Your Controversial Opinions on DT

[FourthHorseman]

Blind Faith has worse lyrics than TCOT by a few lightyears. Worst in the DT discography.

I don't understand this.  I like most DT lyrics, but TCOT's lyrics are just pitiful. Completely ruins the song for me, and I would almost be embarrassed to show people that song because of it.

Glad that the lyrics have been greatly improved on these last two albums. 

[Crow]

TCOT and TBOT have lyrics that are amusingly bad. Some lines of Blind Faith make me cringe and I can't hardly listen to the song. It's one of my least favorite DT songs, bottom 5, largely because of the lyrics, though the music is nothing special.
And SDOIT disc one is pretty solid I guess, but it's not amazing. Blind Faith is on it, Misunderstood drags, TGD drags, ehh...
DT12 is largely poppy songs with prog elements, is what I come away from it feeling. The proggy bits feel forced, too, like they only made it that way so it would still be "prog".
And I don't mind the shorter track lengths, but the songs are just so... simple.

[Dark Castle]

I would love to know how the songs on DT12 are "so simple"

[Jaffa]

DT's songwriting has only gottenless technical and progressive over time. Less interesting, as a result.

I don't know about "less technical," but they're definitely not very progressive at this point.  But they're hardly the only band in their genre which, ironically, is largely stagnant and safe.

*snip*

Every word here still describes Dream Theater, and has ALWAYS described Dream Theater. They are still EXTREMELY progressive. I don't even know how you can say they aren't. Dream Theater is an art.

Well, as I understand it, there's a difference between 'progressive' the genre and 'progressive' the adjective.  Everything you just quoted describes progressive the genre, but progressive the adjective is more about pushing boundaries and trying new things.

Personally, I don't much care about labels, so it doesn't really matter to me.  But I thought I might be able to help you understand where j and others are coming from. 

[Lucien]

Surrender to Reason is hugely prog, The Enemy Inside is a hugely technical metal song, The Bigger Picture is a proggy power ballad, Illumination Theory is on it, FAS is just so DIFFERENT, The Looking Glass I guess is a Rush tribute (though some prefer the term ripoff  ), Enigma Machine is on it, Behind the Veil isn't prog, but that intro and the first lyrics are just so great. Along for the Ride is also not that prog, but its meant to be accessible.

I don't get how you could call this album simple.

DT's songwriting has only gottenless technical and progressive over time. Less interesting, as a result.

I don't know about "less technical," but they're definitely not very progressive at this point.  But they're hardly the only band in their genre which, ironically, is largely stagnant and safe.

*snip*

Every word here still describes Dream Theater, and has ALWAYS described Dream Theater. They are still EXTREMELY progressive. I don't even know how you can say they aren't. Dream Theater is an art.

Well, as I understand it, there's a difference between 'progressive' the genre and 'progressive' the adjective.  Everything you just quoted describes progressive the genre, but progressive the adjective is more about pushing boundaries and trying new things.

Personally, I don't much care about labels, so it doesn't really matter to me.  But I thought I might be able to help you understand where j and others are coming from. 

I think they should listen to 1. The drumming (not the drum's sound, as I know they will just talk about that), 2. the introduction to BEHIND THE VEIL. Jordan certainly hasn't done anything like that. 3. When have they ever decided to go ONLY orchestra? 4. Also, the ambient section, they've never done that (except TCOT, but I'm not counting that because I'm talking PURE ambient).

There are multiple things they've never done before. They always progress. I think they're least "progressing" album would probably be ADTOE, but we all know why that happened.

[FlyingBIZKIT]

I guess that's what makes these opinions controversial

[Lucien]

I guess that's what makes these opinions controversial

[Kotowboy]

I don't actually think that all of the turn of events on their previous album are all that dramatic.

I don't really think that the chaos on display on DT9 is all that systematic - quite frankly

I've listened to DT8 a number of times and to be quite honest - i've never felt trapped inside anything.

Listening to DT5 does not give me flashbacks to any previous life or subconscious thoughts

When listening to DT1 - Dream and Day have never once united...


Not once whilst listening to DT4 have I ever fell into infinity. If I did - I'd still be there. Falling. I'm sitting in my room.

[GasparXR]

I don't actually think that all of the turn of events on their previous album are all that dramatic.

I don't really think that the chaos on display on DT9 is all that systematic - quite frankly

I've listened to DT8 a number of times and to be quite honest - i've never felt trapped inside anything.

Listening to DT5 does not give me flashbacks to any previous life or subconscious thoughts

When listening to DT1 - Dream and Day have never once united...


Not once whilst listening to DT4 have I ever fell into infinity. If I did - I'd still be there. Falling. I'm sitting in my room.

Let me guess... you slept through all of DT3?

[Lucien]

I don't actually think that all of the turn of events on their previous album are all that dramatic.

I don't really think that the chaos on display on DT9 is all that systematic - quite frankly

I've listened to DT8 a number of times and to be quite honest - i've never felt trapped inside anything.

Listening to DT5 does not give me flashbacks to any previous life or subconscious thoughts

When listening to DT1 - Dream and Day have never once united...


Not once whilst listening to DT4 have I ever fell into infinity. If I did - I'd still be there. Falling. I'm sitting in my room.

Let me guess... you slept through all of DT3?

It wouldn't be unheard of

[Kotowboy]

I don't actually think that all of the turn of events on their previous album are all that dramatic.

I don't really think that the chaos on display on DT9 is all that systematic - quite frankly

I've listened to DT8 a number of times and to be quite honest - i've never felt trapped inside anything.

Listening to DT5 does not give me flashbacks to any previous life or subconscious thoughts

When listening to DT1 - Dream and Day have never once united...


Not once whilst listening to DT4 have I ever fell into infinity. If I did - I'd still be there. Falling. I'm sitting in my room.

Let me guess... you slept through all of DT3?

It wouldn't be unheard of

Blates did. Blates. Totes slept thru the whole album

I started listening to their 1995 EP in September and it's *STILL* Autumn.

[rumborak]

Regarding the prog discussion, DT is prog, but not progressive. I also kind of disagree with the "DT is art" statement. If anything, that lack of artistic vision is a main detractor for me. Their music is entertainment, but I can't call it art (anymore).

[TheGreatPretender]

I think Progressive can mean different things to different people. The problem with the genre is that at the peak of Progressive Rock, it was something new and revolutionary, and some people took that as something progressive. But if progressive means new and experimental by definition, then every band that's ever created a new genre or subgenre is progressive at their inception. By that definition, Soundgarden were progressive in the late 80s, and Metallica were progressive in the early 80s. But they can't be called "Progressive Metal" or "Progressive Rock" bands.
If Progressive Metal is a genre, then it can't be something that's new and experimental, because then it would be a genre that's always changing and constantly undefined. By that definition, Images and Words is a progressive album, but any album that sounds like I&W, but is released thereafter, is no longer a progressive album. In which case, what exactly is it, then?

That's why I don't go for the whole, "Progressive music has to be experimental" crap. If that's the case, then it should just be called "Experimental Rock" or "Experimental Metal" shouldn't it?
Progressive, to me, is a self-contained statement. If a song progresses in itself, with time signature changes, evolving musical ideas and motifs, then it's progressive. And by that definition, every DT album fits the description perfectly.

[orcus116]

Maybe not experimental but it would be nice for the band to actively evolve their sound. They've been using the same playbook for nearly a decade.

[rumborak]

I disagree. I would say that whatever definition of "progressive" should not just include any kind of experimentation, since it obviously should be a bit more specific than that. However, any band that has been sticking to their stylistic guns for a long time, and DT IMHO counts as that, can not possibly be "progressive" in any kind of sense. DT used to be progressive in their early days where every new album was a new exploration in music. SC->DT12 is the same type of music, in different variations. That may be labeled as "prog" to indicate the overall genre of instrumentation and writing approach, but it is not "progressive".

[j]

Well, as I understand it, there's a difference between 'progressive' the genre and 'progressive' the adjective.  Everything you just quoted describes progressive the genre, but progressive the adjective is more about pushing boundaries and trying new things.

Personally, I don't much care about labels, so it doesn't really matter to me.  But I thought I might be able to help you understand where j and others are coming from.

I disagree. I would say that whatever definition of "progressive" should not just include any kind of experimentation, since it obviously should be a bit more specific than that. However, any band that has been sticking to their stylistic guns for a long time, and DT IMHO counts as that, can not possibly be "progressive" in any kind of sense. DT used to be progressive in their early days where every new album was a new exploration in music. SC->DT12 is the same type of music, in different variations. That may be labeled as "prog" to indicate the overall genre of instrumentation and writing approach, but it is not "progressive".

Basically these.

@Lucien:
Of course DT's albums and songs are not all exactly identical, that would be ridiculous.  But they also don't evolve or change their sound; they rely on primarily the very same elements in their music that they always have.  They may be a "prog metal band" or whatever people who are into genres want to call it, but it is not really "progressive."

Don't get me wrong, just because I personally would like to see some significant departure from their formulas doesn't mean that they shouldn't stick to what they love and are good at.  And I still enjoy a lot of their music.  I just think "progressive" is a misnomer.

-J

[TheGreatPretender]

SC->DT12 is the same type of music, in different variations. That may be labeled as "prog" to indicate the overall genre of instrumentation and writing approach, but it is not "progressive".

Well, to be fair, when DT DID try to do something different and experimental and come out of their comfort zone (songs like TDEN and Prophets of War), fans generally didn't like it and still bitch about those songs to this day. So frankly, can you blame them?

Also, I personally feel like SDOIT -> 8VM is the same type of music in different variations as well. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that, and that music is still progressive in the self-contained way I described earlier.

Like I said, to me, band sticking to its "Stylistic guns" has absolutely nothing to do with the term "progressive" as to me, that term represents the actual musical structure, rather than how the style evolves.

[Daybreak at the lake]

Dream theater used to be really cool, funky, and almost futuristic. Like the beginning of Take the Time and the riff in Strange Deja Vu and "Metropolis sur-rounds me." They don't do that anymore. I miss it, man.

[Kotowboy]

People bitching bands don't sound the same after 12 albums. . . 


AC/DC & Mötorhead are THATTAWAY  - - - - - - - - >


 

[Sycsa]

So DTF is now an authority on reforming the English language? Abbreviations gain new meanings? Prog ≠ Progressive? I mean, I get the line of thinking, but that's one of the most extreme cases of hairsplitting ever. DT plays progressive metal, by the books. Whether or not there is a progression in their musical evolution is an entirely different subject matter and shouldn't be mixed up with something as simple as the name of a genre.

[Outcrier]

Their music is entertainment, but I can't call it art (anymore).

Couldn't agree more.

[Zook]

What music can be called art?

[BlobVanDam]

Blind Faith has worse lyrics than TCOT by a few lightyears. Worst in the DT discography.
SDOIT as an album is inconsistent and the title track doesn't deserve half the praise it gets.
Illumination Theory is the worst DT epic.
The new album is second worst only to SC.
DT's songwriting has only gotten less technical and progressive over time. Less interesting, as a result.
The guest vocalist on Lines in the Sand ruins the entire rest of the song for me.
Awake is the best DT album.
SFAM has no top 10 songs even if it's one of their better albums.
Ruddess is DT's least interesting keyboardist.
ANTR is a better song than it gets credit for. TBOT as well.
Burning My Soul is so much worse than You Not Me it isn't even funny. I'm not laughing.

Can't think of any more horrible things to say about the band right now though.

I'm too lazy to reply, so I'm just bolding the most lolworthy ones for me.

What music can be called art?

All of it, or none of it. I think it's kind of pretentious to draw arbitrary lines of what ones you feel can be considered "art".

[TheGreatPretender]

What music can be called art?

All of it, or none of it. I think it's kind of pretentious to draw arbitrary lines of what ones you feel can be considered "art".

Agreed. I don't like all music, but then I don't like all art. Some art, I consider to be crappy art. But it's still art.

[rumborak]

So DTF is now an authority on reforming the English language? Abbreviations gain new meanings? Prog ≠ Progressive? I mean, I get the line of thinking, but that's one of the most extreme cases of hairsplitting ever. DT plays progressive metal, by the books. Whether or not there is a progression in their musical evolution is an entirely different subject matter and shouldn't be mixed up with something as simple as the name of a genre.

Dude, this distinction between "prog" and "progressive" has been going on for a long time, here and at many other places. It simply stems from the fact that while bands like Radiohead are clearly not "prog", a lot of people want to have a label for them that puts them and others into a category of "radically evolving, pushing the boundaries". Well, that label is "progressive".

[j]

Like I said, to me, band sticking to its "Stylistic guns" has absolutely nothing to do with the term "progressive" as to me, that term represents the actual musical structure, rather than how the style evolves.

Even so, can you really call the musical structure "progressive" anymore if it's been done for 20+ years?

So DTF is now an authority on reforming the English language? Abbreviations gain new meanings? Prog ≠ Progressive? I mean, I get the line of thinking, but that's one of the most extreme cases of hairsplitting ever. DT plays progressive metal, by the books. Whether or not there is a progression in their musical evolution is an entirely different subject matter and shouldn't be mixed up with something as simple as the name of a genre.

Huh??  The word "progressive" had a definition long before there was any such thing as a genre of music called "prog."  And the thing you're calling simple (genre labels) is the source of a ton of unnecessary muddling of music discussion, which is why I personally have very little use for it.  DT (and plenty of others) may be conventionally known as a "prog metal" band, but that is very different from being *progressive* in the true sense of the word.

-J

[FourthHorseman]

>>> Saying music is not art

>>> arguing over the definition of "progressive"

[LTE3]

I feel like the drum sound on DT12 is so genuinely terrible that I can't even appreciate whatever it is that Mike's playing on the drums, no matter how amazing it really is. It just sounds so bad that I can't help but wish for the other Mike's sound again 

I think Mike completely missed his chance to make his big entrance into the DT family with his performance on this album. It's exactly what I was hoping it wouldn't be.

I could not agree more, after more and more listens I do of course moments of brilliance but the sound of the drums is just not that good. They sound like the drums on an 80's Stryper record which is not good.

[TheGreatPretender]

Like I said, to me, band sticking to its "Stylistic guns" has absolutely nothing to do with the term "progressive" as to me, that term represents the actual musical structure, rather than how the style evolves.

Even so, can you really call the musical structure "progressive" anymore if it's been done for 20+ years?

But the music progresses as you listen to it. It starts out with one melody or riff, or rhythm, and then the time signatures change, the melodies and riffs grow or change, and even the tone of the song progresses as it goes on, from something more melancholy to something more aggressive, or something intense to something happy. It's the way it's always been, and still is the case with DT12, and it's what defines "progressive" to me, when pertaining to the music.

[425]

*raises hand*

What is wrong with "experimental" as an adjective? If a band continually pushes musical boundaries, they are being experimental.

"Progressive rock/metal" is a genre of music. You may not like the etymology of this, but the fact remains that when you are discussing music and you say "that song is a really progressive" OR "that song is really proggy" (because prog is just an abbreviation for progressive), you are using a word that refers to a particular genre. It is NO DIFFERENT than if I say that a song is thrashy. I don't literally mean that the song is thrashing around like a dead fish or something, I'm saying the song shares many of the characteristics of the genre thrash metal.

The whole "prog/progressive" argument is really kind of ridiculous. It only serves to confuse when people start deciding that a band can be prog without being progressive or whatever. Dream Theater is a progressive band, because they do things like using unusual time signatures and displaying a high degree of technical ability. You may think that DT is not a very EXPERIMENTAL band, but it sounds silly to say something like "they're prog but not progressive."

Again, you may not like this, but terms have specific meanings, and spontaneously changing them when you for some reason can't say what you mean with the word "experimental" confuses exactly everybody.

[Sycsa]

So DTF is now an authority on reforming the English language? Abbreviations gain new meanings? Prog ≠ Progressive? I mean, I get the line of thinking, but that's one of the most extreme cases of hairsplitting ever. DT plays progressive metal, by the books. Whether or not there is a progression in their musical evolution is an entirely different subject matter and shouldn't be mixed up with something as simple as the name of a genre.

Dude, this distinction between "prog" and "progressive" has been going on for a long time, here and at many other places. It simply stems from the fact that while bands like Radiohead are clearly not "prog", a lot of people want to have a label for them that puts them and others into a category of "radically evolving, pushing the boundaries". Well, that label is "progressive".

Huh??  The word "progressive" had a definition long before there was any such thing as a genre of music called "prog."  And the thing you're calling simple (genre labels) is the source of a ton of unnecessary muddling of music discussion, which is why I personally have very little use for it.  DT (and plenty of others) may be conventionally known as a "prog metal" band, but that is very different from being *progressive* in the true sense of the word.

-J

I'm aware of that, I had this discussion at progarchives forums probably around 2009, but it still seems just as ridiculous and arbitrary today. If it means something else for some people on certain forums, go ahead, but don't act like it's official. What's wrong with calling Radiohead experimental rock btw? And looking at "progressive" as a standalone adjective is off topic here, we're talking genre names. DT might not be progressive, but they always were, and always will be, progressive metal.

I fully agree with the two posts above me (TheGreatPretender, 425).

[BlobVanDam]

Honestly, whenever the whole "prog/progressive" argument comes up, I realize how trivial genre labels are. What does it even matter? The only classification that matters is whether it's good or not to you. And as long as it's good, who gives a crap if it's progressive, or prog, or polkacore, or folk slop?

[King Postwhore]

Amen Blob, Amen.

[Kotowboy]

What music can be called art?

inB4 "Kid A & Amnesiac" 

[Zook]

Really, all music is art. Even KrotchRaut. It was created, like a painting. A really shitty painting, and there are plenty of those in Museums.