Dream Theater entered the studio in February v. No News is Good News

[bosk1]

Hef, I don't agree with your logic on this one.  Just because the band put their name on a song and released it does not NECESSARILY mean it was intended to be taken seriously.  Do you think 'Mission from 'arry' was intended by Iron Maiden to be taken seriously and judged by the same criteria as ANY of their album tracks?  I really don't think so.  From what I seem to recall the band saying about Raw Dog when it was released, the band was just goofing around with some leftover ideas and not trying to write a fully fleshed out song.  I'm not saying that somehow elevates it.  It doesn't.  But because of the context in which it was created, it is fairly obvious to me that it should not even really be considered and ranked alongside their "official" material.  You can certainly do that if you like.  But to me, it doesn't make much sense. 

[Dream Team]

Kev, Repentance?  Man that's the best song of the Suite.

Fixed.

Yup

[ariich]

More to the point, cramx didn't say the song shouldn't be taken seriously, he said it wasn't serious (which I took to mean serious in tone). DT have other, similarly non-serious songs, like Enigma Machine, a comparison that was made earlier in the thread.

[King Postwhore]

Kev, Repentance?  Man that's the best song of the Suite.

Fixed.

Yup

Nope.

[BlackInk]

Repentance has a extremely deep and beautiful melody, but the biggest problem IMO are those samples of other artists talking about their personal deceptions and stuff...the song would've been A LOT better if there was a tasteful and long moog solo, a la This Is The Life, or a freakin' lapsteel like the one from 8V into. I do like Repentance, and I have to say that I love JP's solo too...but it is my least favorite from the suite.

I really like that bit. It's personal, and not just fake personal for the sake of a song, this is actual personal things, which makes it sort of powerful for me.

[hefdaddy42]

Hef, I don't agree with your logic on this one.  Just because the band put their name on a song and released it does not NECESSARILY mean it was intended to be taken seriously.  Do you think 'Mission from 'arry' was intended by Iron Maiden to be taken seriously and judged by the same criteria as ANY of their album tracks?  I really don't think so.  From what I seem to recall the band saying about Raw Dog when it was released, the band was just goofing around with some leftover ideas and not trying to write a fully fleshed out song.  I'm not saying that somehow elevates it.  It doesn't.  But because of the context in which it was created, it is fairly obvious to me that it should not even really be considered and ranked alongside their "official" material.  You can certainly do that if you like.  But to me, it doesn't make much sense.

I don't like Iron Maiden, so I have no idea what that song is.  But I don't see how it would have any bearing on this.

I don't remember the phrase "goofing around" in conjunction with Raw Dog, or any other info coming from the band in any way saying that it was seen by them as "less than" their other compositions or not to be serious.  Certainly it was assembled from other unused parts of songs they had lying around.

In short, take it however you want, but I have certainly never seen anything from the band to the effect that this song is less serious than anything else they've written.  In fact, they promoted it quite heavily, so if they actually blatantly half-assed it, I would be kind of upset, since I paid for it.

More to the point, cramx didn't say the song shouldn't be taken seriously, he said it wasn't serious (which I took to mean serious in tone). DT have other, similarly non-serious songs, like Enigma Machine, a comparison that was made earlier in the thread.

Where does it follow that Enigma Machine isn't serious?  What does that even mean?

[cramx3]

Raw Dog is also the only DT track not on a DT release I believe, maybe there is something to be said about that.  Regardless, my point was the song doesn't sound serious and was meant as my opinion and I will also reiterate that I enjoy the song.  But I will agree with he point Bosk made, just because a band puts its name on it, doesn't automatically make the song "serious".  Many of bands have done purely stupid songs such as the IM track mentioned, but I am sure we can find many more examples from various bands.

[hefdaddy42]

Raw Dog is also the only DT track not on a DT release I believe, maybe there is something to be said about that.  Regardless, my point was the song doesn't sound serious and was meant as my opinion and I will also reiterate that I enjoy the song.  But I will agree with he point Bosk made, just because a band puts its name on it, doesn't automatically make the song "serious".  Many of bands have done purely stupid songs such as the IM track mentioned, but I am sure we can find many more examples from various bands.

I'm not sure that it matters whether other bands would do it.  It only matters whether or not DT would do it.

If that's what they said, then I missed it.  Without that, I see no reason to take it as anything different than the rest of their output.

[Kotowboy]

Kev, Repentance?  Man that's the best song of the Suite.

Fixed.

Yup

Nope.

Nope.

The Root Of All Evil > The Glass Prison > Honor Thy Father > The Shattered Fortress > Repentance.

[Stadler]

Hef, I don't agree with your logic on this one.  Just because the band put their name on a song and released it does not NECESSARILY mean it was intended to be taken seriously.  Do you think 'Mission from 'arry' was intended by Iron Maiden to be taken seriously and judged by the same criteria as ANY of their album tracks?  I really don't think so.  From what I seem to recall the band saying about Raw Dog when it was released, the band was just goofing around with some leftover ideas and not trying to write a fully fleshed out song.  I'm not saying that somehow elevates it.  It doesn't.  But because of the context in which it was created, it is fairly obvious to me that it should not even really be considered and ranked alongside their "official" material.  You can certainly do that if you like.  But to me, it doesn't make much sense.

I don't like Iron Maiden, so I have no idea what that song is.  But I don't see how it would have any bearing on this.

I don't remember the phrase "goofing around" in conjunction with Raw Dog, or any other info coming from the band in any way saying that it was seen by them as "less than" their other compositions or not to be serious.  Certainly it was assembled from other unused parts of songs they had lying around.

In short, take it however you want, but I have certainly never seen anything from the band to the effect that this song is less serious than anything else they've written.  In fact, they promoted it quite heavily, so if they actually blatantly half-assed it, I would be kind of upset, since I paid for it.

It's actually hilarious, if you ask me; it's a b-side from around the time of Piece of Mind, and it's a backstage argument between Steve Harris and Nicko McBrain, surrepticiously recorded by Bruce.  Harris sent his roadie to give a message to Nicko about his bass rig (the "mission from Harris") and the roadie screwed up Nicko's playing.  After about three and a half minutes of arguing, Harris says "some c***'s recording this" and it clicks off.  More audio verite than song.   There's better examples in the Maiden catalogue ("The Sheriff of Huddersfield", "Black Bart Blues").   

Here's the thing:  Maiden's tongue in cheek b-sides are legendary.   What are Dream Theater's?  Eve?  That's a serious instrumental; so why isn't Raw Dog? I'm not arguing (I don't know where I fall yet, and I haven't listened to Raw Dog in ages), just asking questions.

I think I am most disturbed by the "I don't like Iron Maiden" part.  Is that legal?  Can you do that? 

[hefdaddy42]

I can do it.

Also, in this particular discussion, I am attempting to leave like/dislike for the song aside, and just talking about how it should be viewed in relation to the rest of their output.  Until I see a reason to treat it differently, I see no reason to do so.

[Setlist Scotty]

While I don't agree with hef's feelings on Raw Dog (IMO, it's a decent song, but not great), I do agree with his assertion that the song is not simply the band goofing off. While I do remember reading some interviews reading about how the song came about (being put together from unused ideas from the BCaSL writing sessions, keeping it instrumental) I don't recall any comments at all about it being something they threw together without any thought or that it was intentionally done as a goof.

And not to get off track, but Bosk cited Iron Maiden's "Mission From 'Arry" which for those not in the know, simply was an argument between Maiden's bassist and Maiden's drummer, secretly recorded by Maiden's vocalist. Comparing that or tracks like Black Bart Blues or The Sheriff of Huddersfield to Raw Dog is pretty far off as it was evident that they were just goofing off. It would be more fair to compare those tracks to the 7 mini guitar songs (John Thinks He's Yngwie Song, etc.) found on the Majesty demos.

edit: Stads beat me to it!

[bosk1]

To clarify for the record, I am not saying that Raw Dog was intended to be anywhere near the degree of "casual" as "Mission From 'Arry."  Merely making the point that there is not reason to assume that, just because a serious band officially releases something, the band must somehow have intended it to be up to the same standards as their most polished, produced material.  There are degrees of "seriousness"/"casualness."  Call it a spectrum, if you like.  That's all I was trying to point out by referencing that...er...song.  Sorry for not being more clear.

With respect to Raw Dog, again, I am not suggesting it is on the same level of "goofing around" as "Mission From 'Arry."  But from what I remember being said about it by the band, combined with the fact that it was merely released on a video game "soundtrack" (for lack of a better term), it is fairly obvious to me that the band was far more casual about this track than their album material.  As such, I can easily write it off as a casual little release that I don't judge against their other material.  Yeah, it is part of the DT catalog.  And, yeah, it is something I never care to listen to.  And beyond that, I don't even really register it.


EDIT:  And, Hef, for your edification:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q0bGH8ScxE  (the description of what is actually going on is probably more helpful (and perhaps funnier) than the actual audio)

EDIT2:  This description of it by Bruce, Steve, and Nicko is actually funnier than the actual recording:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzN9JvDT0Oc

[Magikernandy]

I thought about asking this question in a dedicated thread but instead will ask here.

What do you think this next album means to DT?

-Nothing more than any other album in their past. Everything is fine. Nothing to prove. Just try to make music they are happy with.
-Needs to make a statement. Attendance trending slightly down. Album sales trending slightly down.
-Want to make a significant artistic statement late in career. Nothing else is more important.

There are many other possible questions, I'm just wondering what they actually set out to do when they had their meeting(s) prior
to getting into the studio. And after 30 years as a band I'm curious as to what others think. I would have loved to be a fly on the
wall and hear their comments on this album.

I think it depends a lot on MM. I think he will be more involved in the songwriting and if his ideas fit the band they will go on with Mangini (if he wants too).

They won´t change anything unless MM is pushing them in a different direction, it will be just another DT album that sound pretty similar to their last album.

Something tells me that Mangini  won´t stay in the long run. I hope I ´m wrong though.

[wizard of Thought]

Kev, Repentance?  Man that's the best song of the Suite.

Fixed.

Yup

Nope.

Nope.

The Root Of All Evil > The Glass Prison > Honor Thy Father > The Shattered Fortress > Repentance.

I think you got something wrong right there 

[Kotowboy]

Oh crap . What's the second one called again ? This Dying Soul. 

[KevShmev]

and I actually like the long ending; the vibe is very nice.

Marry me?

[bosk1]

To me, that part of the song is a really cool, ingenious device for conveying the point of that step of the 12 step program in a unique and personal way.  Unfortunately, to me (and I think many others), it just isn't something that is interesting to listen to repeatedly as part of a song.  I still think it is really cool.  But the novelty wore off after the first few listens, and I just do not feel like it is enjoyable to actually sit and listen to.  It makes the song just feel too long and drawn out, and it just seems to plod and meander.  It is a case of "brilliant concept that falls flat in the execution."  That is why, although there is nothing that I actively dislike about the song and plenty that I do like, it still ranks VERY low for me and doesn't have a lot of replay-ability.

[hefdaddy42]

To me, that part of the song is a really cool, ingenious device for conveying the point of that step of the 12 step program in a unique and personal way.  Unfortunately, to me (and I think many others), it just isn't something that is interesting to listen to repeatedly as part of a song.  I still think it is really cool.  But the novelty wore off after the first few listens, and I just do not feel like it is enjoyable to actually sit and listen to.  It makes the song just feel too long and drawn out, and it just seems to plod and meander.  It is a case of "brilliant concept that falls flat in the execution."  That is why, although there is nothing that I actively dislike about the song and plenty that I do like, it still ranks VERY low for me and doesn't have a lot of replay-ability.

I agree with all of that.

Also, the intro is too long.

The actual song is pretty great.

[TAC]

To me, that part of the song is a really cool, ingenious device for conveying the point of that step of the 12 step program in a unique and personal way.  Unfortunately, to me (and I think many others), it just isn't something that is interesting to listen to repeatedly as part of a song.  I still think it is really cool.  But the novelty wore off after the first few listens, and I just do not feel like it is enjoyable to actually sit and listen to.  It makes the song just feel too long and drawn out, and it just seems to plod and meander.  It is a case of "brilliant concept that falls flat in the execution."  That is why, although there is nothing that I actively dislike about the song and plenty that I do like, it still ranks VERY low for me and doesn't have a lot of replay-ability.

This is how I feel. I think it's a cool song, and I'm glad they have it in their catalog, but I hardly ever listen to it, unless I'm committed to listening to the album in full.

[Setlist Scotty]

To clarify for the record, I am not saying that Raw Dog was intended to be anywhere near the degree of "casual" as "Mission From 'Arry."  Merely making the point that there is not reason to assume that, just because a serious band officially releases something, the band must somehow have intended it to be up to the same standards as their most polished, produced material.  There are degrees of "seriousness"/"casualness."  Call it a spectrum, if you like.  That's all I was trying to point out by referencing that...er...song.  Sorry for not being more clear.

With respect to Raw Dog, again, I am not suggesting it is on the same level of "goofing around" as "Mission From 'Arry."  But from what I remember being said about it by the band, combined with the fact that it was merely released on a video game "soundtrack" (for lack of a better term), it is fairly obvious to me that the band was far more casual about this track than their album material.  As such, I can easily write it off as a casual little release that I don't judge against their other material.  Yeah, it is part of the DT catalog.  And, yeah, it is something I never care to listen to.  And beyond that, I don't even really register it.

I do think it's true that they may not have taken as much time to craft or develop this song as they have with others, but then again, they already had various parts of songs already in the can looking for a home, so they didn't need to take the same amount of time that they would have if they had started writing fresh. Plus IIRC, they were under a relatively tight timeline to do the song - can't remember if it was due to touring commitments, other things scheduled, or if the song was needed within a short period of time. In any case, I'd wager they worked as hard on that song as they could given the time frame. Does it mean that it's of the caliber of most of the songs in their catalog? Maybe not. But it's an interesting song that is different and one that I like being in the catalog, even if I don't listen to it often

As for it being something that you acknowledge as being in the catalog but something that you don't really register, you hate Eve, Hell's Kitchen and the studio version of Space Dye Vest, so I wouldn't consider that added detail as having much weight on the seriousness/casualness of Raw Dog. 

[bosk1]

As for it being something that you acknowledge as being in the catalog but something that you don't really register, you hate Eve, Hell's Kitchen and the studio version of Space Dye Vest, so I wouldn't consider that added detail as having much weight on the seriousness/casualness of Raw Dog. 

Yes, but I don't hate those other songs because they are not "serious."  I just don't like them because they are not good songs.  There is a difference.

But, hey, I'll give DT half a dozen "not good songs" out of the 100 or so that they've written.  They've more than earned my fan-dom, many times over.

[Skeever]

I think that Eve, Hell's Kitchen, Space Dye-Vest, and Raw Dog all suffer from the same problem, in that they feel like outlines or rough sketches of songs, but not really complete compositions. At least I can say Eve, Hell's Kitchen, and Space Dye-Vest are really beautiful and atmospheric outlines, which I prefer wholeheartedly over the really violent and aggressive sounding Raw Dog. 

[Stadler]

EDIT:  And, Hef, for your edification:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q0bGH8ScxE  (the description of what is actually going on is probably more helpful (and perhaps funnier) than the actual audio)

EDIT2:  This description of it by Bruce, Steve, and Nicko is actually funnier than the actual recording:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzN9JvDT0Oc

I'm sorry, but that makes me laugh every time I hear it.  I remember getting that 12" Maxi single and hearing that and going "Wha?".   That was the day of cassette decks in your car, so the end of every Maiden tape would be the last song ending, and then ".... some c***'s recording this".   Good times.

(By the way, Maiden is top three - with Genesis and Oasis - as band with the best b-sides.)

[TAC]

Mission From 'Arry might just be the greatest thing any band has ever released.

Major props to the band for allowing such a thing to heard in public.

[RaiseTheKnife]

My recollection was that the band was flattered and honored to be asked to contribute a song to the video game, and they viewed it as a feather in their cap.  Much in the way DT would love to someday be involved with scoring a movie.  They dropped everything on short notice and cut short their post-holiday break with their families, so yeah my guess is that they took the assignment pretty seriously.   They saw it as an opportunity to grow their brand and reach into a new market.

[me7]

...Hell's Kitchen...feel like outlines or rough sketches of songs, but not really complete compositions...

Couldn't disagree more.

[ariich]

As for it being something that you acknowledge as being in the catalog but something that you don't really register, you hate Eve, Hell's Kitchen and the studio version of Space Dye Vest, so I wouldn't consider that added detail as having much weight on the seriousness/casualness of Raw Dog. 

Yes, but I don't hate those other songs because they are not "serious."  I just don't like them because they are not good songs.  There is a difference.

But, hey, I'll give DT half a dozen "not good songs" out of the 100 or so that they've written.  They've more than earned my fan-dom, many times over.

u crazy

Those are three of DT's nicest songs, IMO.

[YtseJamittaja]

uh... oh....

Every day I come here to watch if there's anything new but no... just the same Raw Dog discussions


A little bit of news could be refreshing, just a little video clip, interview, something...

[hefdaddy42]

I think that Eve, Hell's Kitchen, Space Dye-Vest, and Raw Dog all suffer from the same problem, in that they feel like outlines or rough sketches of songs, but not really complete compositions.

I get Raw Dog, but those other three are definitely complete.

[gmillerdrake]

I think that Eve, Hell's Kitchen, Space Dye-Vest, and Raw Dog all suffer from the same problem, in that they feel like outlines or rough sketches of songs, but not really complete compositions.

I get Raw Dog, but those other three are definitely complete.

I agree. The other three are perfect the way they are.

I've listened to Raw Dog literally one time... that's how impressed I was by it. I personally don't consider it a "real" DT song. They were hired to write some notes for a video game. JMX wasn't even present for any of the writing process (from what I recall from an interview from MP) and it seemed like just a mish mash of notes anyway.

[TheCountOfNYC]

I think that Eve, Hell's Kitchen, Space Dye-Vest, and Raw Dog all suffer from the same problem, in that they feel like outlines or rough sketches of songs, but not really complete compositions.

I get Raw Dog, but those other three are definitely complete.

I wouldn't call Hell's Kitchen a complete song. It's the instrumental section that was taken out of Buring my Soul with an ending added just so it can segue into Lines in the Sand. It wasn't originally intended to be a full, standalone song.

[bosk1]

I wouldn't call Hell's Kitchen a complete song. It's the instrumental section that was taken out of Buring my Soul with an ending added just so it can segue into Lines in the Sand. It wasn't originally intended to be a full, standalone song.

Yup, exactly.  If not for the fact that it serves as an intro to Lines In The Sand, they would have been better off scrapping it.

[BlobVanDam]

I think that Eve, Hell's Kitchen, Space Dye-Vest, and Raw Dog all suffer from the same problem, in that they feel like outlines or rough sketches of songs, but not really complete compositions.

I get Raw Dog, but those other three are definitely complete.

I wouldn't call Hell's Kitchen a complete song. It's the instrumental section that was taken out of Buring my Soul with an ending added just so it can segue into Lines in the Sand. It wasn't originally intended to be a full, standalone song.

It wasn't originally intended to be a full standalone song, but they turned it into one by completing it. All of those listed songs are complete songs. I don't understand this argument at all.

Also, you people have no souls. Hell's Kitchen is beautiful.

[hefdaddy42]

I wouldn't call Hell's Kitchen a complete song. It's the instrumental section that was taken out of Buring my Soul with an ending added just so it can segue into Lines in the Sand. It wasn't originally intended to be a full, standalone song.

Yup, exactly.  If not for the fact that it serves as an intro to Lines In The Sand, they would have been better off scrapping it.

You're a silly person.