DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: Ħ on August 26, 2012, 09:17:46 PM
-
One of the biggest things that turned me on to DT and metal in general was how the music was crazy technical. DT wrote songs in 9/8 or whatever with blazing fast solos (while most mainstream stuff was in 4/4 with very simple beats and riffs) - that made me a proud listener, and it fed my angsty teenage ego.
Now, all that matters is how music makes me feel. Well, it matters when some novice guitar player of a popular band wins an award over John Petrucci. That's annoying.
What are your opinions on super skillful, technical music? I reckon it is actually very important to a lot of people, given that is a huge element of prog.
-
Yeah technicality is a huge thing for me. I listen to more technical stuff than melodic stuff (not to say I don't like melodic music as much, I certainly like it as much as technical music or more), and it will always impress me.
-
Yeah, I'm impressed if an artist can make use of lots of technicality, but I wouldn't want to listen to them too much if they don't have other qualities I enjoy.
-
Technicality can be a great thing, but it can also be boring, overused, or badly utilized. I'm going to fault someone like Gotye for not having some shredtastic solos or really complicated songs when they're so good and catchy as they are already. I am going to fault a band like The Mars Volta for boring me to tears with endless wanking.
-
Does it impress me? Totally. Does it mean I'll like the music? Not at all.
-
Does it impress me? Totally. Does it mean I'll like the music? Not at all.
-
I don't care about technicality at all.
-
Does it impress me? Totally. Does it mean I'll like the music? Not at all.
My feelings exactly.
-
Yup, it impresses me a lot of the time. I like hearing a musician who is a master of their craft. These types of threads always turn into a "give me a slow-as-fuck guitar player with feeling over some guy who WANKS all over the place". I'll just say I like musicians who can be technical and tasteful depending on what is called for.
-
Absolutely it DOES impress me. But that doesn't mean I'll like the song.
I liked Yngwie early on because I liked the songwriting. Then he kinda went all 80's rock on me and I didn't care any more.
I have never really cared for Symphony X because in spite of their talent, I just don't think their songs are that good.
OTOH: I love stuff that's really sick and catches me off guard. Fast guitar playing doesn't impress me as much as challenging rhythms. Like some of that really sick stuff BTBAM does...or even Mr. Bungle or The Mars Volta. I like it when the music becomes a 'puzzle box' that I have to solve.
-
I'm impressed when they can take that technicality and apply to other areas. Being technical for the sake of technicality bores me.
-
I love technicality, but i probably prefer melody over it if i had to choose. I love dt because they have both, Petrucci has so much feeling in his playing. While i enjoy bands like btbam to some extent, they have tons of impressive technicality but not enough melody to make me really like them. I love Joe Satriani because he is an incredible player but has so much soul in his playing; he can shred but play an amazing ballad too. just my 2cents
-
Does it impress me? Totally. Does it mean I'll like the music? Not at all.
A-yep.
-
Does it impress me? Totally. Does it mean I'll like the music? Not at all.
This.
One of the reasons a lot of prog metal sucks is because they focus too much on technicality and not enough or not at all on melody or any kind of hook at all.
-
What are your opinions on super skillful, technical music? I reckon it is actually very important to a lot of people, given that is a huge element of prog.
My opinion is very high. Always been a fan of music that is technical. Stuff like, Blotted Science, Watchtower, Cynic, Death, Faceless, Gordian Knot, Planet X, Alan Holdsworth, Frank Gambale etc. has always impressed me and I always enjoy, but, I'm a huge melodic rock/AOR fan, so there is a time and a place for everything and most of the time, I'd take the melodic rock over really technical bands like the ones above.
Bands like DT, SX, Pagan's Mind etc. have a good middle balance of the two.
-
I'll take good songwriting over technicality.
-
I'll take good songwriting over technicality.
This for the most part. If a group is capable of writing really complex music that makes sense from a songwriting perspective than that is always a plus.
-
I'll take good songwriting over technicality.
Does it impress me? Totally. Does it mean I'll like the music? Not at all.
These. I can enjoy not-full of shred songs like those from Explosions in the Sky a lot more than overcomplex songs like those from Spiral Architect.
-
Does it impress me? Totally. Does it mean I'll like the music? Not at all.
What sigz said.
I do enjoy technicality if it's balanced, but when it comes to stuff that is just fast shredding, I get really bored after the third song.
-
Does it impress me? Totally. Does it mean I'll like the music? Not at all.
This guy knows what's up.
-
I prefer good song writing over technicality. There was a time when I loved DT for being technical, but nowadays it's not something I look for in music.
-
Well of course everyone will take good songwriting over everything else, including technicality. I don't think there's any person in the world who would disagree. But technically complex sections are just another way of communicating what you have to say. And if the artist is good at communicating that, it will make my heart sing just as much as anything simpler.
I must say something, though, that I'm slightly aggravated any time someone talks about this, because there's always people who say simple = good, complicated = bad at all times. The number of people with such prejudices will probably not be as high on a predominantly prog forum, since some of our favorite music contains some sort of complexity but in other discussions it pisses me off to no end. If you haven't heard anything that's both good and technically complex, that's just your problem, Imaginary Man I'm Talking To. I call those people "simplicity snobs".
-
It used to impress me more than it does now, I still appreciate it but songwriting is the most important aspect to me.
-
It impresses me as long as it is used to create something good and not just doing it for the sake of doing it. I won't argue Malmsteen is a fantastic guitar player but he bores me to death. I have the same feeling with most of ADTOE, I think they are way too technical just because they can. I think earlier DT work is great because they use their technicality to build something that is greater than their ability to play.
-
It only impresses me if they can use their technicality to play something that I like musically/melodically, but the ability of a bedroom shredder to play a generic scale at 300bpm doesn't impress me in the slightest. Having the subtlety to use their skill as necessary to enhance the songwriting is more impressive to me than just constantly playing as complex as possible. Songwriting always comes first.
Technical ability can be the icing on the cake, but there's only so much icing you can eat without actually having a cake at all.
-
I do appreciate it, but not in and of itself. Only when I feel it's being utilised properly within well-written music.
-
As a fan of technical metal and tech death-the latter being the only death metal subgenre I really love-I obviously love technical playing, and suspect my tolerance for it is higher than the average person's. I listen to stuff that makes Dream Theater sound like they're playing in straight 4/4 using three chords. :biggrin: Technical bands do run the risk of putting technique behind soul, even at their best, and I honestly have to be in the mood for it, or it falls flat. At the end of the day, I generally prefer music that, for lack of a better term, is more complex, but that doesn't mean I only like it, it's just a preference.
-
It used to impress me more than it does now, I still appreciate it but songwriting is the most important aspect to me.
My thoughts exactly.
EDIT: This too:
Does it impress me? Totally. Does it mean I'll like the music? Not at all.
-
Not anymore. When I got into DT I was still in that "OMG Petrucci is the best guitar player in the world" and it lasted a good while, but since the last year or so I got over that and now all that matters is that I enjoy the music. I got over what my library looks like too (even if no one ever sees it) and now I can comfortably sit and listen to Sum 41's Chuck and have a blast without caring if it's "good" or "technical" music or not. I have to say I am much happier now that I got rid of these prejudices and boundaries that I was imposing on myself.
I guess I got a bit off topic, so I will sum it up with: Not anymore, I just care if I enjoy the song or not.
-
Does it impress me? Totally. Does it mean I'll like the music? Not at all.
My feelings exactly.
-
Technicality only impresses me if there is some depth and substance to it. DT blends it very well and that 's why I like them. But if a band is just strait up technical wankery, then I get bored real fast.
-
Yes, but not if its all the song is. Since I,listen to a wide variety of songs, the ones I enjoy are ones that use technicality well.
Technicality only impresses me if there is some depth and substance to it. DT blends it very well and that 's why I like them. But if a band is just strait up technical wankery, then I get bored real fast.
Basically this.
But I am a sucker for Polyrhythms
-
ITT: We are looking how in how many ways we can say the same thing.
-
ITT: We are looking how in how many ways we can say the same thing.
I think this is pretty valuable, because most people can't shut up about how prog fans just drool over wankery, while here you have 30-ish people who say "no, we actually don't". So even though that's old news (and quite logical, really), it's still nice to see.
-
Well, if it's well placed wankery then it's pretty wizard, but yeah. Agreed.
-
ITT: We are looking how in how many ways we can say the same thing.
I think this is pretty valuable, because most people can't shut up about how prog fans just drool over wankery, while here you have 30-ish people who say "no, we actually don't". So even though that's old news (and quite logical, really), it's still nice to see.
Oh, you're absolutely right, I don't want to demean this, I was just playfully-teasingly taking a jab at the fact that everyone in this thread was basically saying the same thing in different words.
-
Oh, you're absolutely right, I don't want to demean this, I was just playfully-teasingly taking a jab at the fact that everyone in this thread was basically saying the same thing in different words.
I know you did, just thought it would be an appropriate time to make the point.
God we're so polite and understanding. How about some tea & scones, good sir?
-
ITT: We are looking how in how many ways we can say the same thing.
I think this is pretty valuable, because most people can't shut up about how prog fans just drool over wankery, while here you have 30-ish people who say "no, we actually don't". So even though that's old news (and quite logical, really), it's still nice to see.
I think the real interesting thing is that even if most people have the same opinion, you can guarantee everyone draws the line somewhere different as to what constitutes too much focus on technical play. One person's "he's playing the shit out of that guitar, but it's still well-written and tasteful" will be someone else's "ugh, no thanks, weedly weedly weedly".
-
Yes, it does. IF the music just isn't any random wanking (yes Symphony X, I'm looking at you!). But I can also enjoy punk music, so techinicality isn't essential.
-
Oh, you're absolutely right, I don't want to demean this, I was just playfully-teasingly taking a jab at the fact that everyone in this thread was basically saying the same thing in different words.
I know you did, just thought it would be an appropriate time to make the point.
God we're so polite and understanding. How about some tea & scones, good sir?
It would be a pleasure, fair lady. :ariich:
-
Your tea-maid appears (me).
What tea would you like?
-
To answer the question in the OP:
I am always impressed by a musician who has achieved a high level of technical expertise on their given instrument, or with a composer who can write a complex piece of music. I suppose this is somewhat similar to a baseball player being impressed with another player's ability to hit home runs, or make amazing catches in the field.
There is a certain amount of effort that must be put in to achieving technical proficiency on a musical instrument. It takes years and years of practice and hard work. It's something to be admired.
-
Your tea-maid appears (me).
What tea would you like?
A cup of exquisite darjeeling would do quite nice, thank you James.
:splodegent:
-
Does it impress me? Totally. Does it mean I'll like the music? Not at all.
-
Does it impress me? Totally. Does it mean I'll like the music? Not at all.
Yup.
-
On a superficial level, sure, but if it is not combined with good songwriting, then it is merely musical masturbation. I am way more impressed with someone writing a well-written simple song than someone who can play fast because he sat in his bedroom practicing scales 10 hours a day for two years.
-
I don't care about technicality at all.
Yeah agreed. As long as the musician can play everything they want to be able to play (as well as do it consistently live), tech skill doesn't affect me at all. Not that I can't be impressed by the level of skill some people acheive with their instruments.
-
I am definitely impressed by technicality, but it really depends on how the musician uses their proficiency on any given instrument. Super technical guitar solos can be cool, but if that's all you do then it tends to get really boring, really fast. But if you can incorporate good songwriting and good melodies and whatnot, then it can really earn you a whole lot of points with me.
I do I have a sweet spot for technical drummers, specifically Deantoni Parks, who happens to be the drummer of my favorite band (go figure). But he's not just all super tight snare hits or super fast beats, he also can just absolutely tear it up on the kit whenever he wants to, but I really dig his technicality as well. He's the best drummer right now in my opinion, but that's another thread.
All in all, I think Sigz said it best:
Does it impress me? Totally. Does it mean I'll like the music? Not at all.
-
I agree with the general consensus, but I've always thought that people say that their gripe with Prog (specifically the bigger bands like DT) is the technicality, but with most bands, it's always well-placed. And a lot of bands (obviously not Tech Metal and instrumental stuff) don't really do the DT-length crazy ass solo sections and when they do them, to me, it generally works. Guys in Prog like JP, it's sort of like as much as possible has to be put in, but it's always well thought out and has to sound good. People complain about filler a lot but I've always felt that with most Progressive bands, each riff, solo, etc. served its own purpose. Every note connects beautifully, even if the connection isn't the most logical or expected, it's usually the most pleasant and awesome. Watch someone like Mick Barr, yeah it's impressive (especially with how that guy looks, holy Christ), but it's nothing but noise, even if it flows well...