Check up on the ADToE/I&W-Conspiracy

[Nearmyth]

It doesn't have to do anything with one being better than the other, I always thought of it as just an interesting thing about the song structures. That's the only thing comparable too, is the song structures. The music and rhythms are completely different.

Say what you want, they didn't try to "copy" or "mimic" I&W in anyway, but here's no way they could be that structurally similar by coincidence. I for one think it's really cool and welcome all the more analysis to DT's music.

[emtee]

I'm not trying to take one side or the other and in all honesty if I were to pick an inspiration corner I would much rather DT
ape their early glory days instead of Muse or *insert band here* but I think it's likely the conversation may have gone down as
Scotty suggested. Let's go back and revist what brought us here, we will dance with the girl that brung us...
I have no problem with that. The only thing they forgot in the equation was making the new drummer, one of the greatest on
earth, sound like he was an equal with all the other musicians and their instruments.

[Madman Shepherd]

So how exactly do we think the band went about doing this?  Did they sit down and say they needed to have at least 4 songs that were carbon copies of I&W *structurally* or what?  JP forced JR to make charts of these songs so they could compare them while they were writing/copying the music for ADTOE?

By such posts as this, you're trying to make such a hypothesis look ridiculous. However, a more likely scenario was one of JP suggesting that with such a major shake up in the lineup, "let's go back to our roots. Since IaW was the album that launched our careers and to this day remains our most popular album, how about trying to recreate the magic of that album? To help get us in the right vibe, we could start off using the structures of several of the songs as templates to base new songs off of, and make changes to them when and where it feels like the right thing to do. In a way, it would be kind of like that songwriting contest we had for SoC in 2003."

In my opinion, that sounds as ridiculous as what I posted. 

And no, JP wouldn't need JR to make charts of those songs because they already exist! Each time they write a song, they write out a chart showing each section, typically giving them descriptive names like "Muse (Em)" or "Meshuggah riff X 2". I'm sure they still have pictures of those charts that they could refer to.

I thought they just put those on dry erase boards while they were writing.  Did they honestly make copies to keep in the archives?  Well....I'm sure SOMEBODY did but I doubt he shared them 

The problem I have with the "it's the exact same structure" people is that, if you ask me, there are sections of the songs where they honestly force the comparison.

Exactly!  I even went to youtube and looked at one of these comparisons and this guy was forcing certain things while ignoring big things that clearly set the structures apart (and this was for the two songs I openly admit have relatively similar styles).  Where the bass and drums were the only two instruments being played followed by all of the instruments and vocals coming in together, he said it was it was the bass pattern plus verse whereas the other version was the bass, drums, and keyboards with subtle chords by the guitar plus the vocals and that was still labeled as the bass pattern plus verse.  So clearly different.

I can believe that DT sat down and tried to evoke the mood of I&W as a way to get to the basics of who DT was, but I really doubt they charted a bunch of songs and then wrote new ones over it.

EXACTLY!

[EdenHazard]

I *immediately* noticed everything you wrote about upon my first listen... and found it all incredibly strange... If they are indeed intentional 'nuggets,' then I guess that's a pretty cool idea... However, if they were desperate attempts of secretly re-writing the past... hmm, maybe not so much... I guess only they will know the real reason for it...

[puppyonacid]

I think anybody suggesting that they deliberately (and they obviously did do it deliberately - if this was in court, based on the evidence, a jury would convict) did this as a "desperate attempt to secretly re-write the past" then they are really missing the point. DT wouldn't do that. What they might do as a bit of fun to see what comes out is legitimately take the structure from a song and write something entirely new that follows that original structure!

Anybody could try it. It'd be fun to see what people would come up with. And they did it with SoC when they ran that competition. None of those pieces without exception sounded like SoC...but they all followed the same structure.

[Bertielee]

I even cannot fathom why after 5(?) years, it is still discussed. Given the controversial topic, nothing good can come from it.

Well, I'd say it's being discussed 3 years later because someone started a new thread about it.   

Yes, I know. And my question is why / what for?

[mikeyd23]

I'm not trying to take one side or the other and in all honesty if I were to pick an inspiration corner I would much rather DT
ape their early glory days instead of Muse or *insert band here* but I think it's likely the conversation may have gone down as
Scotty suggested. Let's go back and revist what brought us here, we will dance with the girl that brung us...
I have no problem with that. The only thing they forgot in the equation was making the new drummer, one of the greatest on
earth, sound like he was an equal with all the other musicians and their instruments.

Great post, I agree with that on all counts.

[BlackInk]

Yes, I know. And my question is why / what for?

I started the thread because I suddenly remembered this whole thing after a few years of not thinking about it and was then curious about what the DTF community thinks about it, since I haven't seen any mention of it for years. That, in my mind, is the perfect reason for starting a new thread.

I'm very pleased with the responses so far, I never imagined the subject was this polarizing and I think reading the replies to this thread has been very interesting so far. That is, the posts actually discussing or explaining their view of the subject. The posts questioning the need for this topic in the first place are less fun. There is no need for any thread ever. But I wanted to hear everyone's opinion, which, like I said, I thought justified a new thread.

[sylvinception]

This is a thread created by Mike Portnoy.

[hefdaddy42]

There's no problem with the thread, or with questions being asked.  This is a discussion forum.

[Mebert78]

To me, the most interesting part of the I&W-ADTOE comparisons is that Portnoy, of all people, was the person to turn it into a larger issue.  By attempting to shed a negative light on his former band, he ended up shedding more of a negative light on himself, in my opinion.  Looking back, I remember the issue more for Portnoy's questionable comments more than any similarities between the albums.

[TheGreatPretender]

To me, the most interesting part of the I&W-ADTOE comparisons is that Portnoy, of all people, was the person to turn it into a larger issue.  By attempting to shed a negative light on his former band, he ended up shedding more of a negative light on himself, in my opinion.  Looking back, I remember the issue more for Portnoy's questionable actions more than any similarities between the albums.

Okay, I REALLY hate to open up a can of worms here, but what did he say exactly? I remember there being an interview where he flat out refused to comment on it because he knew that whatever he would say would get spun out of proportion. But that's the last thing I heard on the subject.

[theseoafs]

Lost Not Forgotten is a blatantly inferior version of Under a Glass Moon.

Aside from this (which is certainly subconscious and accidental at best), most of the comparison is forced BS. OTBOA does give off a PMU vibe with its structure, but the songs themselves sound nothing alike. Beyond that, someone was just making up similarities to fit with this silly theory they had.

This exactly.

Yup.  Song structure isn't really anything, especially considering that DT is not a band that is very adventurous with its song structure.  The overwhelming majority of the non-instrumental songs they've written look more or less like this:

INSTRUMENTAL INTRO -> VERSE -> CHORUS -> SMALL INSTRUMENTAL INTERLUDE -> VERSE (usually over the same chord progression as the first verse, but with a different instrumental accompaniment) -> CHORUS -> INSTRUMENTAL SECTION (either short or long) -> CHORUS -> INSTRUMENTAL OUTRO (that usually mirrors either the intro or the post-second chorus instrumental section)

I mean, sure, there are always minor tweaks to this outline (bridges, prechoruses, extra verses with more variation), but for the most part this is "the DT formula".  The only real similarity is LNF<->UAGM, but everything else I've seen has been a huge stretch.

[bosk1]

To me, the most interesting part of the I&W-ADTOE comparisons is that Portnoy, of all people, was the person to turn it into a larger issue.  By attempting to shed a negative light on his former band, he ended up shedding more of a negative light on himself, in my opinion.  Looking back, I remember the issue more for Portnoy's questionable actions more than any similarities between the albums.

Okay, I REALLY hate to open up a can of worms here, but what did he say exactly? I remember there being an interview where he flat out refused to comment on it because he knew that whatever he would say would get spun out of proportion. But that's the last thing I heard on the subject.

He didn't go into any great detail, but just made a snarky comment, something along the lines of after Thiago posted his theory, Mike saying something like he is glad he isn't the only one that saw what he had seen right away.  It was more the tone than the substance, as I recall.

[theseoafs]

To me, the most interesting part of the I&W-ADTOE comparisons is that Portnoy, of all people, was the person to turn it into a larger issue.  By attempting to shed a negative light on his former band, he ended up shedding more of a negative light on himself, in my opinion.  Looking back, I remember the issue more for Portnoy's questionable actions more than any similarities between the albums.

Okay, I REALLY hate to open up a can of worms here, but what did he say exactly? I remember there being an interview where he flat out refused to comment on it because he knew that whatever he would say would get spun out of proportion. But that's the last thing I heard on the subject.

He didn't go into any great detail, but just made a snarky comment, something along the lines of after Thiago posted his theory, Mike saying something like he is glad he isn't the only one that saw what he had seen right away.  It was more the tone than the substance, as I recall.

Another user already posted the whole comment:

I *immediately* noticed everything you wrote about upon my first listen... and found it all incredibly strange... If they are indeed intentional 'nuggets,' then I guess that's a pretty cool idea... However, if they were desperate attempts of secretly re-writing the past... hmm, maybe not so much... I guess only they will know the real reason for it...

[bosk1]

Ah, okay, thanks for re-posting that.  Yeah, just as snarky as I remembered.

[Madman Shepherd]

I think anybody suggesting that they deliberately (and they obviously did do it deliberately - if this was in court, based on the evidence, a jury would convict)

A court in what country are we talking about? Zimbabwe?!

[TheGreatPretender]

I think anybody suggesting that they deliberately (and they obviously did do it deliberately - if this was in court, based on the evidence, a jury would convict)

A court in what country are we talking about? Zimbabwe?!

Yeah, the evidence is circumstantial at best. And clearly enough people disagree, meaning there's reasonable doubt. Lawyered!

[puppyonacid]

Why is everyone being so literal?

The court analogy is just my opinion that the evidence is overwhelming with regards to did they copy song structure. Not, did they rip off their own song. Not, are they pathetically recreating the past.

Nope. Did they cleverly take a blueprint and use it to see what would come out? YES! I just don't know how anybody could look at LNF and UAGM and come to any other conclusion. It does almost sound like what might have come out had another band (having never heard UAGM) taken the chart/structure for UAGM and written a song with it.

On that basis, the evidence is pretty solid. If the evidence is circumstantial, name any other DT song that fits UAGM's structure as well as LNF and I will concede that I am wrong.

[puppyonacid]

Should probably just put this to bed really.

There are two separate camps here that won't have their minds changed. In that scenario any debate is pointless.

[Prog Snob]

Should probably just put this to bed really.

There are two separate camps here that won't have their minds changed. In that scenario any debate is pointless.

Pretty much what you said. 

In my opinion though, it's obvious there is some kind of influence or inspiration or whatever you want to call it.

[JiM-Xtreme]

Just to chuck in my two pennies, whilst this thread is still relevant.

I do not believe for a minute that JP, JR sat there and said "I know, let's write an entire album based off the song charts of an album we released nearly 20 years ago". That just seems ridiculous.

HOWEVER, you cannot deny the obvious structural similarities with certain songs. As I've stated elsewhere on this forum, this is so blatant in so many places with LNF in particular that it completely ruins any enjoyment and appreciation I ever had for the song.

2nd prise goes to This is the Life - I can't believe this hasn't been referred to more in this thread, but to my ears it matches up so closely to Another Day it's almost silly.

With the other cases, the similarities are vague enough that if I were to just pick one song in isolation, it probably wouldn't matter to me at all. However, we're talking about a whole ALBUM of songs, with the exception of maybe two or three.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, whilst to me it makes no sense whatsoever to deny that these parallels exist, as quite a few people have done in this thread, I HIGHLY doubt it was intentional - I'd put it down to quite a big coincidence, honestly.

I just can't fathom why a bunch of guys as creative, talented and dedicated as DT would even consider doing something like this intentionally. That's why I don't buy into the theory as a whole.

[TheGreatPretender]

It can't be ignored.

Sure it can. I'm sorry that you can't appreciate LNF on its own merits, but aside from the structure and the guitar solo, there really are no similarities between it and UAGM. LNF is a much darker and heavier song with vastly different subject matter and tone.

I'm not denying that the structural similarities between a few of the songs are there, but they're still vastly different songs. ADTOE is overall a significantly much more heavy and moody album than I&W. The lyrics are overall a lot more grounded, and the songs all have a vastly different sound to them than I&W, whereas I&W was a much more light hearted, melody driven album that I would almost describe as being a bit "ethereal", ADTOE is like I said, more grounded, heavy and dark. That's what really makes a difference, it's the sound, not the structure that gives the album its identity.

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

This Is The Life sounds so little like Another Day that it boggles my mind that anyone would make that comparison.

[The Letter M]

I can only imagine that JP (and maybe JM and JR) started writing LNF, then somehow ended up with bits that reminded them of UAGM, then decided to make a song that was similar to it, but because JP is JP, he more or less accidentally used the same form and structure, be it subconsciously or consciously. I doubt it could've been helped, and if he even noticed he did that, I'm sure he wasn't bothered by it and so they decided to just go with it.

-Marc.

[JiM-Xtreme]

To me, that's about the only explanation that would make any sense.

[bosk1]

To me, that's about the only explanation that would make any sense.

Well, I can think of QUITE A FEW explanations that make sense.  And, undoubtedly, lots of other explanations that neither I nor any of the rest of us have thought up make plenty of sense as well.  Bottom line is, we simply do not know.  And the band isn't saying, likely for the same reason they do not spell out a lot of things in their music:  the point is for us the fans to grapple with it and come up with our own meanings.

It is my personal opinion that ODTOE was meant as a homage to I&W in some respects.  I do not believe that they took ANY song and duplicated the exact structure.  There are many who have said that it is "undeniable" that the structures are identical.  In my opinion, it is absolutely deniable because I do not think the structures ARE identical.  They aren't.  Yes, you can describe the structures in terms that make them superficially SEEM identical.  But I don't think they are ACTUALLY identical.  HOWEVER, some structural aspects are indeed the same, and I think that goes beyond mere superficial similarities that lots of songs share.  In my opinion, I think that was intentional.  I think they paid homage to I&W in many different ways, and using some structural similarities is only one.  They use other musical devices, and use general "sounds" and "feels," to also pay homage.  Songs or parts of songs that are structurally dis-similar may still have a similar vibe, or mood, or feel that calls back to another song on I&W.  So that tells me that if there are a few similar songs that pay homage to a few songs on I&W, there probably are other similarities we may not have picked up on to where you can draw similarities between all 8 songs on I&W.  I mean, if LNF is meant to evoke UAGM, OTBOA is meant to evoke PMU, and Far From Heaven into Breaking All Illusions is meant to evoke Wait For Sleep into Learning To Live, why assume they stopped at only half the songs and didn't do the same thing with the other four?  That isn't how this band generally operates.  I suspect (although I cannot prove) that they intended the entire album, on a specific song-by-song basis, to be a homage. 

That said, I think they were simultaneously make a statement that this album is not a COPY and is different and original in its own right, which it is.  I think that statement is made loud and clear by the many, MANY differences and new concepts in these songs.  I think they also intended to make that statement by simply including a ninth song.  That, to me, says "this is a homage, but not a copy.  There are lots of similarities to our first album because we WANT to draw that connection and very visibly make the statement that the roots of what we did back in 1992 are STILL the band's roots today.  But we also want to show that we are renewed and current and are not out of things to say by any stretch."

To me, that makes sense and is consistent with everything I see and hear on ADTOE.  And it is consistent with the band's message and how they have tried to brand themselves since Portnoy left.  And it is also consistent with how the band has always paid homage to different things in their music and how they use various types of "nuggets" in their music.  Agree or disagree, but that is my takeaway. 


tl;dnr version:  IMO, they paid "homage" to I&W (in its entirety); they did not "copy song structures."  And that distinction is important, even though it may seem minor.

[Tick]

When I listen to one ADTOE I don't feel like it ripped off the I&W  so I don't care if the claim is valid or it isn't.

[TheGreatPretender]

I suspect (although I cannot prove) that they intended the entire album, on a specific song-by-song basis, to be a homage. 

If that's what they intended, then they probably gave up on that idea half way through, because that's really not what the final product ended up being.

[bosk1]

I suspect (although I cannot prove) that they intended the entire album, on a specific song-by-song basis, to be a homage. 

If that's what they intended, then they probably gave up on that idea half way through, because that's really not what the final product ended up being.

You may be right.  But then again, if there are pretty some fairly obvious nods to 4 I&W songs, it stands to reason that there likely could easily be less obvious, more subtle nods to the remaining 4 as well.  I mean, let's not forget that this is the band that included, at low volume, Morse Code to a DT inside joke in ITNOG.  Granted, that was Portnoy that did that, but the bottom line is, they know how to drop in something very subtle and low key that flies under the radar until some random fan finally picks up on it. 

[TheGreatPretender]

I suspect (although I cannot prove) that they intended the entire album, on a specific song-by-song basis, to be a homage. 

If that's what they intended, then they probably gave up on that idea half way through, because that's really not what the final product ended up being.

You may be right.  But then again, if there are pretty some fairly obvious nods to 4 I&W songs, it stands to reason that there likely could easily be less obvious, more subtle nods to the remaining 4 as well.  I mean, let's not forget that this is the band that included, at low volume, Morse Code to a DT inside joke in ITNOG.  Granted, that was Portnoy that did that, but the bottom line is, they know how to drop in something very subtle and low key that flies under the radar until some random fan finally picks up on it.

Yeah, but the thing is, you keep referring to the remaining 4, but ADTOE has 1 more song than I&W does. So either way, it's obvious if there was some kind of an intentional attempt to pay homage to I&W, it's obvious they weren't dead set on making a song for song modern counterpart of it.

[bosk1]

I specifically addressed that point in the third paragraph of my long post: 

That said, I think they were simultaneously make a statement that this album is not a COPY and is different and original in its own right, which it is.  I think that statement is made loud and clear by the many, MANY differences and new concepts in these songs.  I think they also intended to make that statement by simply including a ninth song.  That, to me, says "this is a homage, but not a copy.  There are lots of similarities to our first album because we WANT to draw that connection and very visibly make the statement that the roots of what we did back in 1992 are STILL the band's roots today.  But we also want to show that we are renewed and current and are not out of things to say by any stretch."

[TheGreatPretender]

Ah yes. That's what I get for skimming.

Still, given the presence of the ninth song, like I said, it seems to me like they weren't trying overly hard to make sure that the album is a counterpart to I&W song for song, which means it's always possible that they merely included a couple of structural nuggets as MP suggested, but not necessarily on every single song.

[puppyonacid]

I don't know why anyone would say the copied I&W any more than why anyone would say that LNF isn't structurally the same as UAGM. It is structurally the same. It's easier to prove it is than prove that it isn't.

[ariich]

Ah yes. That's what I get for skimming.

Still, given the presence of the ninth song, like I said, it seems to me like they weren't trying overly hard to make sure that the album is a counterpart to I&W song for song, which means it's always possible that they merely included a couple of structural nuggets as MP suggested, but not necessarily on every single song.

Wasn't BTS only added quite late on though, something that JP had basically written on his own? I'm fairly sure it was initially just the other 8 songs.