DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
Dream Theater => Dream Theater => Topic started by: svisser on November 07, 2021, 07:17:42 PM
-
This has been on my mind for quite a long time.
I can't stand it when people say this about DT to be honest. It makes me want to know exactly what someone would define as "inspired" DT. Not what that sounded like in the past, but what that would sound like now. Like, what does a truly "inspired" new DT song sound like? I think they have gotten pretty comfortable with themselves, but, then again, what do we expect after almost 40 years and 19 hours of music? I think they have nothing to really prove anymore. They made their mark and deserve respect for that.
I also am frustrated when people say DT needs to "reinvent" themselves. In my opinion, they did that on Six Degrees, and a lot of people shun that album because it does not sound "DT" enough. Or it is too boring. There are countless bands that have similar themes all through their discography and people love that about them. I feel that people expect more from DT due to their education. Like, having the knowledge they have should mean they have to always be fresh with whatever they do. When it reality, the band is just a bunch of guys having a good time doing what they love.
I used to be one of those that chided the band for complacency, but then I finally came around to realizing that it is what a band's sound is that defines their music. DT has a very specific sound. Just as many other bands out there do.
What is everyone's thoughts on this? Does DT need to redefine themselves to stay fresh? Or do they need to just keep doing what they are doing?
I am personally in the second camp.
-
Well first of all… six degrees is a consensus top 3 album for them so I’m not sure where you’re getting your six degrees comments. Of course not everybody loved it or has it top 3 but it’s widely considered top 3 with the only possible exception being “awake” inserted in there.
I think a better album to use would be The Astonishing. But it’s misguided to say people didn’t like it because it didn’t sound enough like Dream Theater. I think the ambition shown on the album is the one aspect that was widely respected. People didn’t like it because it was bloated, cheesy, and had a host of other issues. For the record I’m a fan of The Astonishing but still feel like those complaints are warranted.
Anyways, after my first few listens of A View I definitely felt they were uninspired. However, the album really grew on me and is likely a top 6 album by them for me. Maybe even top 5. I don’t feel a lack of inspiration anymore. Quite the contrary, however….
Although they aren’t uninspired… they are playing it a tad safe. . For them to keep making solid albums 15 albums into their careers is very impressive. I personally would like to see a little more risk taking but I do love the new album and like all 7 songs.
-
I also am frustrated when people say DT needs to "reinvent" themselves. In my opinion, they did that on Six Degrees,
How did they reinvent them selves. I have never understood this. people also say it was experimental. Why? Because they had some weird ending in Misunderstood?
-
I also am frustrated when people say DT needs to "reinvent" themselves. In my opinion, they did that on Six Degrees,
How did they reinvent them selves. I have never understood this. people also say it was experimental. Why? Because they had some weird ending in Misunderstood?
I don't think they have songs before that approach the style of The Glass Prison, Misunderstood, The Great Debate, and Disappear. It is highlighted more by the contrast with Disc 2, which is more in line with the DT "sound" of I&W and SFAM.
-
.
-
An inspired DT song now would sound different to what they've done before. The new album sounds stale. I don't hear the creative inspiration in it, despite the new studio and everything. While I guess I'm glad the band finally realize James's vocal limitation now, it has resulted in a less inspired product this time around. Less varied. Where's the ballad, for instance?
-
So writing a ballad for the sake of it would be less uninspired ?
I'd rather any new DT album have 70 minutes of their best work on it and not box ticking.
If it's 70 minutes of balladry or 70 minutes of all out prog metal - whatever. Bands should just WRITE and not worry about what comes out.
-
An inspired DT song now would sound different to what they've done before. The new album sounds stale. I don't hear the creative inspiration in it, despite the new studio and everything. While I guess I'm glad the band finally realize James's vocal limitation now, it has resulted in a less inspired product this time around. Less varied. Where's the ballad, for instance?
I think I'm completely opposite with everything you said here.. This new record sounds very inspired and fresh to me, and shows that the band has a lot of creativity left in their tank. It still sounds like Dream Theater, but with classic meets modern touch. There's plenty of emotional sections throughout this album that more than make up for that missing ballad.
I respect your opinion, but this release is anything but stale..
-
I think a lot of DT fans say that the band are "uninspired" when really what they mean is "this type of music is no longer inspiring to me".
I think DT are obviously inspired, or they would not create.
I have surely felt "uninspired" by metal and prog many times. I've gone through phases where I just didn't listen to it at all, sometimes for years.
It would inaccurate to frame this as my favorite prog and metal bands doing something wrong or releasing bad music - obviously plenty of people still love it. It just so happens that I'm not always in the mood for it.
-
Why can’t people just say that a band’s sound no longer resonates with them the way it once did? It’s okay to admit that. Tastes change and evolve, and there’s nothing wrong with that. To say a band is uninspired because you’re not excited by them anymore though, that’s not fair.
-
To answer the question, no. Anyone who would say they are "uninspired" is probably just grasping for a big sounding word to hide behind and somehow blame the band for the fact that their own personal taste and DT's music just aren't a match, for whatever reason. I don't think "uninspired" could possibly apply to DT in any context.
-
To answer the question, no. Anyone who would say they are "uninspired" is probably just grasping for a big sounding word to hide behind and somehow blame the band for the fact that their own personal taste and DT's music just aren't a match, for whatever reason. I don't think "uninspired" could possibly apply to DT in any context.
I agree with this. I’ve said, as well as others, that in the last decade DT have really found their “sound”. Some fans seem to want them to go back to the “every albums going to be totally different@ phase that they were in during the 2000s. Since they aren’t doing that, those fans called them “uninspired”. Or, like Bosk said, they are not a fan of this sound and style that the band has really perfected.
-
If I'm being completely honest here, I don't get what people even mean when they say "uninspired" anymore. Sometimes it feels like a completely meaningless word that people use when they want to say they don't like something. And I don't mean this in a rude way at all; I'm not at all saying I find those opinions invalid or something like that, that's just ridiculous. I'm just saying that I've seen "uninspired" being used so much in criticism, yet always making little to no sense to me, that it feel like the word's lost all meaning.
Regarding the idea of Dream Theater being uninspired specifically, I don't see how they come across as uninspired on any album or any song they've ever made.
-
I think a lot of DT fans say that the band are "uninspired" when really what they mean is "this type of music is no longer inspiring to me".
I think DT are obviously inspired, or they would not create.
I have surely felt "uninspired" by metal and prog many times. I've gone through phases where I just didn't listen to it at all, sometimes for years.
It would inaccurate to frame this as my favorite prog and metal bands doing something wrong or releasing bad music - obviously plenty of people still love it. It just so happens that I'm not always in the mood for it.
I think this is right (as is The Count's post that follows, and Revenge above).
I've been critical of the new album, but it's why it doesn't resonate with ME, not an indictment of their creativity.
-
An inspired DT song now would sound different to what they've done before. The new album sounds stale. I don't hear the creative inspiration in it, despite the new studio and everything. While I guess I'm glad the band finally realize James's vocal limitation now, it has resulted in a less inspired product this time around. Less varied. Where's the ballad, for instance?
Finally! An album without the obligatory same-old piano-and-vocal track that adds absolutely nothing to my enjoyment of their discography.
-
I do find it funny as well when what's regarded as "uncreative" or "uninspired" to a lot of people seems to be a matter of adhering to a checklist (too many songs with chugs, no ballad, too many parts sound too familiar) rather than actually digging deep into the music and dissecting it beyond a purely aesthetic level (with the spot-the-song-reference exercises being a particualrly annoying example of shallow analysis imo). I think that approach often neglects the possibility that an artist can still be creative and inspired while having a lot of chugging moments, less song types and variations on a fundamentally similar style.
Not to mention, the word uninspired is one of my biggest music criticism pet peeves because it's just flat out insulting. Discussions over cohesion, balance and how the music serves to fit a theme can be debated and doesn't judge the artist themselves. "Uninspired" is pseudo-critique that smacks of an attempt to drag down the artist over a piece of music simply not clicking with them. At the end of the day, music is a collection of features and identifiers that are often relative (intensity, complexity, style, rhythms, about a particular topic etc.). To an artist, that collection of features may mean enough for them (and likely have enough confidence that it'll mean something to others) to produce and put out to their audience. If you wanted to actually know what was "uninspired", you'd have to look at the instances in which the artist themselves has described it as such. It just so happens that this often doesn't correlate with public opinion of the music, kind of like when people talk about "filler tracks".
Along with people framing their criticisms as objective in general (or doing it by impulse), the word is something I really wish would disappear from music discourse. It's not constructive (imagine being a musician and getting the feedback of "idk, it just sounds uninspired", absolutely useless) and it contributes to making discussions more toxic imo.
-
To answer the question, no. Anyone who would say they are "uninspired" is probably just grasping for a big sounding word to hide behind and somehow blame the band for the fact that their own personal taste and DT's music just aren't a match, for whatever reason. I don't think "uninspired" could possibly apply to DT in any context.
When the band releases a 60 min album of 12 bar blues songs in 6/8 time with Petrucci playing only the minor pentatonic then yes.
Until then no.
-
I also am frustrated when people say DT needs to "reinvent" themselves. In my opinion, they did that on Six Degrees,
How did they reinvent them selves. I have never understood this. people also say it was experimental. Why? Because they had some weird ending in Misunderstood?
I don't think they have songs before that approach the style of The Glass Prison, Misunderstood, The Great Debate, and Disappear. It is highlighted more by the contrast with Disc 2, which is more in line with the DT "sound" of I&W and SFAM.
Yeah but I&W and SFAM are good.
-
'Unnspired' is not really the best word to use. However we can look at the album and find a bunch of very obvious similarities between songs that I think are a bad development in comparison to some of their other work in the past.
One of those is the way James sings vocal lines; I know he's not capable of doing the same thing as on old albums, but compare the vocal lines on (for example) Take the Time and Caught in a Web to the ones you hear on the new record and it's obvious that those on the new album have less ambitus and are sung with less power.
An other example is the way Dream Theater structure their instrumental passages and most notably the solo sections. On previous albums the solo sections would be long, interesting (that's personal preference) journeys, whereas nowadays they'll throw in a circular, repetitive riff to solo over. Usually that riff will have no connection to the rest of the song either. Again, compare the instrumental sections in Metropolis, Beyond this Life, Blind Faith or In the Presence of Enemies (Pt. 2) to those in Answering the Call, Invisible Monster or Transcending Time to get the idea.
Whether or not that's 'uninspired' is not mine to say, but it does make the end result less exciting to me than it could have been, knowing what the band has produced in the past.
-
I do find it funny as well when what's regarded as "uncreative" or "uninspired" to a lot of people seems to be a matter of adhering to a checklist (too many songs with chugs, no ballad, too many parts sound too familiar) rather than actually digging deep into the music and dissecting it beyond a purely aesthetic level (with the spot-the-song-reference exercises being a particualrly annoying example of shallow analysis imo). I think that approach often neglects the possibility that an artist can still be creative and inspired while having a lot of chugging moments, less song types and variations on a fundamentally similar style.
Not to mention, the word uninspired is one of my biggest music criticism pet peeves because it's just flat out insulting. Discussions over cohesion, balance and how the music serves to fit a theme can be debated and doesn't judge the artist themselves. "Uninspired" is pseudo-critique that smacks of an attempt to drag down the artist over a piece of music simply not clicking with them. At the end of the day, music is a collection of features and identifiers that are often relative (intensity, complexity, style, rhythms, about a particular topic etc.). To an artist, that collection of features may mean enough for them (and likely have enough confidence that it'll mean something to others) to produce and put out to their audience. If you wanted to actually know what was "uninspired", you'd have to look at the instances in which the artist themselves has described it as such. It just so happens that this often doesn't correlate with public opinion of the music, kind of like when people talk about "filler tracks".
Along with people framing their criticisms as objective in general (or doing it by impulse), the word is something I really wish would disappear from music discourse. It's not constructive (imagine being a musician and getting the feedback of "idk, it just sounds uninspired", absolutely useless) and it contributes to making discussions more toxic imo.
Great post, bravo!
-
In my experience, the word "uninspired" is often used in place of "I don't like this". It's honestly one of my biggest pet peeves when discussing music. My favorite example of this is actually The Astonishing. Dream Theater released the longest album of their career, which was also arguably the strangest album of their career, which was also one of their most expensive albums to make, which also had one of the most extensive marketing campaigns of any album, which JP and JR in particular spoke about with a lot of excitement in interviews, which was accompanied by elaborate visuals for a unique world tour... And then the record came out and a bunch of people said it was "uninspired". :lol
-
I personally think "it sounds uninspired" is a perfectly reasonable critique to make. To imply that an artist will always be bursting at the seems with energy and creativity, especially when this is a business, is just not realistic. There will be times when the members of Dream Theater will be 100% inspired and times when they may not be. That is just human nature and is the same for every band and every artist throughout time.
For example, had Portnoy, who admittedly was tired and ready for a break been involved in the entire creative process for ADTOE, I'm guessing the lack of inspiration would have shined through in his playing.
I don't think its an insult... I think it's an acknowledgement of human nature. If something comes off as lazy songwriting to me I don't think it means "I don't like the band anymore". It just means I know they are capable of better as I have heard them make more creative choices.
With all that said, I like the new album and I'm happy they still have it in them.
-
One of those is the way James sings vocal lines; I know he's not capable of doing the same thing as on old albums, but compare the vocal lines on (for example) Take the Time and Caught in a Web to the ones you hear on the new record and it's obvious that those on the new album have less ambitus and are sung with less power.
I think tonally he sounds great; I have no knock with his abilities; but I do have some criticism with the choices. There are ways of highlighting the vocals, or emphasizing one's strengths. James' voice is a beautiful instrument, but it's not - now - going to hang with the rest of the band at full flight. So integrate that limitation and make it a strength. Rush did this to perfection starting as far back as Permanent Waves. Well-placed keyboard washes; structuring the arrangement of the choruses to highlight certain melodies... James has a lot of tools at his disposal; he's particularly good at that double-tracked vocal (with the high register in the background) and the band is gifted with their background vocals. It seems that the concensus is that this is an album that focuses on "sick playing"; you can have sick playing and still work as a unit.
-
In my experience, the word "uninspired" is often used in place of "I don't like this". It's honestly one of my biggest pet peeves when discussing music. My favorite example of this is actually The Astonishing. Dream Theater released the longest album of their career, which was also arguably the strangest album of their career, which was also one of their most expensive albums to make, which also had one of the most extensive marketing campaigns of any album, which JP and JR in particular spoke about with a lot of excitement in interviews, which was accompanied by elaborate visuals for a unique world tour... And then the record came out and a bunch of people said it was "uninspired". :lol
I think that was a very small subsection of people using that word. Most people that disliked The Astonishing did not dislike it because of a lack of ambition or inspiration.
-
Of course they are! All they did since their beginning is do things that Rush, Metallica, Yes and others did before and just repackage it. Talk about being uninspired and uncreative.
But seriously, when someone say something like this I just take it as it meaning that they don't like or don't resonate with the music and I move on. I just don't see the point of dwelling too much about it when I can listen to some awesome music instead! :metal
-
One of those is the way James sings vocal lines; I know he's not capable of doing the same thing as on old albums, but compare the vocal lines on (for example) Take the Time and Caught in a Web to the ones you hear on the new record and it's obvious that those on the new album have less ambitus and are sung with less power.
I think tonally he sounds great; I have no knock with his abilities; but I do have some criticism with the choices. There are ways of highlighting the vocals, or emphasizing one's strengths. James' voice is a beautiful instrument, but it's not - now - going to hang with the rest of the band at full flight. So integrate that limitation and make it a strength. Rush did this to perfection starting as far back as Permanent Waves. Well-placed keyboard washes; structuring the arrangement of the choruses to highlight certain melodies... James has a lot of tools at his disposal; he's particularly good at that double-tracked vocal (with the high register in the background) and the band is gifted with their background vocals. It seems that the concensus is that this is an album that focuses on "sick playing"; you can have sick playing and still work as a unit.
I’ve been wondering how much of this has to do with him not being able to be on site for the initial writing sessions. I felt D/T had excellent “band working with the vocals” especially something like AWE. This time around I only really picked up on Jordan’s work around the vocals.
-
'Unnspired' is not really the best word to use. However we can look at the album and find a bunch of very obvious similarities between songs that I think are a bad development in comparison to some of their other work in the past.
One of those is the way James sings vocal lines; I know he's not capable of doing the same thing as on old albums, but compare the vocal lines on (for example) Take the Time and Caught in a Web to the ones you hear on the new record and it's obvious that those on the new album have less ambitus and are sung with less power.
An other example is the way Dream Theater structure their instrumental passages and most notably the solo sections. On previous albums the solo sections would be long, interesting (that's personal preference) journeys, whereas nowadays they'll throw in a circular, repetitive riff to solo over. Usually that riff will have no connection to the rest of the song either. Again, compare the instrumental sections in Metropolis, Beyond this Life, Blind Faith or In the Presence of Enemies (Pt. 2) to those in Answering the Call, Invisible Monster or Transcending Time to get the idea.
Whether or not that's 'uninspired' is not mine to say, but it does make the end result less exciting to me than it could have been, knowing what the band has produced in the past.
I mean at least you frame it as your opinion.
My perspective on this is that a lot of the similarities are tenuous and superficial. They're obvious in the sense that there are similarities, but this isn't exactly the kind of thing that'd hold up in a plagiarism case if they were a different band (not that I'm saying you said that, but just to drive the main point). When you add up all the stuff that's going on in the compared parts, I think it becomes clear that there's more to the parts than just a reference to the past. Plus, not to beat a dead horse... but after 15 albums (and the other members taking part in a number of other projects) I'd expect some familiar phrases to pop up now and again. I also don't think the odd similar part here and there to past songs is any worse than the overt references to other bands (be it Queensryche, Metallica, U2, Opeth, Muse), where some of them (These Walls to Linkin Park's From the Inside or Never Enough to Muse's Stockholm Syndrome) cut arguably a lot closer. In my mind, if I tolerate hearing Forty Six & Two in Home, I can tolerate hearing a mild similarity to ITPoE in The Alien, particularly when the whole is still pretty different in both cases.
With the vocals, I'm not really concerned about power because I frankly don't like his ultra-gritty performances on Awake all that much anyway. In my view, his lines on the new album are far more tasteful and evocative, even when the melodies are more unorthodox. Sleeping Giant in particular, which gives off this lush, theatrical vibe to me. I should also re-post what I wrote about The Alien to drive home the point here:
'I do personally have the feeling that stuff that's considered flaws (i.e. the pretty dense and jarring structure and James' melodies) actually complement the theme. In my mind, of course a song about terraforming planets and exploring space in the context of Earth being wrecked is going to have an explorative, yet uneasy and uncertain tension about its progression and that also applies to the vocals that seem to rarely sit on a more singable melody other than the "Our holy grail..." and the "I am the alien..." bits, which feel like moments of acceptance (though not necessarily triumph) among the nervous chaos. For instance, the pretty jagged, hurried melody in the first verse concluding with "Options but a few, we are running out of time" feels very much appropriate. Same with how the part that ends in "...All that you've known left behind" has this kind of obscure, ominous vibe.
The tone keeps switching because in my opinion, a topic like this is pretty complicated and bittersweet (which the ending also musically seems to represent with that ecstatic guitar solo followed by that tense symphonic chordal thing). You've got the seemingly endless possibilities unlocked by technological advancement juxtaposed with the grim realisation that we're escaping our deyaying home planet, which I think is the sort of thing that would spark that sort of inner turmoil represented emotionally by this song (I know I'm kinda repeating myself here, but just to emphasise the point). Given the song's subject matter, I definitely can understand why the vocal melodies aren't typically hooky in the vein of The Enemy Inside or Untethered Angel, which feature more grounded, relatable topics and the melodies seem to reflect their own themes in that regard, too. However, I also think the melodies, while not accessible, are filled with intent and purpose all the same, though I appreciate that this is something down to personal interpretation.'
James is of course limited by his age, but I think he works within those limitations wonderfully to deliver a performance that doesn't just go for catchy melodies, but fitting them and the delivery to the themes of the music. A song like Transcending Time also deeply moves me with what I see as a highly mature and sensitive performance (I also think it's understated just how poetic the TT lyrics are for modern JP as well) that I'd take any day over something like Caught in a Web.
The part about instrumental sections feels like confirmation bias as well, because they've always kinda had this mix of jam-based instrumental sections with more composed sections. Hell, Beyond This Life I'd say is far more "throw in a circular, repetitive riff to solo over" (perhaps even as circular as it gets arguably) than something like Sleeping Giant or the epic. All BTL does is introduce a riff after a while, repeat the pattern a few times, then the unisons. Fatal Tragedy has something like this too. Hell, that one doesn't really have any connection to the rest of the song either. I'm not saying this to say these are bad sections either, but that the phenomenon that you're pointing out isn't really exclusive to modern DT and that I think there are a lot of notable exceptions.
I personally think "it sounds uninspired" is a perfectly reasonable critique to make. To imply that an artist will always be bursting at the seems with energy and creativity, especially when this is a business, is just not realistic. There will be times when the members of Dream Theater will be 100% inspired and times when they may not be. That is just human nature and is the same for every band and every artist throughout time.
Except it isn't. It lacks any actual substace as a criticism. The thing is, music can't "sound uninspired" and it's not really something you can quantify (at least without it being a synonym for simply "music I do not like"). Again, something like cohesion can have common reference points, even if it's still a subjective judgement.
Another problem here is that the level of inspiration is just being assumed, when you most likely do not know how the artist felt while writing or how the process went. If we look at the external clues beyond simply enjoying the album or not, then A View would be a far more "inspired" album than Awake and The Astonishing would be one of JP's most inspired works, but I get the feeling that a lot of the people using that word for the new album aren't looking at it in that way. Often it's literally just guess-work in spite of excuberance and energy on the part of the band, so I'm not sure it's really all that reasonable.
I should also mention that generally, being uninspired musically... means not writing anything. From what I remember from people who have seen the band write in the last two decades or so from the outside (like Jimmy T), whether it's Systematic Chaos or the new album, seem to note how quickly the ideas fly out there as well as how they develop and refine those ideas just as fast. When you've got that much instrumental talent in a room, it's very unlikely that ideas aren't going to happen because even if JP suddenly has a bad day, you've still got 3 instrumentalists that are bouncing around ideas (albeit at differing rates).
I don't think its an insult... I think it's an acknowledgement of human nature. If something comes off as lazy songwriting to me I don't think it means "I don't like the band anymore". It just means I know they are capable of better as I have heard them make more creative choices.
Correction: "It just means I know they are capable of catering to my personal tastes more."
Hours of thought and refinement could've gone into an idea that you might think is uninspired and something you think was genius could've been something that the band considered not even releasing. This is exactly the issue a lot of us have with the words "uninspired" or "uncreative".
-
'Unnspired' is not really the best word to use. However we can look at the album and find a bunch of very obvious similarities between songs that I think are a bad development in comparison to some of their other work in the past.
One of those is the way James sings vocal lines; I know he's not capable of doing the same thing as on old albums, but compare the vocal lines on (for example) Take the Time and Caught in a Web to the ones you hear on the new record and it's obvious that those on the new album have less ambitus and are sung with less power.
An other example is the way Dream Theater structure their instrumental passages and most notably the solo sections. On previous albums the solo sections would be long, interesting (that's personal preference) journeys, whereas nowadays they'll throw in a circular, repetitive riff to solo over. Usually that riff will have no connection to the rest of the song either. Again, compare the instrumental sections in Metropolis, Beyond this Life, Blind Faith or In the Presence of Enemies (Pt. 2) to those in Answering the Call, Invisible Monster or Transcending Time to get the idea.
Whether or not that's 'uninspired' is not mine to say, but it does make the end result less exciting to me than it could have been, knowing what the band has produced in the past.
I mean at least you frame it as your opinion.
My perspective on this is that a lot of the similarities are tenuous and superficial. They're obvious in the sense that there are similarities, but this isn't exactly the kind of thing that'd hold up in a plagiarism case if they were a different band (not that I'm saying you said that, but just to drive the main point). When you add up all the stuff that's going on in the compared parts, I think it becomes clear that there's more to the parts than just a reference to the past. Plus, not to beat a dead horse... but after 15 albums (and the other members taking part in a number of other projects) I'd expect some familiar phrases to pop up now and again. I also don't think the odd similar part here and there to past songs is any worse than the overt references to other bands (be it Queensryche, Metallica, U2, Opeth, Muse), where some of them (These Walls to Linkin Park's From the Inside or Never Enough to Muse's Stockholm Syndrome) cut arguably a lot closer. In my mind, if I tolerate hearing Forty Six & Two in Home, I can tolerate hearing a mild similarity to ITPoE in The Alien, particularly when the whole is still pretty different in both cases.
With the vocals, I'm not really concerned about power because I frankly don't like his ultra-gritty performances on Awake all that much anyway. In my view, his lines on the new album are far more tasteful and evocative, even when the melodies are more unorthodox. Sleeping Giant in particular, which gives off this lush, theatrical vibe to me. I should also re-post what I wrote about The Alien to drive home the point here:
'I do personally have the feeling that stuff that's considered flaws (i.e. the pretty dense and jarring structure and James' melodies) actually complement the theme. In my mind, of course a song about terraforming planets and exploring space in the context of Earth being wrecked is going to have an explorative, yet uneasy and uncertain tension about its progression and that also applies to the vocals that seem to rarely sit on a more singable melody other than the "Our holy grail..." and the "I am the alien..." bits, which feel like moments of acceptance (though not necessarily triumph) among the nervous chaos. For instance, the pretty jagged, hurried melody in the first verse concluding with "Options but a few, we are running out of time" feels very much appropriate. Same with how the part that ends in "...All that you've known left behind" has this kind of obscure, ominous vibe.
The tone keeps switching because in my opinion, a topic like this is pretty complicated and bittersweet (which the ending also musically seems to represent with that ecstatic guitar solo followed by that tense symphonic chordal thing). You've got the seemingly endless possibilities unlocked by technological advancement juxtaposed with the grim realisation that we're escaping our deyaying home planet, which I think is the sort of thing that would spark that sort of inner turmoil represented emotionally by this song (I know I'm kinda repeating myself here, but just to emphasise the point). Given the song's subject matter, I definitely can understand why the vocal melodies aren't typically hooky in the vein of The Enemy Inside or Untethered Angel, which feature more grounded, relatable topics and the melodies seem to reflect their own themes in that regard, too. However, I also think the melodies, while not accessible, are filled with intent and purpose all the same, though I appreciate that this is something down to personal interpretation.'
James is of course limited by his age, but I think he works within those limitations wonderfully to deliver a performance that doesn't just go for catchy melodies, but fitting them and the delivery to the themes of the music. A song like Transcending Time also deeply moves me with what I see as a highly mature and sensitive performance (I also think it's understated just how poetic the TT lyrics are for modern JP as well) that I'd take any day over something like Caught in a Web.
The part about instrumental sections feels like confirmation bias as well, because they've always kinda had this mix of jam-based instrumental sections with more composed sections. Hell, Beyond This Life I'd say is far more "throw in a circular, repetitive riff to solo over" (perhaps even as circular as it gets arguably) than something like Sleeping Giant or the epic. All BTL does is introduce a riff after a while, repeat the pattern a few times, then the unisons. Fatal Tragedy has something like this too. Hell, that one doesn't really have any connection to the rest of the song either. I'm not saying this to say these are bad sections either, but that the phenomenon that you're pointing out isn't really exclusive to modern DT and that I think there are a lot of notable exceptions.
I personally think "it sounds uninspired" is a perfectly reasonable critique to make. To imply that an artist will always be bursting at the seems with energy and creativity, especially when this is a business, is just not realistic. There will be times when the members of Dream Theater will be 100% inspired and times when they may not be. That is just human nature and is the same for every band and every artist throughout time.
Except it isn't. It lacks any actual substace as a criticism. The thing is, music can't "sound uninspired" and it's not really something you can quantify (at least without it being a synonym for simply "music I do not like"). Again, something like cohesion can have common reference points, even if it's still a subjective judgement.
Another problem here is that the level of inspiration is just being assumed, when you most likely do not know how the artist felt while writing or how the process went. If we look at the external clues beyond simply enjoying the album or not, then A View would be a far more "inspired" album than Awake and The Astonishing would be one of JP's most inspired works, but I get the feeling that a lot of the people using that word for the new album aren't looking at it in that way. Often it's literally just guess-work in spite of excuberance and energy on the part of the band, so I'm not sure it's really all that reasonable.
I should also mention that generally, being uninspired musically... means not writing anything. From what I remember from people who have seen the band write in the last two decades or so from the outside (like Jimmy T), whether it's Systematic Chaos or the new album, seem to note how quickly the ideas fly out there as well as how they develop and refine those ideas just as fast. When you've got that much instrumental talent in a room, it's very unlikely that ideas aren't going to happen because even if JP suddenly has a bad day, you've still got 3 instrumentalists that are bouncing around ideas (albeit at differing rates).
I don't think its an insult... I think it's an acknowledgement of human nature. If something comes off as lazy songwriting to me I don't think it means "I don't like the band anymore". It just means I know they are capable of better as I have heard them make more creative choices.
Correction: "It just means I know they are capable of catering to my personal tastes more."
Hours of thought and refinement could've gone into an idea that you might think is uninspired and something you think was genius could've been something that the band considered not even releasing. This is exactly the issue a lot of us have with the words "uninspired" or "uncreative".
All reasonable points but you’re also working under the assumption that the band is fully and equally inspired on every album and with every creative choice. I don’t think that’s realistic. I agree that there is literally no possible way to know how inspired a band member is which is why I say “it comes off as uninspired or it sounds uninspired” to me.
As a big kinks fan I choose to believe Ray Davies was uninspired in the 80’s and not that he just completely lost the ability to write a good song.
There are also countless directors that I point to that clearly aren’t working under the same fire and inspiration they once did. Take for example Tim Burton….
I understand your points and perhaps calling a piece of art uninspired is lazy or misguided but I also don’t think everything boils down to “I either like them or I don’t”. Artists do cut corners, artists do make art for different reasons then they perhaps used to when they were younger and didn’t have families. When they were starving or couldn’t put food on the table etc… bands do lose inspiration as do directors, athletes, etc….
Again I want to make it clear that I really like the new album and don’t think they were uninspired here. Although I do think they play it a tad safe, with great results.
-
All reasonable points but you’re also working under the assumption that the band is fully and equally inspired on every album and with every creative choice. I don’t think that’s realistic. I agree that there is literally no possible way to know how inspired a band member is which is why I say “it comes off as uninspired or it sounds uninspired” to me.
It's not that I think the level of inspiration is equal, it's that I don't think the level of inspiration is measurable and without comments from those involved relating to that, there's no way we can even really guess, like you say. Even if you attribute it as your own opinion, you might as well just say "I don't like it", because it holds just as much substance, exepct without the implicit denigration of the artist's effort (as opposed to just the product).
As a big kinks fan I choose to believe Ray Davies was uninspired in the 80’s and not that he just completely lost the ability to write a good song.
There are also countless directors that I point to that clearly aren’t working under the same fire and inspiration they once did. Take for example Tim Burton….
Again, both instances of simply not liking the material and trying to validate that with assumptions. I get where the motivation to do that might come from, but I still don't think it holds any water, unless it's backed up by reports of them literally struggling to create their works and admitting to having forced it out, or anything of that sort. You could say it's janky, corny or cliched maybe and find some way to find a reference point that people can dig into, because those terms are centred around the results. "Uninspired" is centred around assumptions about the process itself.
I understand your points and perhaps calling a piece of art uninspired is lazy or misguided but I also don’t think everything boils down to “I either like them or I don’t”. Artists do cut corners, artists do make art for different reasons then they perhaps used to when they were younger and didn’t have families. When they were starving or couldn’t put food on the table etc… bands do lose inspiration as do directors, athletes, etc….
In the discussions around the quality of art, it does boil down to that though. Stuff that's considered among the worst music ever made has people who enjoy it, after all. Even in instances of corner cutting... that's bascially just streamlining and you often get people who prefer the outcomes when more economic and perhaps "lazy" methods are used and commissioned musicians have made some incredible stuff imo, so I don't think "doing art for the money" is an inherently bad thing either. Not to mention, people encounter inspiration in different ways. Some take inspiration from some of the darkest moments in their lives while others take it from moments of comfort and security. It's not some linear thing because often, these aren't the same kind of ideas that would be generated under those different circumstances. Again, part of why I think bringing up the concept of inspiration within music critique is such a dead end.
-
Great posts, Enigma.
-
What it boils down to for me :
• This is their FIFTEENTH album in 36 years. I'm not expecting them to suddenly change sound overnight. Just happy that they're still writing TOP QUALITY albums.
The new album is 70 minutes with barely any padding.
• Nothing on the last couple of albums has sounded like they can't be bothered with this anymore or they're just going through the motions.
-
The only time I've ever felt Dream Theater released something that felt almost "uninspired": Raw Dog.
I'm not sure what the circumstances around its release were, because none of the bands who had songs on that video game EP seemed to be saving their best stuff for it. But even then, there was still some inspiration. There were things about that song that felt like experiments in a direction that they wouldn't have gone otherwise.
-
What it boils down to for me :
• This is their FIFTEENTH album in 36 years. I'm not expecting them to suddenly change sound overnight. Just happy that they're still writing TOP QUALITY albums.
The new album is 70 minutes with barely any padding.
• Nothing on the last couple of albums has sounded like they can't be bothered with this anymore or they're just going through the motions.
This. Regardless of your thoughts on DT12 or TA, I think that 'most' fans would agree that DOT and A View...are chock full of moments were the band is pushing themselves. Now, whether or not said direction is in line with what one might personally want is a whole other matter.
-
Is DT truly "uninspired?
No.
-
As a big kinks fan I choose to believe Ray Davies was uninspired in the 80’s and not that he just completely lost the ability to write a good song.
You know, that's a great reference there, but it makes me think that it's also important WHAT you're inspired by. The Kinks went through several distinct periods, and I happen to like the '80s one as much as any. That was their "arena rock" phase, and while it reeked of "sellout" compared to the rock operas of the '70s, I thought it was a real test of their talent that they could pivot so successfully. I think back and I can name as many inspirations as I can bands I like. Kiss, inspired to make Destroyer because they had been playing the same songs for four years, guitar bass and drums and wanted to expand. Genesis, inspired to make A Trick Of The Tail because they had to show they were more than Peter's backing band (and Phil was more than the twee singer of "More Fool Me"). Steven Tyler, inspired to make Rock In A Hard Place because that dick Joe Perry and his whore wife thought they were the cat's meow and took their ball and went home. Neil Young, inspired to make Tonight's The Night after watching his friend and bandmate wither and die from drug abuse.
Honestly, I'm agnostic about inspiration; if a band I liked was about to lose their homes, or go defunct because of lack of income, and were thus "inspired" to put out a record documenting that, I think that's as valid as anything else. I just think when we start to put ourselves in someone else's head and "guess" what they're thinking is foolhardy at best.
-
I personally think "it sounds uninspired" is a perfectly reasonable critique to make. To imply that an artist will always be bursting at the seems with energy and creativity, especially when this is a business, is just not realistic. There will be times when the members of Dream Theater will be 100% inspired and times when they may not be. That is just human nature and is the same for every band and every artist throughout time.
For example, had Portnoy, who admittedly was tired and ready for a break been involved in the entire creative process for ADTOE, I'm guessing the lack of inspiration would have shined through in his playing.
I don't think its an insult... I think it's an acknowledgement of human nature. If something comes off as lazy songwriting to me I don't think it means "I don't like the band anymore". It just means I know they are capable of better as I have heard them make more creative choices.
With all that said, I like the new album and I'm happy they still have it in them.
Jumping off this, as you mentioned Portnoy, and the last DT album he appeared on is a good focal point of the band sounding uninspired. As much as I enjoy BC&SL, and I do think it is one of the band's better albums compared to recent work, using the word "uninspired" might be appropriate in describing the album. There are moments that make me go "well they could have worked on that transition a little more" or "his playing sounds like he's going through the motions" in regards to MP's playing, Rudess' playing, or really anyone in the band at the time. JLB's vocal melodies tend to follow what the other instruments are playing or vis versa all over the album, and the album features a 12 minute song that reprises themes from previous songs on previous albums and only includes about a minute of new material (which works in context of the larger piece, but I always wished it had more fresh meat on it.) JP even wrote a song about writer's block (Wither) and then in the aftermath of MP leaving and in context of ADTOE following it up with a very energetic album, looking back they were clearly sounding tired on BC&SL, MP for sure.. Of course, there are moments of clear inspiration on BC&SL (first half of ANTR, guitar solo in TBOT, the entirety of TCOT overall, etc...)
MM perhaps gave the band the B vitamin shot it needed, tightened up their sound, and I'd say they were inspired on ADTOE after the fall out of MP leaving, but since then they've been coasting on that wave since. Not uninspired, more coasting, dare I say, resting on their laurels on what they can do with the prog-metal sound they helped create throughout the 90s and 2000s. I think that while DT always have a plethora of ideas, it's how they construct those ideas which I feel has become uninspiring. The composing side of the band. The band sounded tired on BC&SL, but you can't tell me they weren't trying new things on that album, while keeping their core sound intact. They rarely take compositional risks anymore. Everything CAN be traced back to something they did in the past, without pointing out how they still have one foot pointed towards the future. You can have complex parts or sections of songs, you can get the fastest drummer in the world who can handle just about anything you throw at him, but in the big picture, the band has devolved into writing mostly ABABCAB song structures 9 times out of 10 whereas they were more liberal with how the song constructions went all the way up until and including ADTOE, which itself "borrowed" the adventurousness of IaW. Since they decided to "simplify" their approach on DT12, shortening the song lengths and whatnot, they have lost a step. The over-reliance on metal and less on prog that has followed the band since Systematic Chaos has not helped matters imo..
DoT and AV are a step in the right direction, and I would say AV is the most inspired they've sounded in many years, but there is a certain Je ne sais quoi that has been lacking since Portnoy's departure.
-
the 'uninspired' criticism implies the band is just going through the motions, is being indifferent towards their song writing or is just churning out empty music devoid of passion. It's an asinine thing to say and has no basis in anything objective. If a band decides not to venture outside their core sound, it doesn't mean they are uninspired.
If you are not connecting to DT's music as much that is totally fine. You don't even need an explanation beyond that. But to say it's because the band is essentially just going through the motions is dumb-- and I've read a lot of dumb commentary online over the years. I understand the difficulty and in some cases impossibility of describing one's experience listening to music, but let's please try NOT to chalk things up to the band's alleged indifference to their craft.
-
View is incredibly, incredibly inspired.
There has been DT music in the past that's seemed "uninspired", but let's just enjoy this phase they're at
-
Also wanted to say that I think a lot of fans don't really get the business side of this industry. An established band--even in Prog-- is generally not going to shake up their core sound once they're operating under a well known name and once their incomes depend on thousands of fans coming to the show. Here are there it happens, and it can be risky, but if a band evolves its sound over a course of decades, it's usually to appeal to a broader audience-- not a smaller audience. It's just the nature of doing this job and trying to make an actual living off it that takes you into your later years. It doesn't mean you're not inspired when you are writing for a particular kind of sound-- it just means you know what your fans expect to hear and that's what you're delivering to make them happy.
-
So writing a ballad for the sake of it would be less uninspired ?
I'd rather any new DT album have 70 minutes of their best work on it and not box ticking.
If it's 70 minutes of balladry or 70 minutes of all out prog metal - whatever. Bands should just WRITE and not worry about what comes out.
100% accurate. “Where’s the ballad?” Seriously? Instead of forcing a ballad they had soft acoustic sections in several songs. What the hell’s wrong with that?
-
So writing a ballad for the sake of it would be less uninspired ?
I'd rather any new DT album have 70 minutes of their best work on it and not box ticking.
If it's 70 minutes of balladry or 70 minutes of all out prog metal - whatever. Bands should just WRITE and not worry about what comes out.
100% accurate. “Where’s the ballad?” Seriously? Instead of forcing a ballad they had soft acoustic sections in several songs. What the hell’s wrong with that?
It was a good move. The ballad on D/T was pretty bland. I guess you can say it felt........uninspired :omg: :omg: :omg: :omg:
-
Well first of all… six degrees is a consensus top 3 album for them so I’m not sure where you’re getting your six degrees comments. Of course not everybody loved it or has it top 3 but it’s widely considered top 3 with the only possible exception being “awake” inserted in there.
I think you have Awake and Six Degrees backwards. I just looked at three different sites with a lot of ratings, and Awake was ahead of Six Degrees at two of them, and at the 3rd they were tied (but Awake had more votes total, so that would finish higher due to a larger sample size). Not trying to quibble too much over that, but just pointing out that while Six Degrees is highly regarded album by the fans, saying is a consensus top 4 album be far more accurate than saying it is a consensus top 3. :)
Also, INB4 the predictable posters miss the point and say, "But I like Six Degrees more!!" :P :lol
-
I've seen some say "people use the word 'uninspired' when they don't like the music anymore"
like you don't like metal or prog metal anymore.
I still highly enjoy DT's first 8 albums immensely. I still get some satisfaction from the best stuff off of SC, BC&SL, and ADTOE.
It's not like they completely changed musical directions over the last 10 years or so.
So shouldn't I still enjoy their last 4 albums as much as the rest, even though I don't?
Could an uninspired DT be most other band's best efforts?
-
Well first of all… six degrees is a consensus top 3 album for them so I’m not sure where you’re getting your six degrees comments. Of course not everybody loved it or has it top 3 but it’s widely considered top 3 with the only possible exception being “awake” inserted in there.
I think you have Awake and Six Degrees backwards. I just looked at three different sites with a lot of ratings, and Awake was ahead of Six Degrees at two of them, and at the 3rd they were tied (but Awake had more votes total, so that would finish higher due to a larger sample size). Not trying to quibble too much over that, but just pointing out that while Six Degrees is highly regarded album by the fans, saying is a consensus top 4 album be far more accurate than saying it is a consensus top 3. :)
Also, INB4 the predictable posters miss the point and say, "But I like Six Degrees more!!" :P :lol
Fair thanks for point it out. Top 4 works
-
Since they decided to "simplify" their approach on DT12, shortening the song lengths and whatnot, they have lost a step. The over-reliance on metal and less on prog that has followed the band since Systematic Chaos has not helped matters imo..
I don't get how the self-titled became your poster boy of "uninspired." At that point in their career, Dream Theater has been so accustomed to writing long songs with extended instrumentals since SDOIT. In many interviews, they said that in DT12 they actually consciously challenged themselves to not rely on that crutch and deliberately tried to write in a more concise manner. DELIBERATELY. You may not like their output in that album, but given how the songs were a product of a conscious effort by the band to challenge themselves to write in a manner that they have not done for over a decade, I would say "uninspired" is just a projection of your appreciation of the songs, not a description of the effort put in by the band in that album.
-
Well first of all… six degrees is a consensus top 3 album for them so I’m not sure where you’re getting your six degrees comments. Of course not everybody loved it or has it top 3 but it’s widely considered top 3 with the only possible exception being “awake” inserted in there.
I think you have Awake and Six Degrees backwards. I just looked at three different sites with a lot of ratings, and Awake was ahead of Six Degrees at two of them, and at the 3rd they were tied (but Awake had more votes total, so that would finish higher due to a larger sample size). Not trying to quibble too much over that, but just pointing out that while Six Degrees is highly regarded album by the fans, saying is a consensus top 4 album be far more accurate than saying it is a consensus top 3. :)
Also, INB4 the predictable posters miss the point and say, "But I like Six Degrees more!!" :P :lol
Fair thanks for point it out. Top 4 works
:tup :tup
-
Some great posts here (not all, some I found uninspired :biggrin:).
Especially Enigmachine.
It was a good read. :tup :tup
-
To answer the question, no. Anyone who would say they are "uninspired" is probably just grasping for a big sounding word to hide behind and somehow blame the band for the fact that their own personal taste and DT's music just aren't a match, for whatever reason. I don't think "uninspired" could possibly apply to DT in any context.
It doesn't make our opinions any more or less valid, sir.
An inspired DT song now would sound different to what they've done before. The new album sounds stale. I don't hear the creative inspiration in it, despite the new studio and everything. While I guess I'm glad the band finally realize James's vocal limitation now, it has resulted in a less inspired product this time around. Less varied. Where's the ballad, for instance?
Finally! An album without the obligatory same-old piano-and-vocal track that adds absolutely nothing to my enjoyment of their discography.
But it is absolutely pivotal to adding *variety* to an album. Treating each album as its own distinct entity, the ballad is essential in terms of album flow. With View they basically wrote the same song seven times. I was hoping for some variety in the middle of Sleeping Giant, perhaps a softer passage like the piano interlude in Barstool Warrior, but they just went into yet another soulless technical instrumental.
-
Well, it's very difficult to be objective about the word "uninspired", there's not a clear metric to measure inspiration, of course.
We have a few hints on where the inspiration might have come from, though.
https://www.guitarworld.com/features/john-petrucci-dream-theater-view-from-the-top-of-the-world
A few points that come our are (from this and other interviews):
- they got into the studio with basically no ideas, and without a clear direction for the album
- many instrumental parts are improvised (not a big surprise)
- they wrote most songs together, as a band
- as a producer, JP wanted to try a few new things, but eventually decided to keep it safe and go back to doing things as usual
I would add (but this is just my opinion) that quite a few songs were born from a "rhythmical" idea, more than a melody or a chord progression (e.g. the 5+5+7 of the Alien, the 12+11 of the title track, and the syncopated riff in SG)
What I can say, is that I personally don't like the outcome of this approach that much...
I preferred for example albums such as TA and ADTOE, where most of the ideas were driven by JP and JR, and the apparent focus was more on the "melody" rather then on the "energy/ rhythm"
-
With View they basically wrote the same song seven times.
Wrote the same song seven times? These hyperboles are what make discussions like these go nowhere.
Inspiration is a subjective state of mind. How somebody can convincingly deduce the inspiration (or lack thereof) that went into the creative process of the band members and be confident about the deduction is beyond me. I am a freaking social scientist who teaches research methods, including qualitative inquiry and interpretive methods, and I wouldn't dare deduce the band members' subjective states just by listening to their output. We have a principle, "observe the observer." What the observer is saying says more about the observer than the object being observed.
-
You're right, we can't. But if I think they sound uninspired, I'm allowed to say they sound uninspired. Whether that's the truth or not is irrelevant.
-
You're allowed to say it just as much others are allowed to call it out for being shallow and at the very least borderline insulting pseudo-critique (which I believe "soulless" falls into as well). Also, if you think songs like The Alien, Invisible Monster, Transcending Time and the epic are "basically the same song", then I really don't know what to tell you.
-
Transcending Time is The Looking Glass which is every Rush song ever.
Also how ironic that the tables have turned. It's your fault for hating on The Astonishing, the boldest most inspired work DT has ever done, that DT have played it safe since.
-
"With View they basically wrote the same song seven times"
Then proceeds to point out similarity of Transcending Time to a song in another album.
-
DT is really a band that has songs for everyone, each album is different.
Times changes too, pleasing everyone is an impossible task.
I feel a difference after octavarium until AVFTTOTW and the only two things happening are :
-Portnoy becoming lazy and then replaced, mangini finding his place in the band and refining his drumkit sound.
-Labrie's voice losing octaves and reliability.
The remaining are poor production choices leading to bad sounding mixes.
With this latest album, we have vibes from previous albums, crazy stuff from ragtime to mozart, an awesome mix (and it shows how refined and great mangini's drumming is).
A lot of petrucci chug chug, rudess being buried, labrie's voice a little neutered, that changes a lot the sound of an album, and that's maybe the modern DT that people think uninspired.
-
Is Rudess really buried? I can't imagine him being more in front without competing with the frequencies of the busy cymbals of Mangini in this album.
-
"With View they basically wrote the same song seven times"
Then proceeds to point out similarity of Transcending Time to a song in another album.
:lol :lol
-
With View they basically wrote the same song seven times.
No they didn't.
I don't care if you don't like the album as a whole, or don't like the individual songs. But your statement above just isn't true.
-
The problem with the term "uninspired" is that it doesn't mean shit.
If someone tells me they are disappointed with the path Opeth has taken and gives the reasons for the lack of harsh vocals, the abandonment of Death Metal and even says they think the sound is a bit of an old derivative prog, I can even understand the person's feeling about the current band.
But if someone turns around and says "I'm disappointed with the new Opeth, it sounds uninspired" I don't know what the fuck that person means.
So people might think such a thing is uninspired and use that term... I just think they should be smart enough to know that it doesn't mean anything to the listener.
-
All the boys in DT are masters of their craft. They don't need to rely on inspiration to write good music. :metal
-
Since they decided to "simplify" their approach on DT12, shortening the song lengths and whatnot, they have lost a step. The over-reliance on metal and less on prog that has followed the band since Systematic Chaos has not helped matters imo..
I don't get how the self-titled became your poster boy of "uninspired." At that point in their career, Dream Theater has been so accustomed to writing long songs with extended instrumentals since SDOIT. In many interviews, they said that in DT12 they actually consciously challenged themselves to not rely on that crutch and deliberately tried to write in a more concise manner. DELIBERATELY. You may not like their output in that album, but given how the songs were a product of a conscious effort by the band to challenge themselves to write in a manner that they have not done for over a decade, I would say "uninspired" is just a projection of your appreciation of the songs, not a description of the effort put in by the band in that album.
At the end of the day, though, isn't that most of the posts in this thread (and the official album thread as well)? Other than me - who has said repeatedly this is a John Petrucci tour de force, but is also a DT album I'm struggling a bit to connect with - who here has REALLY separated their appreciation for the work of art with their personal enjoyment? It's another debate for another thread as to whether you SHOULD separate the two, but I learned a long time ago (mid-90s if you really want to pinpoint it, then reinforced in the mid- to late 2000s) that whether I actually like something and whether something is "good" objectively (be that inspired, or innovative or any other standard you use) are by and large not related at all.
-
I feel a difference after octavarium until AVFTTOTW and the only two things happening are :
-Portnoy becoming lazy and then replaced, mangini finding his place in the band and refining his drumkit sound.
-Labrie's voice losing octaves and reliability.
Well, there's the small problem that not all of that actually happened.
-
Since they decided to "simplify" their approach on DT12, shortening the song lengths and whatnot, they have lost a step. The over-reliance on metal and less on prog that has followed the band since Systematic Chaos has not helped matters imo..
I don't get how the self-titled became your poster boy of "uninspired." At that point in their career, Dream Theater has been so accustomed to writing long songs with extended instrumentals since SDOIT. In many interviews, they said that in DT12 they actually consciously challenged themselves to not rely on that crutch and deliberately tried to write in a more concise manner. DELIBERATELY. You may not like their output in that album, but given how the songs were a product of a conscious effort by the band to challenge themselves to write in a manner that they have not done for over a decade, I would say "uninspired" is just a projection of your appreciation of the songs, not a description of the effort put in by the band in that album.
At the end of the day, though, isn't that most of the posts in this thread (and the official album thread as well)? Other than me - who has said repeatedly this is a John Petrucci tour de force, but is also a DT album I'm struggling a bit to connect with - who here has REALLY separated their appreciation for the work of art with their personal enjoyment? It's another debate for another thread as to whether you SHOULD separate the two, but I learned a long time ago (mid-90s if you really want to pinpoint it, then reinforced in the mid- to late 2000s) that whether I actually like something and whether something is "good" objectively (be that inspired, or innovative or any other standard you use) are by and large not related at all.
There is a difference. I don't project what I feel about the music to the mindset of the band. I don't call them uninspired, lazy, as if I was there in the studio to see how they actually wrote their songs.
-
I feel a difference after octavarium until AVFTTOTW and the only two things happening are :
-Portnoy becoming lazy and then replaced, mangini finding his place in the band and refining his drumkit sound.
-Labrie's voice losing octaves and reliability.
Well, there's the small problem that not all of that actually happened.
Not really LAZY - but his drumming did reach a point and then not progress any further. Maybe after all those drumming awards - he decided to rest on his laurels from now on.
-
I feel a difference after octavarium until AVFTTOTW and the only two things happening are :
-Portnoy becoming lazy and then replaced, mangini finding his place in the band and refining his drumkit sound.
-Labrie's voice losing octaves and reliability.
Well, there's the small problem that not all of that actually happened.
Maybe he needs lessons from Mangini. :lol
Not really LAZY - but his drumming did reach a point and then not progress any further. Maybe after all those drumming awards - he decided to rest on his laurels from now on.
-
Since they decided to "simplify" their approach on DT12, shortening the song lengths and whatnot, they have lost a step. The over-reliance on metal and less on prog that has followed the band since Systematic Chaos has not helped matters imo..
I don't get how the self-titled became your poster boy of "uninspired." At that point in their career, Dream Theater has been so accustomed to writing long songs with extended instrumentals since SDOIT. In many interviews, they said that in DT12 they actually consciously challenged themselves to not rely on that crutch and deliberately tried to write in a more concise manner. DELIBERATELY. You may not like their output in that album, but given how the songs were a product of a conscious effort by the band to challenge themselves to write in a manner that they have not done for over a decade, I would say "uninspired" is just a projection of your appreciation of the songs, not a description of the effort put in by the band in that album.
At the end of the day, though, isn't that most of the posts in this thread (and the official album thread as well)? Other than me - who has said repeatedly this is a John Petrucci tour de force, but is also a DT album I'm struggling a bit to connect with - who here has REALLY separated their appreciation for the work of art with their personal enjoyment? It's another debate for another thread as to whether you SHOULD separate the two, but I learned a long time ago (mid-90s if you really want to pinpoint it, then reinforced in the mid- to late 2000s) that whether I actually like something and whether something is "good" objectively (be that inspired, or innovative or any other standard you use) are by and large not related at all.
There is a difference. I don't project what I feel about the music to the mindset of the band. I don't call them uninspired, lazy, as if I was there in the studio to see how they actually wrote their songs.
Fair enough; and on that point we've agreed from day one. That I (or you) feel it doesn't mean THEY thought it, whatever it is.
-
I feel a difference after octavarium until AVFTTOTW and the only two things happening are :
-Portnoy becoming lazy and then replaced, mangini finding his place in the band and refining his drumkit sound.
-Labrie's voice losing octaves and reliability.
Well, there's the small problem that not all of that actually happened.
Not really LAZY - but his drumming did reach a point and then not progress any further. Maybe after all those drumming awards - he decided to rest on his laurels from now on.
I never really understood that criticism, to be honest. At least how that translates into "lazy". I've been practicing law for 25 years now; notwithstanding my time on here, I work a LOT of hours, and I'm putting a lot of effort in to reducing the risk profile of my company. That I don't pour over obscure legal texts anymore doesn't make me "lazy". Mike putting his energies to other skill sets besides paradiddles doesn't make him lazy. It's a matter of taste, focus, and goals.
-
You're right, we can't. But if I think they sound uninspired, I'm allowed to say they sound uninspired. Whether that's the truth or not is irrelevant.
If someone were to say your posts were uninspired, what could you do to prove them wrong?
-
An inspired DT song now would sound different to what they've done before. The new album sounds stale. I don't hear the creative inspiration in it, despite the new studio and everything. While I guess I'm glad the band finally realize James's vocal limitation now, it has resulted in a less inspired product this time around. Less varied. Where's the ballad, for instance?
Finally! An album without the obligatory same-old piano-and-vocal track that adds absolutely nothing to my enjoyment of their discography.
But it is absolutely pivotal to adding *variety* to an album. Treating each album as its own distinct entity, the ballad is essential in terms of album flow. With View they basically wrote the same song seven times. I was hoping for some variety in the middle of Sleeping Giant, perhaps a softer passage like the piano interlude in Barstool Warrior, but they just went into yet another soulless technical instrumental.
No, it is not. There's a million ways of addng variety that doesn't require you to write a pointless ballad for the sake of having a ballad - again, for the sake of having so-called variety. Where is the variety in between DT's ballads then? Far From Heaven and Out of Reach (to use two recent examples) could be the same song. Swap them from their respective albums an no-one would notice (I like one of those two, by the way). Furthermore, there's proof that DT's albums do not 'need' a ballad to have variety. DT12 doesn't have one, Systematic Chaos doesn't.
Furthermore, what 'album flow' do you mean? Put the 'ballad' (or slow/short song, whatever) before the final song? (Wait for Sleep, Anna Lee, Far From Heaven, Out of Reach, The Spirit Carries On, Disappear). I mean, come on. They've done this again and again.
Let's on a different take; Dream Theater's brand of progressive metal isn't all that varied to begin with in the grand scheme of things (the last time I posted something like this, it got me into a huge discussion, so let's not to that again) and that's OKAY. They have their influences, they wear them on their sleeves. They have influenced countless other bands, including bands that literally want to sound like them, all because their stylistic choices are pretty clearly defined. You know what you can reasonably expect with a Dream Theater album, and this album basically delivered on that front. What to hear actual 'progressive' metal, you know, music in the same genre that still at least tries to push boundaries, then Dream Theater are not the band to look towards (anymore). And that too, is not a problem whatsoever.
I enjoyed the new album, just so you know.
-
So what I am seeing is...
People want DT to make vastly different songs, like how Diablo Swing Orchestra wrote a myriad of genres in their new album Swagger and Stroll Down The Rabbit Hole. :biggrin:
-
"With View they basically wrote the same song seven times"
Then proceeds to point out similarity of Transcending Time to a song in another album.
Yep, exactly.
What I'm noticing is that a lot of the people (and I'm not just referring to one instance here) who are very insistent on labelling an album as "uninspired" or "uncreative" appear to end up tying themselves in knots when arguing against condracting points. That's because at some point in the line, we have to concede that our judgement on creativity or inspiration is just as a result of how close a band is veering towards what we enjoy. I also find it amusingly ironic that RoeDent says "It's your fault for hating on The Astonishing, the boldest most inspired work DT has ever done, that DT have played it safe since." directly after my post... not knowing that the album is one of my absolute favourites and that I've consistently defended it. I'm not even sure if it was directed towards me, but it's still kinda funny.
Digging into some of the prior comments a bit further, I also find it funny how "DT have played it safe" has been contradicted by what was said earlier on about there being no ballads. Is veering off from what has been the expected pattern playing it safe? Hell, I wouldn't stop there either. The very percussive and rhythmically complex nature of this album seems to go beyond prior albums, even when you wouldn't normally expect it like in the verses, which have generally tended to hold the ground and provide a break from all that. Sure, the verses are still instrumental breaks of a sort, but the more minimalist backing in terms of guitar work is underlined by a more present rhythmic tension and harmonic support from Jordan. There's nothing here like Paralyzed, A Rite of Passage, Prophets of War or Build Me Up, Break Me Down that functions as a pretty much wholly straightforward, streamlined piece, just as much as there is no ballad.
This consistency of course doesn't mean that the album is monochrome, however. Each piece has its own mood as well as dynamic ebb and flow. The Alien is energetic and angular, Answering the Call is spacious and commanding, Invisible Monster is anxious and melancholy, Sleeping Giant is sweeping and theatrical, Transcending Time is pensive and nostalgic, Awaken the Master is regal and exotic, A View is triumphant and daunting. Plus, I find enough contrast within these tracks that I don't find a ballad necessary to balance the scales. Sure, The Alien is pretty full-on throughout arguably, but Invisible Monster has its gentle intro, the mid-section break that reprises that and the first verse (might have chugs, but they're purely textural and not as upfront in the mix). Sleeping Giant has its ambient intro and verses that are more reflective than driving, Transcending Time might be brisk but it has the fairly sparse first verse and a downbeat second one. Awaken the Master cuts out the chugs for most of its second verse and the epic of course has plenty of dynamics, including a pretty lengthy break. Hell, I haven't really calculated it because I haven't been looking at the timestamps while listening, but I'm reasonably sure that Rapture of the Deep would be a longer "ballad" than Out of Reach if it was its own song. I've kinda just scratched the surface in terms of dynamic nuance there.
Do I think a ballad could be good for pacing? Maybe, but I don't think it's essential here and I think it would clash with their intent.
I never really understood that criticism, to be honest. At least how that translates into "lazy". I've been practicing law for 25 years now; notwithstanding my time on here, I work a LOT of hours, and I'm putting a lot of effort in to reducing the risk profile of my company. That I don't pour over obscure legal texts anymore doesn't make me "lazy". Mike putting his energies to other skill sets besides paradiddles doesn't make him lazy. It's a matter of taste, focus, and goals.
I agree here actually. I think his work on an album like LTE3 is very good and I don't really think him using similar beats makes him a lazy drummer. If a bag of tricks keeps working, I'm not going to knock him for using that. One can still produce interesting and engaging results with the tools that they already have, similarly like how I feel about the new DT album.
I've seen some say "people use the word 'uninspired' when they don't like the music anymore"
like you don't like metal or prog metal anymore.
I still highly enjoy DT's first 8 albums immensely. I still get some satisfaction from the best stuff off of SC, BC&SL, and ADTOE.
It's not like they completely changed musical directions over the last 10 years or so.
So shouldn't I still enjoy their last 4 albums as much as the rest, even though I don't?
Could an uninspired DT be most other band's best efforts?
Going back to this one because I feel this needs to be clarified. Not liking the newer music is different to still enjoying the older material. I've seen enough of your posts to know that this essentially know that this amounts to another box-ticking exercise. The band stylistically have different elements to what they had on the first 8 albums, even if it's not worlds away. I remember hearing that you don't like modern metal riffing for instance or even just the timbre of low 7 string notes being used for textural effect (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I remember this being something you disliked about The Astonishing). Perhaps think of it like an uncanny valley effect where the aesthetics are close enough for you to expect something substantively similar, but those differences in substance (that you wouldn't appreciate in isolation) are enough for something to feel "off".
This isn't a matter of DT losing inspiration or making worse music, they're just not appealing to you like they used to due to changes they made. As a wider point (and I feel like this should be emphasised): An artist can feel greatly inspired and energised by (as well as proud of) creating music that happens to not appeal / be interesting to you. There's no need to try and validate your own opinions by projecting them on the band's output as some albums being inherently less "inspired" than the others. It really is just preferance.
No, it is not. There's a million ways of addng variety that doesn't require you to write a pointless ballad for the sake of having a ballad - again, for the sake of having so-called variety. Where is the variety in between DT's ballads then? Far From Heaven and Out of Reach (to use two recent examples) could be the same song. Swap them from their respective albums an no-one would notice (I like one of those two, by the way). Furthermore, there's proof that DT's albums do not 'need' a ballad to have variety. DT12 doesn't have one, Systematic Chaos doesn't.
Furthermore, what 'album flow' do you mean? Put the 'ballad' (or slow/short song, whatever) before the final song? (Wait for Sleep, Anna Lee, Far From Heaven, Out of Reach, The Spirit Carries On, Disappear). I mean, come on. They've done this again and again.
While I disagree with some individual points here, this is definitely a pertinent point. They can't really win because any ballad is just considered obligatory, so then that would be the "safe" and "uninspired" decision.
Let's on a different take; Dream Theater's brand of progressive metal isn't all that varied to begin with in the grand scheme of things (the last time I posted something like this, it got me into a huge discussion, so let's not to that again) and that's OKAY.
I might actually bring this up in a thread of my own, because I think it could definitely be an interesting discussion.
They have their influences, they wear them on their sleeves. They have influenced countless other bands, including bands that literally want to sound like them, all because their stylistic choices are pretty clearly defined. You know what you can reasonably expect with a Dream Theater album, and this album basically delivered on that front. What to hear actual 'progressive' metal, you know, music in the same genre that still at least tries to push boundaries, then Dream Theater are not the band to look towards (anymore). And that too, is not a problem whatsoever.
This is a good point. I never looked to Dream Theater because they consistently innovate, because I just don't feel that's a particularly realistic goal. After the 90s, it's fair to say that they focused on refinement and adaptation over staying ahead of the curve and I like that about the band. Sometimes, when bands try to constantly be unpredictable and unique, I find that it can often dilute what I enjoyed about them in the first place. I admire a band like Ulver for instance but there's very few albums that interest me enough to willingly listen all the way through.
Dream Theater's initial agenda was straightforward: mix the excesses of progressive rock with the power and punch of metal. They will always have that legacy of being the first progressive metal band to highlight instrumental virtuosity as much as they do, while remaining accessible enough to garner a wide audience. I have no issues with them providing iterations on that formula and pushing themselves in different ways (rather than the genre as a whole). With the way each album of their career has its own identifiable features, they vary things up enough for me to stay engage. Even still, while I don't think the band are carving out any new niches, I still personally think they're ahead of the pack in a lot of other ways (I don't think any prog metal bands have instrumentalists as strong as these, while also having a vocalist that appeals to my tastes). This doesn't mean I think they're being safe though, as my thoughts on the new album above show. It's just that I acknowledge that it's not going to revolutionise the genre.
-
Transcending Time is The Looking Glass which is every Rush song ever.
Both of these deliberately copy some Rush approaches in terms of guitar voicings, drum fills and general production vibes, and the band would be the first to tell you that. But at the same time, neither of them directly copies any Rush riffs or melodies and both of them include stuff that you wouldn't find in a Rush song, like the metal verse or the harmony vocals in TLG. So I'm not sure what this type of extremely superficial "analysis" is supposed to accomplish.
With View they basically wrote the same song seven times. I was hoping for some variety in the middle of Sleeping Giant, perhaps a softer passage like the piano interlude in Barstool Warrior, but they just went into yet another soulless technical instrumental.
First off, the first sentence is just utter nonsense. And then, "another soulless technical instrumental" not only sounds like the typical sweeping statements of the usual DT haters, but in this case it could hardly be more wrong. The instrumental section of Sleeping Giant is a prime example of thematic development - all of these bits are built on the same ideas which are interpreted differently throughout, and the arrangement around the ideas also changes all the time - all that even before looking at the actual solos, which I'd also call very nicely constructed and nicely flowing rather than "technical". I'd say it's instrumental songwriting at its finest and this whole section is as far from "uninspired" as it gets.
Also, the reason why there's no ballad is because they only included the songs which they were inspired to write. Seems pretty silly to simultaneously demand something inspired and complain that they didn't force themselves to include something else just to check some box for you. Which is really a lot of this discussion in a nutshell. "I don't like this, it sounds so uninspired, why can't it be more like that old thing that I liked?", basically.
-
Kyo, may I please have my brain back when you are done with it? Thanks.
Too the words right outa my mouth.
-
"With View they basically wrote the same song seven times"
Then proceeds to point out similarity of Transcending Time to a song in another album.
Yep, exactly.
What I'm noticing is that a lot of the people (and I'm not just referring to one instance here) who are very insistent on labelling an album as "uninspired" or "uncreative" appear to end up tying themselves in knots when arguing against condracting points. That's because at some point in the line, we have to concede that our judgement on creativity or inspiration is just as a result of how close a band is veering towards what we enjoy. I also find it amusingly ironic that RoeDent says "It's your fault for hating on The Astonishing, the boldest most inspired work DT has ever done, that DT have played it safe since." directly after my post... not knowing that the album is one of my absolute favourites and that I've consistently defended it. I'm not even sure if it was directed towards me, but it's still kinda funny.
Digging into some of the prior comments a bit further, I also find it funny how "DT have played it safe" has been contradicted by what was said earlier on about there being no ballads. Is veering off from what has been the expected pattern playing it safe? Hell, I wouldn't stop there either. The very percussive and rhythmically complex nature of this album seems to go beyond prior albums, even when you wouldn't normally expect it like in the verses, which have generally tended to hold the ground and provide a break from all that. Sure, the verses are still instrumental breaks of a sort, but the more minimalist backing in terms of guitar work is underlined by a more present rhythmic tension and harmonic support from Jordan. There's nothing here like Paralyzed, A Rite of Passage, Prophets of War or Build Me Up, Break Me Down that functions as a pretty much wholly straightforward, streamlined piece, just as much as there is no ballad.
This consistency of course doesn't mean that the album is monochrome, however. Each piece has its own mood as well as dynamic ebb and flow. The Alien is energetic and angular, Answering the Call is spacious and commanding, Invisible Monster is anxious and melancholy, Sleeping Giant is sweeping and theatrical, Transcending Time is pensive and nostalgic, Awaken the Master is regal and exotic, A View is triumphant and daunting. Plus, I find enough contrast within these tracks that I don't find a ballad necessary to balance the scales. Sure, The Alien is pretty full-on throughout arguably, but Invisible Monster has its gentle intro, the mid-section break that reprises that and the first verse (might have chugs, but they're purely textural and not as upfront in the mix). Sleeping Giant has its ambient intro and verses that are more reflective than driving, Transcending Time might be brisk but it has the fairly sparse first verse and a downbeat second one. Awaken the Master cuts out the chugs for most of its second verse and the epic of course has plenty of dynamics, including a pretty lengthy break. Hell, I haven't really calculated it because I haven't been looking at the timestamps while listening, but I'm reasonably sure that Rapture of the Deep would be a longer "ballad" than Out of Reach if it was its own song. I've kinda just scratched the surface in terms of dynamic nuance there.
Do I think a ballad could be good for pacing? Maybe, but I don't think it's essential here and I think it would clash with their intent.
I never really understood that criticism, to be honest. At least how that translates into "lazy". I've been practicing law for 25 years now; notwithstanding my time on here, I work a LOT of hours, and I'm putting a lot of effort in to reducing the risk profile of my company. That I don't pour over obscure legal texts anymore doesn't make me "lazy". Mike putting his energies to other skill sets besides paradiddles doesn't make him lazy. It's a matter of taste, focus, and goals.
I agree here actually. I think his work on an album like LTE3 is very good and I don't really think him using similar beats makes him a lazy drummer. If a bag of tricks keeps working, I'm not going to knock him for using that. One can still produce interesting and engaging results with the tools that they already have, similarly like how I feel about the new DT album.
I've seen some say "people use the word 'uninspired' when they don't like the music anymore"
like you don't like metal or prog metal anymore.
I still highly enjoy DT's first 8 albums immensely. I still get some satisfaction from the best stuff off of SC, BC&SL, and ADTOE.
It's not like they completely changed musical directions over the last 10 years or so.
So shouldn't I still enjoy their last 4 albums as much as the rest, even though I don't?
Could an uninspired DT be most other band's best efforts?
Going back to this one because I feel this needs to be clarified. Not liking the newer music is different to still enjoying the older material. I've seen enough of your posts to know that this essentially know that this amounts to another box-ticking exercise. The band stylistically have different elements to what they had on the first 8 albums, even if it's not worlds away. I remember hearing that you don't like modern metal riffing for instance or even just the timbre of low 7 string notes being used for textural effect (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I remember this being something you disliked about The Astonishing). Perhaps think of it like an uncanny valley effect where the aesthetics are close enough for you to expect something substantively similar, but those differences in substance (that you wouldn't appreciate in isolation) are enough for something to feel "off".
This isn't a matter of DT losing inspiration or making worse music, they're just not appealing to you like they used to due to changes they made. As a wider point (and I feel like this should be emphasised): An artist can feel greatly inspired and energised by (as well as proud of) creating music that happens to not appeal / be interesting to you. There's no need to try and validate your own opinions by projecting them on the band's output as some albums being inherently less "inspired" than the others. It really is just preferance.
No, it is not. There's a million ways of addng variety that doesn't require you to write a pointless ballad for the sake of having a ballad - again, for the sake of having so-called variety. Where is the variety in between DT's ballads then? Far From Heaven and Out of Reach (to use two recent examples) could be the same song. Swap them from their respective albums an no-one would notice (I like one of those two, by the way). Furthermore, there's proof that DT's albums do not 'need' a ballad to have variety. DT12 doesn't have one, Systematic Chaos doesn't.
Furthermore, what 'album flow' do you mean? Put the 'ballad' (or slow/short song, whatever) before the final song? (Wait for Sleep, Anna Lee, Far From Heaven, Out of Reach, The Spirit Carries On, Disappear). I mean, come on. They've done this again and again.
While I disagree with some individual points here, this is definitely a pertinent point. They can't really win because any ballad is just considered obligatory, so then that would be the "safe" and "uninspired" decision.
Let's on a different take; Dream Theater's brand of progressive metal isn't all that varied to begin with in the grand scheme of things (the last time I posted something like this, it got me into a huge discussion, so let's not to that again) and that's OKAY.
I might actually bring this up in a thread of my own, because I think it could definitely be an interesting discussion.
They have their influences, they wear them on their sleeves. They have influenced countless other bands, including bands that literally want to sound like them, all because their stylistic choices are pretty clearly defined. You know what you can reasonably expect with a Dream Theater album, and this album basically delivered on that front. What to hear actual 'progressive' metal, you know, music in the same genre that still at least tries to push boundaries, then Dream Theater are not the band to look towards (anymore). And that too, is not a problem whatsoever.
This is a good point. I never looked to Dream Theater because they consistently innovate, because I just don't feel that's a particularly realistic goal. After the 90s, it's fair to say that they focused on refinement and adaptation over staying ahead of the curve and I like that about the band. Sometimes, when bands try to constantly be unpredictable and unique, I find that it can often dilute what I enjoyed about them in the first place. I admire a band like Ulver for instance but there's very few albums that interest me enough to willingly listen all the way through.
Dream Theater's initial agenda was straightforward: mix the excesses of progressive rock with the power and punch of metal. They will always have that legacy of being the first progressive metal band to highlight instrumental virtuosity as much as they do, while remaining accessible enough to garner a wide audience. I have no issues with them providing iterations on that formula and pushing themselves in different ways (rather than the genre as a whole). With the way each album of their career has its own identifiable features, they vary things up enough for me to stay engage. Even still, while I don't think the band are carving out any new niches, I still personally think they're ahead of the pack in a lot of other ways (I don't think any prog metal bands have instrumentalists as strong as these, while also having a vocalist that appeals to my tastes). This doesn't mean I think they're being safe though, as my thoughts on the new album above show. It's just that I acknowledge that it's not going to revolutionise the genre.
Agree with almost all of this but still disagree with the notion that a band can’t be more or less inspired. There are plenty of artists that ham in a performance just to cash a paycheck and stay in business. I’m not suggesting DT did that here but a band making a bad album doesn’t mean you don’t like the band and it doesn’t necessarily mean the artist put everything they had in it. I agree that there is no way to measure “uninspired” but that’s why I think saying it “sounds uninspired” makes sense. Again I’m not suggesting DT was uninspired here, I’m glad there was no ballad, and The View is probably my favorite Mangini era album.
-
"With View they basically wrote the same song seven times"
Then proceeds to point out similarity of Transcending Time to a song in another album.
Yep, exactly.
What I'm noticing is that a lot of the people (and I'm not just referring to one instance here) who are very insistent on labelling an album as "uninspired" or "uncreative" appear to end up tying themselves in knots when arguing against condracting points. That's because at some point in the line, we have to concede that our judgement on creativity or inspiration is just as a result of how close a band is veering towards what we enjoy. I also find it amusingly ironic that RoeDent says "It's your fault for hating on The Astonishing, the boldest most inspired work DT has ever done, that DT have played it safe since." directly after my post... not knowing that the album is one of my absolute favourites and that I've consistently defended it. I'm not even sure if it was directed towards me, but it's still kinda funny.
Digging into some of the prior comments a bit further, I also find it funny how "DT have played it safe" has been contradicted by what was said earlier on about there being no ballads. Is veering off from what has been the expected pattern playing it safe? Hell, I wouldn't stop there either. The very percussive and rhythmically complex nature of this album seems to go beyond prior albums, even when you wouldn't normally expect it like in the verses, which have generally tended to hold the ground and provide a break from all that. Sure, the verses are still instrumental breaks of a sort, but the more minimalist backing in terms of guitar work is underlined by a more present rhythmic tension and harmonic support from Jordan. There's nothing here like Paralyzed, A Rite of Passage, Prophets of War or Build Me Up, Break Me Down that functions as a pretty much wholly straightforward, streamlined piece, just as much as there is no ballad.
This consistency of course doesn't mean that the album is monochrome, however. Each piece has its own mood as well as dynamic ebb and flow. The Alien is energetic and angular, Answering the Call is spacious and commanding, Invisible Monster is anxious and melancholy, Sleeping Giant is sweeping and theatrical, Transcending Time is pensive and nostalgic, Awaken the Master is regal and exotic, A View is triumphant and daunting. Plus, I find enough contrast within these tracks that I don't find a ballad necessary to balance the scales. Sure, The Alien is pretty full-on throughout arguably, but Invisible Monster has its gentle intro, the mid-section break that reprises that and the first verse (might have chugs, but they're purely textural and not as upfront in the mix). Sleeping Giant has its ambient intro and verses that are more reflective than driving, Transcending Time might be brisk but it has the fairly sparse first verse and a downbeat second one. Awaken the Master cuts out the chugs for most of its second verse and the epic of course has plenty of dynamics, including a pretty lengthy break. Hell, I haven't really calculated it because I haven't been looking at the timestamps while listening, but I'm reasonably sure that Rapture of the Deep would be a longer "ballad" than Out of Reach if it was its own song. I've kinda just scratched the surface in terms of dynamic nuance there.
Do I think a ballad could be good for pacing? Maybe, but I don't think it's essential here and I think it would clash with their intent.
I never really understood that criticism, to be honest. At least how that translates into "lazy". I've been practicing law for 25 years now; notwithstanding my time on here, I work a LOT of hours, and I'm putting a lot of effort in to reducing the risk profile of my company. That I don't pour over obscure legal texts anymore doesn't make me "lazy". Mike putting his energies to other skill sets besides paradiddles doesn't make him lazy. It's a matter of taste, focus, and goals.
I agree here actually. I think his work on an album like LTE3 is very good and I don't really think him using similar beats makes him a lazy drummer. If a bag of tricks keeps working, I'm not going to knock him for using that. One can still produce interesting and engaging results with the tools that they already have, similarly like how I feel about the new DT album.
I've seen some say "people use the word 'uninspired' when they don't like the music anymore"
like you don't like metal or prog metal anymore.
I still highly enjoy DT's first 8 albums immensely. I still get some satisfaction from the best stuff off of SC, BC&SL, and ADTOE.
It's not like they completely changed musical directions over the last 10 years or so.
So shouldn't I still enjoy their last 4 albums as much as the rest, even though I don't?
Could an uninspired DT be most other band's best efforts?
Going back to this one because I feel this needs to be clarified. Not liking the newer music is different to still enjoying the older material. I've seen enough of your posts to know that this essentially know that this amounts to another box-ticking exercise. The band stylistically have different elements to what they had on the first 8 albums, even if it's not worlds away. I remember hearing that you don't like modern metal riffing for instance or even just the timbre of low 7 string notes being used for textural effect (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I remember this being something you disliked about The Astonishing). Perhaps think of it like an uncanny valley effect where the aesthetics are close enough for you to expect something substantively similar, but those differences in substance (that you wouldn't appreciate in isolation) are enough for something to feel "off".
This isn't a matter of DT losing inspiration or making worse music, they're just not appealing to you like they used to due to changes they made. As a wider point (and I feel like this should be emphasised): An artist can feel greatly inspired and energised by (as well as proud of) creating music that happens to not appeal / be interesting to you. There's no need to try and validate your own opinions by projecting them on the band's output as some albums being inherently less "inspired" than the others. It really is just preferance.
No, it is not. There's a million ways of addng variety that doesn't require you to write a pointless ballad for the sake of having a ballad - again, for the sake of having so-called variety. Where is the variety in between DT's ballads then? Far From Heaven and Out of Reach (to use two recent examples) could be the same song. Swap them from their respective albums an no-one would notice (I like one of those two, by the way). Furthermore, there's proof that DT's albums do not 'need' a ballad to have variety. DT12 doesn't have one, Systematic Chaos doesn't.
Furthermore, what 'album flow' do you mean? Put the 'ballad' (or slow/short song, whatever) before the final song? (Wait for Sleep, Anna Lee, Far From Heaven, Out of Reach, The Spirit Carries On, Disappear). I mean, come on. They've done this again and again.
While I disagree with some individual points here, this is definitely a pertinent point. They can't really win because any ballad is just considered obligatory, so then that would be the "safe" and "uninspired" decision.
Let's on a different take; Dream Theater's brand of progressive metal isn't all that varied to begin with in the grand scheme of things (the last time I posted something like this, it got me into a huge discussion, so let's not to that again) and that's OKAY.
I might actually bring this up in a thread of my own, because I think it could definitely be an interesting discussion.
They have their influences, they wear them on their sleeves. They have influenced countless other bands, including bands that literally want to sound like them, all because their stylistic choices are pretty clearly defined. You know what you can reasonably expect with a Dream Theater album, and this album basically delivered on that front. What to hear actual 'progressive' metal, you know, music in the same genre that still at least tries to push boundaries, then Dream Theater are not the band to look towards (anymore). And that too, is not a problem whatsoever.
This is a good point. I never looked to Dream Theater because they consistently innovate, because I just don't feel that's a particularly realistic goal. After the 90s, it's fair to say that they focused on refinement and adaptation over staying ahead of the curve and I like that about the band. Sometimes, when bands try to constantly be unpredictable and unique, I find that it can often dilute what I enjoyed about them in the first place. I admire a band like Ulver for instance but there's very few albums that interest me enough to willingly listen all the way through.
Dream Theater's initial agenda was straightforward: mix the excesses of progressive rock with the power and punch of metal. They will always have that legacy of being the first progressive metal band to highlight instrumental virtuosity as much as they do, while remaining accessible enough to garner a wide audience. I have no issues with them providing iterations on that formula and pushing themselves in different ways (rather than the genre as a whole). With the way each album of their career has its own identifiable features, they vary things up enough for me to stay engage. Even still, while I don't think the band are carving out any new niches, I still personally think they're ahead of the pack in a lot of other ways (I don't think any prog metal bands have instrumentalists as strong as these, while also having a vocalist that appeals to my tastes). This doesn't mean I think they're being safe though, as my thoughts on the new album above show. It's just that I acknowledge that it's not going to revolutionise the genre.
Agree with almost all of this but still disagree with the notion that a band can’t be more or less inspired. There are plenty of artists that ham in a performance just to cash a paycheck and stay in business. I’m not suggesting DT did that here but a band making a bad album doesn’t mean you don’t like the band and it doesn’t necessarily mean the artist put everything they had in it. I agree that there is no way to measure “uninspired” but that’s why I think saying it “sounds uninspired” makes sense. Again I’m not suggesting DT was uninspired here, I’m glad there was no ballad, and The View is probably my favorite Mangini era album.
At least they didn't go full Iced Earth or Amon Amarth on us. There is a freshness to the songs in a familiar way, but no to the point that I feel they were only appealing to the fans.
-
I personally never like the "uninspired" phrase being used when someone doesn't enjoy the music. It's usually a baseless claim. However, I think you can find moments in many artists pasts where there's actual evidence of them feeling uninspired and releasing a poor album. It does happen, for sure. But in most cases, it's a blanket term thrown around because someone doesn't like the music and they don't know or have a way to really justify why they don't like it.
Anyway, I've never felt like bands need to change or do something different to stay good and interesting. Almost all bands over time find their sound and stick with it. The difference is when bands can continue to do that to make good albums consistently. When that fails, I feel like people start to itch for something fresh and new. However, there are bands that don't change and are still great because in the end, if the songs are good most people aren't going to care if it's been done before.
I do think the genre of progressive music does tend to have more fans who enjoy the difference in style the genre offers and that generally the fans of this style of music also like when the bands progress in style as well. I think this is why we see so much of it for Dream Theater than say bands like Bad Religion, Sabaton, Skillet. They aren't progressive bands and they found a consistent formula while managing to make music the fans still like. That's OK IMO.
-
*snip*
Nailed it.
Agree with almost all of this but still disagree with the notion that a band can’t be more or less inspired. There are plenty of artists that ham in a performance just to cash a paycheck and stay in business. I’m not suggesting DT did that here but a band making a bad album doesn’t mean you don’t like the band and it doesn’t necessarily mean the artist put everything they had in it. I agree that there is no way to measure “uninspired” but that’s why I think saying it “sounds uninspired” makes sense. Again I’m not suggesting DT was uninspired here, I’m glad there was no ballad, and The View is probably my favorite Mangini era album.
Please just snip the quotes for space.
Honestly, for starters I think the notion of "more or less" inspiration is a miscoception. Being inspired by Opeth to make a dark and heavy song or by a film to make an album about reincarnation can't be any "more or less inspired" than being inspired by a podcast to make a song about terraforming. Even if inspiration was a thing we could tangibly judge, the idea that it'd be this thing that was a linear "more or less" is bizarre to me. Once you have a guiding idea and influence to set the agenda for your work and you feel comfortable in getting on with it... you're inspired. As I said before, even doing it for the money can be a strong inspiration, so I don't think it's relevant. Yes, sometimes that motivation could cause an artist to make stuff that the former core base no longer enjoys, but the artist themselves could still feel proud of what they made, as well as having thousands of people connect to it. It's not fundamentally "less" of an inspiration than anything else, it just might produce different results... just like many different sorts of influences might (such as personal events, news, watching TV, a piece of art etc.). You might have a preference for what certain kinds of inspiration lead to in terms of results, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily "more inspired".
This links in to a big reason why a lot of bands say that their latest works are their best stuff yet, because it's all freshly inspired by things that resonate with them at that point in time, while the catalysts behind older material won't as much. Once time passes, their perspectives on that older work will end up shifting around and some might even connect with them again (like when bands return to their initial style).
Plus, I have to again emphasise that for anyone to try and make themselves the arbiter of this is the arrogant thing to me. Why try and project your lack of enjoyment onto the idea that the artist must've been slacking / lacking inspiration? Seriously, I'm not sure why this is a valuable thing to have in music discourse. Even the qualifier of "it's just my opinion" seems bizarre, because then you might as well cut to the chase and just say your opinion on the music rather than shielding baseless assumptions with it. Instead of "it's uninspired", say "it's too heavy / not varied enough / too streamlined / too over-the-top for me". If you can't describe it, then just stick with "I don't like it".
Not only is it kind of insulting to the artist to suggest that they willingly released "uninspired" material as well, but it's kind of condescending to those digging deep into the music and thoroughly enjoying it to suggest that they're unwittingly consuming art that "lacks inspiration", what with the implication that they've somehow been conned by people putting in less of an effort. Maybe that's not the intent, but the implication is there all the same imo.
However... a word that I don't have as much of an issue with is "uninspiring", because then it switches the angle from assumptions about the process to the resulting effect on the listener, where it should be. The only thing it judges is the art's effect on the one saying it.
I personally never like the "uninspired" phrase being used when someone doesn't enjoy the music. It's usually a baseless claim. However, I think you can find moments in many artists pasts where there's actual evidence of them feeling uninspired and releasing a poor album. It does happen, for sure. But in most cases, it's a blanket term thrown around because someone doesn't like the music and they don't know or have a way to really justify why they don't like it.
Okay, yeah this is the correct context I think. If an artist says something to the degree of "we felt like shit, ideas weren't coming, it was just a tough album to make" then the label is accurate in a descriptive sense (even then, it wouldn't necessarily be "sounds uninspired" as much as "they felt uninspired", but that's just me being pedantic), because then we have our evidence. My issue is definitely when it's just in the "it sounds uninspired to me" claims, when the only thing it's based on is gut feeling.
-
I personally never like the "uninspired" phrase being used when someone doesn't enjoy the music. It's usually a baseless claim. However, I think you can find moments in many artists pasts where there's actual evidence of them feeling uninspired and releasing a poor album. It does happen, for sure. But in most cases, it's a blanket term thrown around because someone doesn't like the music and they don't know or have a way to really justify why they don't like it.
Anyway, I've never felt like bands need to change or do something different to stay good and interesting. Almost all bands over time find their sound and stick with it. The difference is when bands can continue to do that to make good albums consistently. When that fails, I feel like people start to itch for something fresh and new. However, there are bands that don't change and are still great because in the end, if the songs are good most people aren't going to care if it's been done before.
I do think the genre of progressive music does tend to have more fans who enjoy the difference in style the genre offers and that generally the fans of this style of music also like when the bands progress in style as well. I think this is why we see so much of it for Dream Theater than say bands like Bad Religion, Sabaton, Skillet. They aren't progressive bands and they found a consistent formula while managing to make music the fans still like. That's OK IMO.
I used to be a huge Frying Pan fan back in the day. Problem for me was John Cooper's voice and lyrics. He was never much of a poet. Having said that, Comatose if in my top 10 albums of all time. They got it right on that album. Awake was the last one I cared about. I feel like they are a band that is mostly for the youth.
-
Okay, yeah this is the correct context I think. If an artist says something to the degree of "we felt like shit, ideas weren't coming, it was just a tough album to make" then the label is accurate in a descriptive sense (even then, it wouldn't necessarily be "sounds uninspired" as much as "they felt uninspired", but that's just me being pedantic), because then we have our evidence. My issue is definitely when it's just in the "it sounds uninspired to me" claims, when the only thing it's based on is gut feeling.
Well, I think I said something similar above (on the last page); it works the other way, too, though. I have a number of albums in my collection where the band was pretty clear "we were in a tough place and that's not a favorite record of mine" and yet, I personally love them.
-
Well, I think I said something similar above (on the last page); it works the other way, too, though. I have a number of albums in my collection where the band was pretty clear "we were in a tough place and that's not a favorite record of mine" and yet, I personally love them.
Oh absolutely, can relate to that feeling as well for a few albums.
-
:metal Can't wait for DT16
-
Well, I think I said something similar above (on the last page); it works the other way, too, though. I have a number of albums in my collection where the band was pretty clear "we were in a tough place and that's not a favorite record of mine" and yet, I personally love them.
Oh absolutely, can relate to that feeling as well for a few albums.
Union by Yes is a great example. The band hated that album and called it a disastrous project, even calling it "Onion" :lol
Anyway, I love that album!
-
A band can certainly be more or less inspired...I just don't think forum posters, some of whom might even be trolling us, are in any position to perceive this based on nothing more than how much they liked the album.
-
Fair enough. The way I look at it, once an artist's inspiration becomes a clear enough guide to them, the distinction between what constitutes "more or less" would be very hazy. I guess that perception comes packaged with the concept of motivation maybe, because I can see how one's motivation to take advantage of their inspiration could be lesser or greater.
-
A band can certainly be more or less inspired...I just don't think forum posters, some of whom might even be trolling us, are in any position to perceive this based on nothing more than how much they liked the album.
Again, I'm going to point out, it's not just those that are negative that are confusing "like" and the "intent of the artists", and I'm not sure it's fair to assume those that aren't all in on it are "trolling".
-
Could you say that the band were always uninspired if they needed to visit other bands albums for inspiration?... :corn
-
Could you say that the band were always uninspired if they needed to visit other bands albums for inspiration?... :corn
No.
Besides, no one said they NEEDED to do so. It was an artistic choice, not much different than their choice on DoT to use more focused, disciplined songwriting.
-
The band wouldn't decide to put out a record if they didn't feel inspired to record one, no?
But to me they seem to have gotten stuck in a 'formula'. From the self titled one to DOT to the latest release, they all sound the same to me. All songs from those albums could easily be mixed and matched on the records and I doubt anyone would notice. Then go back and listen to I&W, FII, SDOIT, 8V. They're all different. The band tried incorporating new stuff in their music, finding new ways to express themselves. That seems to have stopped now, they've found their thing and stick with it.
I don't really like this new style as much as their old stuff, but that's my problem.
-
I think it is also fair to point out that there is a difference between "Is DT truly 'uninspired?'" and "Does DT sound 'uninspired?'" The latter would have been a better way to ask it.
Because, unless we can get inside their heads, there is no way of really knowing how much they were really inspired, so it comes to down to each listener and how we perceive the songs. Do I think DT sounds uninspired on the new album? By and large, no, with the one exception being Invisible Monster, which still feels like a DT by the numbers song that the band sounds totally bored with throughout. That is my perception. I don't think any of the other six songs sound boring or "uninspired" at all. Even though most of them are still in that "solid, but still not sure how much I like it" vein for me, it does feel like the band brought good energy to all of them.
-
I think it is also fair to point out that there is a difference between "Is DT truly 'uninspired?'" and "Does DT sound 'uninspired?'" The latter would have been a better way to ask it.
Because, unless we can get inside their heads, there is no way of really knowing how much they were really inspired, so it comes to down to each listener and how we perceive the songs. Do I think DT sounds uninspired on the new album? By and large, no, with the one exception being Invisible Monster, which still feels like a DT by the numbers song that the band sounds totally bored with throughout. That is my perception. I don't think any of the other six songs sound boring or "uninspired" at all. Even though most of them are still in that "solid, but still not sure how much I like it" vein for me, it does feel like the band brought good energy to all of them.
Invisible Monster is certainly the one song that doesn't really work for me. And it was added after all the others were done.
*shrugs*
-
with the one exception being Invisible Monster, which still feels like a DT by the numbers song that the band sounds totally bored with throughout. That is my perception.
They sound "totally bored" with the 2nd verse of Invisible Monster? I mean, "my perception" is nice and all, but I'd say that weird, rhythmically layered and driving 9/8 there is some of the freshest and most unusual stuff they've done in quite a while and I can't think of anything resembling it.
-
Gotta say I am very pleased with how this thread has gone. Has made me rethink my view on Six Degrees for one, and is just interesting to read.
-
with the one exception being Invisible Monster, which still feels like a DT by the numbers song that the band sounds totally bored with throughout. That is my perception.
They sound "totally bored" with the 2nd verse of Invisible Monster? I mean, "my perception" is nice and all, but I'd say that weird, rhythmically layered and driving 9/8 there is some of the freshest and most unusual stuff they've done in quite a while and I can't think of anything resembling it.
Yes.
-
with the one exception being Invisible Monster, which still feels like a DT by the numbers song that the band sounds totally bored with throughout. That is my perception.
They sound "totally bored" with the 2nd verse of Invisible Monster? I mean, "my perception" is nice and all, but I'd say that weird, rhythmically layered and driving 9/8 there is some of the freshest and most unusual stuff they've done in quite a while and I can't think of anything resembling it.
The variation in that second verse did not work for me. The vocal lines did not fit the rhythmic pattern at all which is why there are long uncomfortable pauses in between lines. I prefer that they just built on the music behind "the serpent inside..." which was the high point of the song for me.
-
JP also sounds a little constipated on that second verse of IM.
-
DT is a bit stuck in between creating music that sounds like Dream Theater and being creative and making something from left field that would received mixed reception (e.g. the Astonishing).
In the current environment, being able to tour for the first time in almost 2 years. It's not unsurprising that Dream Theater want to tour successfully and putting out a safe, dream theater like album would be their best bet at achieving this. Doing what you've been doing for 35+ years and doing it well is not a crime! That being said, i know both John Petrucci and Jordan Rudess have massive amounts of creativity in them and will put out much more experimental music in the future.
There are many other bands in the same boat where their signature sound or songwriting formula is holding them back in a way.
-
DT is a bit stuck in between creating music that sounds like Dream Theater and being creative and making something from left field that would received mixed reception (e.g. the Astonishing).
In the current environment, being able to tour for the first time in almost 2 years. It's not unsurprising that Dream Theater want to tour successfully and putting out a safe, dream theater like album would be their best bet at achieving this. Doing what you've been doing for 35+ years and doing it well is not a crime! That being said, i know both John Petrucci and Jordan Rudess have massive amounts of creativity in them and will put out much more experimental music in the future.
There are many other bands in the same boat where their signature sound or songwriting formula is holding them back in a way.
That's a huge space to get stuck in. There's a LOT they can do to keep things fresh, if they so choose. Entering another genre like musical theater is not necessary to advance their sound.
-
Then go back and listen to I&W, FII, SDOIT, 8V. They're all different.
There's a HUGE factor you're missing out on here.
I&W had Kevin Moore as a huge part of both the composition style and the sonic style.
FII had Derek Sherinian as a huge part of the sonic style, and to a lesser extent the composition style.
SDOIT and 8V had Jordan Rudess as a huge part of the composition style and sonic style.
Just that factor ALONE is enough to make the albums sound remarkably different, not even taking into account the fact that the first two also had outside producers that had input in what the albums would be like, and the difference in maturity within the band and how they approach writing music, AND the final and maybe most important factor is your own exposure to what the band sounds like...
-
Then go back and listen to I&W, FII, SDOIT, 8V. They're all different.
There's a HUGE factor you're missing out on here.
I&W had Kevin Moore as a huge part of both the composition style and the sonic style.
FII had Derek Sherinian as a huge part of the sonic style, and to a lesser extent the composition style.
SDOIT and 8V had Jordan Rudess as a huge part of the composition style and sonic style.
Just that factor ALONE is enough to make the albums sound remarkably different, not even taking into account the fact that the first two also had outside producers that had input in what the albums would be like, and the difference in maturity within the band and how they approach writing music, AND the final and maybe most important factor is your own exposure to what the band sounds like...
DT need a new keyboardist then! :biggrin:
-
Then go back and listen to I&W, FII, SDOIT, 8V. They're all different.
There's a HUGE factor you're missing out on here.
I&W had Kevin Moore as a huge part of both the composition style and the sonic style.
FII had Derek Sherinian as a huge part of the sonic style, and to a lesser extent the composition style.
SDOIT and 8V had Jordan Rudess as a huge part of the composition style and sonic style.
Just that factor ALONE is enough to make the albums sound remarkably different, not even taking into account the fact that the first two also had outside producers that had input in what the albums would be like, and the difference in maturity within the band and how they approach writing music, AND the final and maybe most important factor is your own exposure to what the band sounds like...
DT need a new keyboardist then! :biggrin:
But if you are using SDOIT and 8V for your argument, then you might need to rethink your statement because Rudess was on both of those albums.
Also, we only heard three albums with Moore and one with Sherinian. And FII was massively manipulated by outside producers. The band almost split after that album. If anything, the Rudess era DT is way more diverse. SFAM, SDOIT, TOT, 8V, SC, BL&SL are all unique albums.
At the end of the day, DT is 15 albums into their career. To claim that they need to be as diverse as their first few albums is missing the opportunity to hear HOW they use what they learned on those first few albums on their later work. there are few bands that change their sounds successfully. And a lot of the artists I know of are ones that are known to be totally different on every album as part of their artistic profile.
-
-Dream Theater fans: Dream Theater needs to make more unique albums.
-Dream Theater: *releases The Astonishing, a two and a half hour rock opera and one of the most unique and well written records of their career.*
-Dream Theater fans: Why would the band release something so different like that?
-Dream Theater: Releases two great albums that don’t push too many new boundaries.
-Dream Theater fans: Dream Theater needs to make more unique albums.
Mike Portnoy was right. Everything is never enough.
-
^^^ But this is an age-old problem.
Led Zeppelin, Genesis, Kiss, Guns'n'Roses, Marillion, Van Halen... they've all endured this phenomenon.
-
^^^ But this is an age-old problem.
Led Zeppelin, Genesis, Kiss, Guns'n'Roses, Marillion, Van Halen... they've all endured this phenomenon.
Right. Basically music super-fans are stuck up, demanding snobs.
-
To answer the question, no. Anyone who would say they are "uninspired" is probably just grasping for a big sounding word to hide behind and somehow blame the band for the fact that their own personal taste and DT's music just aren't a match, for whatever reason. I don't think "uninspired" could possibly apply to DT in any context.
When the band releases a 60 min album of 12 bar blues songs in 6/8 time with Petrucci playing only the minor pentatonic then yes.
Until then no.
But then they'd finally put out an album with SOUL and FEEL! :metal
-
Something that's been bugging me. Does anyone know which Rush song in particular that Looking Glass or Transcending Time are supposed to be reminiscent of? I get a major key upbeat cheery 80s vibe, but that's about it.
If someone could provide me of an actual example of x part from Looking Glass/Transcending Time sounds like y part from [insert Rush tune here] it would be extremely helpful in understanding why/how people can make these comparisons. Again, please cite specific examples... I always hear claims of those songs essentially being Rush songs but frankly..I don't hear it.
-
Something that's been bugging me. Does anyone know which Rush song in particular that Looking Glass or Transcending Time are supposed to be reminiscent of? I get a major key upbeat cheery 80s vibe, but that's about it.
If someone could provide me of an actual example of x part from Looking Glass/Transcending Time sounds like y part from [insert Rush tune here] it would be extremely helpful in understanding why/how people can make these comparisons. Again, please cite specific examples... I always hear claims of those songs essentially being Rush songs but frankly..I don't hear it.
According to RoeDent, it's "every Rush song ever".
But the only similarity I noticed was the beginning of The Looking Glass sounds a bit like the beginning of Limelight.
-
Something that's been bugging me. Does anyone know which Rush song in particular that Looking Glass or Transcending Time are supposed to be reminiscent of? I get a major key upbeat cheery 80s vibe, but that's about it.
If someone could provide me of an actual example of x part from Looking Glass/Transcending Time sounds like y part from [insert Rush tune here] it would be extremely helpful in understanding why/how people can make these comparisons. Again, please cite specific examples... I always hear claims of those songs essentially being Rush songs but frankly..I don't hear it.
According to RoeDent, it's "every Rush song ever".
But the only similarity I noticed was the beginning of The Looking Glass sounds a bit like the beginning of Limelight.
OK. I can sort of see that. It's a stretch but at least it's something. Thanks for the feedback. :)
-
Yeah, The Looking Glass riff sounds like JP took the Limelight riff and bent it into a pretzel and then played it. It is not an exact replica, but it's close enough to where the similarity is pretty evident, IMO.
-
Yeah, The Looking Glass riff sounds like JP took the Limelight riff and bent it into a pretzel and then played it. It is not an exact replica, but it's close enough to where the similarity is pretty evident, IMO.
How about Transcending Time?
-
Yeah, The Looking Glass riff sounds like JP took the Limelight riff and bent it into a pretzel and then played it. It is not an exact replica, but it's close enough to where the similarity is pretty evident, IMO.
How about Transcending Time?
No clue. I guess that falls under the "something Rush would have done" banner more than sounding like a specific Rush song.
-
Yeah, The Looking Glass riff sounds like JP took the Limelight riff and bent it into a pretzel and then played it. It is not an exact replica, but it's close enough to where the similarity is pretty evident, IMO.
Using pretzel logic I see. ;)
I guess my ears just suck, because I barely hear the similarity. Good job JP and well played. :metal
-
I'd probably compare Transcending Time to A Living Island off the new Yes record before I'd compare to Rush because it sounds like it's got (more or less?) the same chord progression. That spot where it goes all piano you could basically put Davidson's vocal melody from that tune right over it.
[edit: I'd bet they're probably in different keys. That's where my shitty tone deafness comes into play! :lol ]
-
I'd probably compare Transcending Time to A Living Island off the new Yes record before I'd compare to Rush because it sounds like it's got (more or less?) the same chord progression. That spot where it goes all piano you could basically put Davidson's vocal melody from that tune right over it.
[edit: I'd bet they're probably in different keys. That's where my shitty tone deafness comes into play! :lol ]
I guess the beginning sounds a bit Rush-like.
-
OK. I was able to think of one on my own. The chorus in Looking Glass, from where JL sings "you are caught up in the gravity". That transition and onward is reminiscent to the way Mission (of Hold Your Fire) goes into the "spirits fly on dangerous missions" section. And then the way both tunes become more powerful and fuller going forward at: "you live without shame" in LG and "In the grip of a nameless possession" in Mission. So the way their respective choruses peak have similar structure. Similar gait and tempo too right?
-
OK. I was able to think of one on my own. The chorus in Looking Glass, from where JL sings "you are caught up in the gravity". That transition and onward is reminiscent to the way Mission (of Hold Your Fire) goes into the "spirits fly on dangerous missions" section. And then the way both tunes become more powerful and fuller going forward at: "you live without shame" in LG and "In the grip of a nameless possession" in Mission. So the way their respective choruses peak have similar structure. Similar gait and tempo too right?
Good call, I like those similarities.
-
Transcending Time is the first vocal line and the music behind it being calm and atmospheric....
"My Uncle has a country place that no one knows about..."
"Drifting in a far off place, I roam the countryside"
The structure of the verse here is similar to the verse of Red Barchetta.
But this happens naturally with the band because they are influenced by Rush. Similar to how I can hear Iron Maiden in the UFO song Love to Love.
-
Transcending Time is the first vocal line and the music behind it being calm and atmospheric....
"My Uncle has a country place that no one knows about..."
"Drifting in a far off place, I roam the countryside"
The structure of the verse here is similar to the verse of Red Barchetta.
But this happens naturally with the band because they are influenced by Rush. Similar to how I can hear Iron Maiden in the UFO song Love to Love.
good catch here. I felt reminded of Red Barchetta instantly but couldn't put my finger on why. That lyric-- and other things, I am sure-- is certainly reminiscent.
-
Transcending Time is the first vocal line and the music behind it being calm and atmospheric....
"My Uncle has a country place that no one knows about..."
"Drifting in a far off place, I roam the countryside"
The structure of the verse here is similar to the verse of Red Barchetta.
But this happens naturally with the band because they are influenced by Rush. Similar to how I can hear Iron Maiden in the UFO song Love to Love.
good catch here. I felt reminded of Red Barchetta instantly but couldn't put my finger on why. That lyric-- and other things, I am sure-- is certainly reminiscent.
That's the only part that really reminds me of Rush. I don't mind it because it's used perfectly in both songs. Then Transcending Time goes into more happier prog band territory blending the happy Rush with Kansas and Styx.
-
Yeah, The Looking Glass riff sounds like JP took the Limelight riff and bent it into a pretzel and then played it. It is not an exact replica, but it's close enough to where the similarity is pretty evident, IMO.
How about Transcending Time?
The recurring guitar melody which first comes in after James sings "like dreaming wide awake!" sounds like the guitar melody in Xanadu, although at a different octave.
-
Can't we just say the songs (The Looking Glass, Barstool Warrior, Transcending Time etc.) sound like they were influenced by Rush, rather than actually quoting a specific Rush song?
-
Can't we just say the songs (The Looking Glass, Barstool Warrior, Transcending Time etc.) sound like they were influenced by Rush, rather than actually quoting a specific Rush song?
I always thought oasis were way more Beatles *inspired* than ripping off specific songs. Obviously the piano intro to Dont look back in anger is from Imagine but
I've never heard an oasis song and gone " thats JUST x Beatles song "
-
Can't we just say the songs (The Looking Glass, Barstool Warrior, Transcending Time etc.) sound like they were influenced by Rush, rather than actually quoting a specific Rush song?
I guess you could, but if someone else (like me) who doesn't hear a Rush influence asks what you mean, how do you answer? Just curious.
Because what I hear are a few elements that may also be in some Rush songs, but do not specifically apply to Rush, nor were invented by Rush. So to me, that's not a Rush influence.
-
I don't think it is a case of any specific passage in a DT song sounding like any specific Rush song. It's just them incorporating aspects of Rush's general style and sound into their music. But others may hear specific references.