing a review for a magazine.

[Kotowboy]

In my opinion - Thomas Lang would have been the perfect replacement for Portnoy.

He's still got Mangini's super technical thing going on ( just youtube him - his limb independence is as good as Mangini's )

- but he's still as musically minded as Portnoy was.

He could have played any of the old songs but would have sounded less "robotic" overall than Mangini does.

[Kotowboy]

Back in 1997 - Q Magazine gave Ok Computer a perfect 10 score.

I think The Bends is better but I still wouldn't give it a 10.

But since you didn't ask - i'd give Amnesiac a 0

Putting any stock in a review score isn't really worth while.  They're usually written to coincide with the album's release.  At most, the journalist has a few months with the album, and it's not like he's devoting all his attention to it.

When has your opinion of an album been the same months after it released as it was when it came out?  A year after it came out?  Shit, my opinion of Systematic Chaos stayed the same for literally over half a decade until, at some point this year, I found myself thinking it was very underrated.

Music is about so much more than what goes into writing a review for a magazine.

True enough - they also gave Be Here Now a 9 - but i think that was partly because they woefully under-estimated Morning Glory and gave it a 6 - then it just exploded

and I think they didn't want to appear out of touch.

[ReaPsTA]

and I think they didn't want to appear out of touch.

Bingo.  The review is less about an honest attempt to comment on the music than it is a way to support a certain perception of the magazine.

Because what happens if they appear out of touch?  Less sales.  The dollar is a powerful master.

[LKap13]

In my opinion - Thomas Lang would have been the perfect replacement for Portnoy.

He's still got Mangini's super technical thing going on ( just youtube him - his limb independence is as good as Mangini's )

- but he's still as musically minded as Portnoy was.

He could have played any of the old songs but would have sounded less "robotic" overall than Mangini does.

I have to agree. Lang and Minnemann both compose more to my taste. I would happily sacrifice 2 "points" in technicality and limb independence for 2 points in more vocal, expressive drumming. Maybe I'll come to like the orchestral genre though

[Kotowboy]

I don't want to turn this into a drummer bashing thread but check this out :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWc2tu6Np_8

To me - that's the perfect balance between Portnoy's swing and Mangini's technique.

[erwinrafael]

If musical quality (whatever that means) is evenly distributed, you could expect a full 5% of all albums ever made to legitimately rank 10/10. Everything from 9.5 upwards. Distribution of quality isn't even, but 10/10 is still totally fair game.

Robwebster, your overall point is well taken but this last bit might have a faulty assumption -- that musical quality is "evenly" distributed rather than distributed along a bell curve. It'd be hard to believe that there are just as many 10's as there are 6's. I think it makes more sense that above 9.5 makes up a very very small percentage of total albums out there while the 6-7 range makes up a much large percentage. Granted this necessarily  mean that there are no 10's , just much fewer than by your model

Actually, if you use a bell curve, considering if 10/1o would be an outlier would really depend on the mean scores and the standard deviation of the scores.

[LKap13]

Sorry I meant to write "doesn't necessarily mean there are no 10s". That is, with a bell curve there would be 10's but not as many. This whole argument is moot if you don't agree that a 10 is possible though anyway

[erwinrafael]

I don't want to turn this into a drummer bashing thread but check this out :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWc2tu6Np_8

To me - that's the perfect balance between Portnoy's swing and Mangini's technique.

Oy, the Swing word again. LOL

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

Because swing would be the first word in the English language to be used for more than one thing...

[erwinrafael]

Because swing would be the first word in the English language to be used for more than one thing...

So the definition of swing in a music thread is based on opinions too? OK.

Let's try the dictionary definition:


swing   [swing] 
noun
1.
Also called Big Band music, swing music. a style of jazz, popular especially in the 1930s and often arranged for a large dance band, marked by a smoother beat and more flowing phrasing than Dixieland and having less complex harmonies and rhythms than modern jazz.
2.
the rhythmic element that excites dancers and listeners to move in time to jazz music.
adjective
3.
of, pertaining to, or characteristic of swing: a swing record.
verb (used with object), swung, swing·ing.
4.
to play (music) in the style of swing.

If you hear swing in Portnoy's drumming for DT, then good for you.

[rumborak]

I don't want to turn this into a drummer bashing thread but check this out :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWc2tu6Np_8

To me - that's the perfect balance between Portnoy's swing and Mangini's technique.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUA_n04C1bs

That for me makes good drumming.

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

Because swing would be the first word in the English language to be used for more than one thing...

So the definition of swing in a music thread is based on opinions too? OK.

Let's try the dictionary definition:


swing   [swing] 
noun
1.
Also called Big Band music, swing music. a style of jazz, popular especially in the 1930s and often arranged for a large dance band, marked by a smoother beat and more flowing phrasing than Dixieland and having less complex harmonies and rhythms than modern jazz.
2.
the rhythmic element that excites dancers and listeners to move in time to jazz music.
adjective
3.
of, pertaining to, or characteristic of swing: a swing record.
verb (used with object), swung, swing·ing.
4.
to play (music) in the style of swing.

If you hear swing in Portnoy's drumming for DT, then good for you.

erwinrafael used Dictionary!

It's not super effective.

Come on, dude. Surely you understand the difference between connotative and denotative meaning. Arguing semantics is a bit silly when it's obvious what's actually being discussed.

[KevShmev]

True, but I cannot imagine anyone listening to jazz and then listening to Portnoy's playing and thinking his playing swings.  For all of the great stuff he does on the drums, that is one thing his playing doesn't really do. 

[erwinrafael]

Because swing would be the first word in the English language to be used for more than one thing...

So the definition of swing in a music thread is based on opinions too? OK.

Let's try the dictionary definition:


swing   [swing] 
noun
1.
Also called Big Band music, swing music. a style of jazz, popular especially in the 1930s and often arranged for a large dance band, marked by a smoother beat and more flowing phrasing than Dixieland and having less complex harmonies and rhythms than modern jazz.
2.
the rhythmic element that excites dancers and listeners to move in time to jazz music.
adjective
3.
of, pertaining to, or characteristic of swing: a swing record.
verb (used with object), swung, swing·ing.
4.
to play (music) in the style of swing.

If you hear swing in Portnoy's drumming for DT, then good for you.

erwinrafael used Dictionary!

It's not super effective.

Come on, dude. Surely you understand the difference between connotative and denotative meaning. Arguing semantics is a bit silly when it's obvious what's actually being discussed.

The problem is that what is being discussed is not actually obvious. If it is, all these discussions on MM's lack of groove, soul, swing, or whatever term you can throw out there that has no precise meaning would have stopped long ago.

The reality is MP and MM just plays differently. Each drummer plays differently from other drummers, especially for those who are confident and assured of their individuality. I do not see the need to describe MM as not creative, or not having swing, or not having groove - terms that have specific meanings in music - when the only reason you really need to say is that you do not like his style and your taste leans more towards MP, or Gavin Harrison, or Thomas Lang, or Virgil Donati. Period. When people start using terms that have specific meanings, then it becomes something arguable.

So let's come back to swing. What exactly do you mean by the "obvious" meaning of swing as you used it? Personally, I do not get it, because swing does paint a picture in my mind of people dancing to swing music, which is a common sight on TV when I was young. What MP drum sets have "swing"? Or the usual term used in MM criticisms before: "groove"? The closest I can think of of what people actually mean when they say that MM does not have groove is that they wish MM would play like how MP played the first three songs of AWAKE. Which is fine, MP actually rocked those three songs out. But MP himself did not play in that style for all DT songs because it depends on the fit. What song in DT12 would actually fit drumming like that?

When MM's drumming is described as robotic for being precise, I find myself scratching my head. Are people saying that MP, Thomas Lang, or whoever name drummer is being thrown out there are not precise in their drumming? That they drum from the gut and nto use their heads when composing their pieces? They use off-beat stuff, but doesn't MM do that also? In The Bigger Picture, the cymbal and hi-hat work has a lot of off beat hits and the snare has a lot of ghost notes, especially in the solo portion. The bass drum work in Behind The Veil is not really something you can program straightforwardly in a drum machine. Surrender to Reason also has some "groovy" cymbal work especially in the first verse (although most of that is buried in the mix because the guitars are really loud). And the drum work in conjunction with the bass guitar in the solo section is a good example of each instrument playing in different time signatures but ultimately woven together in a cohesive whole.  And Illumination Theory is complete with all those things but with restraint of use depending on what fits a certain section.

Again, I really do not mind if people do not like MM's drumming as a matter of taste. I just get really worked up when technical elements of drumming are pointed out to be not in the music but are actually in the music. I am quite a prick also when it comes to the use of terms, so please forgive me there.

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

What people mean when they say "swing", or "groove" especially, is basically that MP plays with a lot of feeling that some of us feel MM really lacks. It's not something necessarily quantifiable, he just sounds (as you say) "robotic".

The reality is MP and MM just plays differently. Each drummer plays differently from other drummers, especially for those who are confident and assured of their individuality. I do not see the need to describe MM as not creative, or not having swing, or not having groove - terms that have specific meanings in music - when the only reason you really need to say is that you do not like his style and your taste leans more towards MP, or Gavin Harrison, or Thomas Lang, or Virgil Donati. Period. When people start using terms that have specific meanings, then it becomes something arguable.

It is true that I don't care for his style. That by itself, however, is kind of an uninteresting comment that does not lend itself to discussion (the point of a forum, after all). Therefore, I give specific reasons why I dislike aspects of Mangini's playing. I haven't bashed him, or said anything bad about him, heck, I think the guy's one of the coolest and nicest people ever.

[ReaPsTA]

Erwin, I <3 your posts.

[robwebster]

Rob Webster is alive!!!

You can't just come in out of no where and make that much sense.  It will freak people out.

Never mind that - so's Reapsta! Truly, these are excellent days.

If musical quality (whatever that means) is evenly distributed, you could expect a full 5% of all albums ever made to legitimately rank 10/10. Everything from 9.5 upwards. Distribution of quality isn't even, but 10/10 is still totally fair game.

Robwebster, your overall point is well taken but this last bit might have a faulty assumption -- that musical quality is "evenly" distributed rather than distributed along a bell curve. It'd be hard to believe that there are just as many 10's as there are 6's. I think it makes more sense that above 9.5 makes up a very very small percentage of total albums out there while the 6-7 range makes up a much large percentage. Granted this necessarily  mean that there are no 10's , just much fewer than by your model

I completely agree - that was my last sentence! "Distribution of quality isn't even, but 10/10 is still totally fair game." Of course, the other other side of that is that we curate our own music libraries. We're all actively seeking albums that are 10/10s to us, so they'll be over-represented in our music libraries, whereas we rarely if ever pick up 3/10s and below. I'm sure it doesn't balance squarely, but I just set my example in a vacuum so I didn't spend half the post going on about variables. It is interesting, though, so I'm glad you brought it up.

[Invisible]

I voted 10/10 because he did everything I expected from him on the records and he did it almost perfectly, room for improvement? Probably, but since there isn't a 9.7 option, 10 seemed the closest as robwebster put it.

As for the other topic, I agree with erwinrafael, my personal favourite of the auditions was Thomas Lang, not only because of his style but more because I think he may have contributed some more to the songwriting itself, but we'll never know, Mangini is the new drummer and I'm pretty sure he knows what he's doing better than all of us. You can like it or not, but the man has his style and he's putting it all over the record, and I'm very happy with it, even if his style has to grow on me a little bit.