DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
Dream Theater => Dream Theater => Topic started by: The Letter M on April 15, 2014, 01:36:41 PM
-
I was listening to "The Count Of Tuscany" this morning as I was in the shower and I realized something about that song, as well as "In The Presence Of Enemies" and "Illumination Theory" - They all have breaks in the middle that slow-down or kill the momentum of the over-all epic.
For ITPOE, the song was broken up on the album, but even when put together, the second movement clearly ends and the wind sounds only offer a small segue between it and the third movement with the bass guitar beginning it. It feels a bit sudden and the build-up at the end of the second part loses momentum when it just...ends.
For TCOT, the ambient/guitar solo section, while beautiful, just kills the momentum a bit, but at least getting to it is a nice coast into that section, and getting out of it is a better build-up.
And for IT, the ambient/orchestra section is a bit of a buzz-kill, and the band comes back in a la "The Necromancer"-style, which is a bit jarring and sudden. But many fans find the orchestral section to be a bit out of place and killing the momentum built up by the first parts of the epic.
Now when I look back and think about "Octavarium", the song slowly builds up all the way from the beginning to the end, just up to the 4x screamed "TRAPPED INSIDE THIS OCTAVARIUM", then the climax coasts down in to the epic finish of "Razor's Edge". It's very uphill with a lot of momentum built-up to that climactic ending. "A Change Of Seasons" is a bit of a sine wave, so to speak, there nothing really slows the whole piece down or stop it dead in its tracks, but it does go up and down a bit. And "Six Degrees" is segmented in such a way that analyzing it compared to these others would be a bit unfair.
Has anyone else realized this? The thread about "where IT sits with the other epics" brought this to mind, and seeing how SDOIT, ACOS and 8VM still tend to top people's lists of DT epics, it's made me wonder why the other three would be so low, and so this all came to mind.
-Marc.
-
As a fan of Yes, and Pink Floyd before DT the epics mentioned appeal to me, as songs like Dogs and Awaken where there
is a long ambient moody section. So for me they don't suffer in any way, they just take me someplace else for a short
time while the song moves along it's path.
-
I totally disagree. Those "slow down"s do not kill the momentum; they add texture and do a great job of making the epics breathe and flow well.
I agree that Octavarium flows really well, what with the way it slowly builds and whatnot, but very little of that song is of the "holy shit, this is awesome" nature, while much of IT, TCOT and ACOS is. Granted, Octavarium has that "the whole is greater than the sum" thing going on, which is why so many prefer it over the others, but I can sometimes get bored with the 2nd and 3rd parts of that song, waiting in agonizing fashion for the synth solo to kick in and kick start the song; I cannot say that for any parts in IT or ACOS. Both of those songs encapsulate me from start to finish, as does The Count of Tuscany to a lesser extent (I like minutes 4-9, but still wish they were as awesome as the rest of the song; they do not bore me, though). Plus, TCOT loses a few points for the lyrical content. So does 8V for that matter.
-
I totally disagree. Those "slow down"s do not kill the momentum; they add texture and do a great job of making the epics breathe and flow well.
I mean, I don't really agree with the idea either, but it was something that I came up with as a possible reason why some fans would disregard these epics in comparison to ACOS and 8VM, which feel more solid in some aspects. Personally, ITPOE has the least in terms of a middle-slow-down, and when I first heard TCOT and IT, their middle sections brought tears to my eyes with how beautiful they were. TCOT's guitar solo reminded me heavily of LTE's "Rhapsody In Blue" (which was later stated as influence), so I was immediately drawing comparisons to it and I realized how beautiful it was. Sure, it does nearly stop the song dead in its tracks, but as you say, it's a new texture and a breather, and fans of Yes and Pink Floyd (as emtee mentioned) would likely be fans of these types of sections.
Then again, I wasn't the biggest fan of "Close To The Edge" (I was, and still am, a bigger fan of "The Gates Of Delirium") because of it's middle section, but for DT to throw these out in their songs was a bit shocking and surprising, but in the end, *I* really do enjoy them. The OP was just a theory I had about why some would not enjoy it, and I'm sure fans who are more in to metal than prog would likely be the ones who feel that way.
-Marc.
-
I'm much more into prog than metal, and I think you've hit upon one of the bigger problems I have with those later epics. I think that they don't flow as well as "A Change of Seasons" or "Octavarium" in general, but I've never given much thought as to why. But I think that that's it. The mellow sections slow everything down.
Now, it's not just a simple matter of losing momentum. To me, it's just that they make the song a lot longer for -- and it's hard to put this delicately, so I won't even try -- no real reason. With both "The Count of Tuscany" and "Illumination Theory", those sections are great, and the songs wouldn't be the same without them, but they seem to come out of nowhere and in both cases, I find myself wondering when we're going to get back to the song.
-
I'm much more into prog than metal, and I think you've hit upon one of the bigger problems I have with those later epics. I think that they don't flow as well as "A Change of Seasons" or "Octavarium" in general, but I've never given much thought as to why. But I think that that's it. The mellow sections slow everything down.
Now, it's not just a simple matter of losing momentum. To me, it's just that they make the song a lot longer for -- and it's hard to put this delicately, so I won't even try -- no real reason. With both "The Count of Tuscany" and "Illumination Theory", those sections are great, and the songs wouldn't be the same without them, but they seem to come out of nowhere and in both cases, I find myself wondering when we're going to get back to the song.
Understandable. I've actually been wondering when we'd get a JLB-solo mellow section, a la Queen's "The Prophet's Song" since we've already had JP-led solo section (in TCOT) and a JR-written orchestral section (in IT).
-Marc.
-
I disagree. I think it adds depth to the song, and yes, whilist being kinda momentum-killing, it's prog. You can do whatever with music.
-
I disagree that the atmospheric sections break the momentum of the song. Maybe on the first listen that thought could cross my mind if I have certain expectations. But once I'm familiar with the structure of the song nothing can break momentum for me because my mind follows the intentional progression of the piece and always just looks forward to the next section, whatever it may be.
I think the ambient sections in both IT and TCOT serve to enrich the song and make for a more interesting listen. Octavarium doesn't do that but that's just because it's a marvel of musical composition and stands in a field of its own.
-
And for IT, the ambient/orchestra section is a bit of a buzz-kill, and the band comes back in a la "The Necromancer"-style, which is a bit jarring and sudden.
That last part I definitely agree with. JM's bass is fine, but MM's snare sounds really plastic in that section.
-
M, I posted this in the Illumination Theory thread the other day..
I think that's the thing that gets me about IT. If they had done that one first, , I might feel differently about it. But I had high hopes that this lineup put an epic on this album whereas ADTOE didn't have one.
I think IT suffers from some pretty high expectations on my part. So I was especially disappointed when the stopped the song dead in its tracks, just as they have done the last two epics they'd recorded. I guess I was hoping for something a little more creative this time around, not the same.
-
The ambient section in TCOT doesn't really kill the momentum since the song doesn't exactly pick up again and go balls to the wall. The rest of the song is actually sort of mellow.
-
I often skip through the soft sections in both IT and TCOT. Both parts kill momentum for me and while in and of themselves are nice... I just dont see how it totally fits whats going on before and after the songs. I do like how TCOT goes into the ending though where as in IT you hear the plane and then the bass and its just like "ok... now we are back"
-
The middle section is the biggest problem I have with IT. I don't think it fits with the song at all unlike TCOT, ITPOE. Also, it's not that good imo.
-
Has anyone else realized this? The thread about "where IT sits with the other epics" brought this to mind, and seeing how SDOIT, ACOS and 8VM still tend to top people's lists of DT epics, it's made me wonder why the other three would be so low, and so this all came to mind.
-Marc.
The only problem with your theory is that SDOIT has Goodnight Kiss, which "kills the momentum" just as much, if not worse than the three latest epics.
-
Has anyone else realized this? The thread about "where IT sits with the other epics" brought this to mind, and seeing how SDOIT, ACOS and 8VM still tend to top people's lists of DT epics, it's made me wonder why the other three would be so low, and so this all came to mind.
-Marc.
The only problem with your theory is that SDOIT has Goodnight Kiss, which "kills the momentum" just as much, if not worse than the three latest epics.
Yeah, technically, youre right.
-
Has anyone else realized this? The thread about "where IT sits with the other epics" brought this to mind, and seeing how SDOIT, ACOS and 8VM still tend to top people's lists of DT epics, it's made me wonder why the other three would be so low, and so this all came to mind.
-Marc.
The only problem with your theory is that SDOIT has Goodnight Kiss, which "kills the momentum" just as much, if not worse than the three latest epics.
If you saw it live you wouldn't think so.
-
I love IT. I just think there is a bit too much dead space on both sides of the middle break. Really drags that section out longer than it needs to be and kills the momentum for me. I usually fastforward through it so I can get to the killer stuff when the band comes back in. I like the actual orchestra part, but hate waiting to get there.
-
If you saw it live you wouldn't think so.
Well, same could easily be said for IT.
-
If you saw it live you wouldn't think so.
Well, same could easily be said for IT.
Havent seen SDOIT live so I cant say, but IT seemed to kill the crowd for a bit. Of course it comes back strong though.
-
Havent seen SDOIT live so I cant say, but IT seemed to kill the crowd for a bit. Of course it comes back strong though.
It let them relax and get absorbed into the atmospheric part of it. The crowd doesn't have to be jumping up and down and cheering to enjoy the music.
-
I don't listen to Systematic Chaos at all; I don't think I've gotten through ItPoE yet. TCoT is not an epic, it's a really long song. ACoS, 8VM, and IT all have movements in the liner notes. Plus, most of the rest of the song after the ambiance is really chill. It works really well live. I've always thought that IT was horribly disjointed, with not enough reprisal, and the orchestral part is the worst part of the disjointedness.
-
Havent seen SDOIT live so I cant say, but IT seemed to kill the crowd for a bit. Of course it comes back strong though.
It let them relax and get absorbed into the atmospheric part of it. The crowd doesn't have to be jumping up and down and cheering to enjoy the music.
It let the band relax I am sure, but for the last song on a set and one as strong as IT, I dont think the crowd is looking to relax at that point of the concert and when I say it killed the crowd, people going to the bathroom or starting conversations isnt really getting absorbed. Im sure many people also were getting absorbed, but I do believe the orchestral part of IT really kills the mood of the song that was built up from the begging and that also continues after that part of the song.
-
As I said in other threads before, once you get the narrative of Illumination Theory, the middle section would make a lot of sense.
Live, Die, Kill posed earthly problems by asking the questions, what are you willing to live, die and kill for? It is unenlightened, unilluminated, so there are no answers yet.
The shift to the ambient section refers to a transfer from the earthly plane to a transcendental plane. It is marked by the shift from a relatively "noisy" musical atmosphere to something more reflective. The ambient section is lengthy, which I find as purposive to indicate that illumination or enlightenment does not come easily even in a moment of transcendence. But enlightenment slowly creeps in with the slow build-up of the orchestral music. Illumination is reached when the orchestra reprises the intro music from the Paradox of the Black Light section, which marks a new beginning, the difference being that this is already an enlightened one. So in contrast to Paradox, the orchestral intro is brighter, more positive, more enlightened.
After the moment of enlightenment, the song goes back from the transcendental plane to the earthly plane. This is marked by the shift from the reflective music of the orchestra to the "noisy" musical atmosphere of the real world. However, unlike Live, Die and Kill, the Pursuit of Truth section now gives answers, not questions. Which is why this is in the Illuminated half of the song.
Does the middle section kill the momentum of IT? If you do not care about the narrative, the story that the song is trying to tell, it would sound that it does. If you do pay attention to what story the song is trying to tell, the middle section makes a lot of sense. There's nothing superfluous about it at all, to the point that even the length of the ambient section makes sense.
About reprisals, IT is all about reprisal. It is about mirroring. The first section is a paradox with a dark atmosphere, the end section is a paradox with an enlightened atmosphere. The riffing section that bridges the initial paradox to the questions of Live, Die, Kill is the same as the riffing section that bridges the answers of the Pursuit of Truth to the ending paradox. The questions posed in Live, Die, Kill are answered (thus, reprised) in the mirroring section of the Pursuit of Truth. The unenlightened ambient section is mirrored by the enlightened orchestral section. The unenlightened overture in Paradox of the Black Light is reprised in an enlightened version in the orchestral section of the Embracing Circle. The song starts with a crescendo drum roll, and ends with a decrescendo drum roll. Even the lyrics of Surrender, Trust and Passion reprises each other within that small section.
I don't see how you can get any more reprisals than that within a 20-minute song. Even Octavarium does not have that perfectly mirrored structure, and that one talks about going in circles.
IT is not a song about momentum. It is a song about gaining enlightenment. Maybe it can kill momentum in a live setting, but that is not what the narrative of IT is about. It was composed to tell a story.
-
It let the band relax I am sure, but for the last song on a set and one as strong as IT, I dont think the crowd is looking to relax at that point of the concert and when I say it killed the crowd, people going to the bathroom or starting conversations isnt really getting absorbed. Im sure many people also were getting absorbed, but I do believe the orchestral part of IT really kills the mood of the song that was built up from the begging and that also continues after that part of the song.
Well, if the people at your venue weren't absorbed into it, then that's their loss. It was a wonderful, and beautiful little interlude, especially with that visual presentation. True, I was at the front, and I wasn't exactly examining the crowd at that moment, but I loved every second of it.
Either way, I'll take the quiet part of IT, ITPOE or TCOT over Goodnight Kiss any day.
-
It let the band relax I am sure, but for the last song on a set and one as strong as IT, I dont think the crowd is looking to relax at that point of the concert and when I say it killed the crowd, people going to the bathroom or starting conversations isnt really getting absorbed. Im sure many people also were getting absorbed, but I do believe the orchestral part of IT really kills the mood of the song that was built up from the begging and that also continues after that part of the song.
Well, if the people at your venue weren't absorbed into it, then that's their loss. It was a wonderful, and beautiful little interlude, especially with that visual presentation. True, I was at the front, and I wasn't exactly examining the crowd at that moment, but I loved every second of it.
Either way, I'll take the quiet part of IT, ITPOE or TCOT over Goodnight Kiss any day.
Also, compared to TCOT vs. IT live, the slow part at least has JP and JR playing it live in TCOT, when the band leaves the stage in IT it kills the crowd, not just for DT either.... all my opinion of course. And Ill take those three over Goodnight Kiss as well, never been crazy for that song until it leads into Solitary Shell.
-
Well, if the people at your venue weren't absorbed into it, then that's their loss. It was a wonderful, and beautiful little interlude, especially with that visual presentation. True, I was at the front, and I wasn't exactly examining the crowd at that moment, but I loved every second of it.
Either way, I'll take the quiet part of IT, ITPOE or TCOT over Goodnight Kiss any day.
After defending IT, I would give my two cents about SDOIT. :lol SDOIT, just like IT, is not about momentum. It is about a big narrative, and in the cse of SDOIT, it is about telling the story of six persons. There is not much musical continuity in SDOIT because the music in each section is supposed to fit whatever mental affliction the character in the song is experiencing. So the one with bipolar disorder has a happy rock and roll tune which transitions into a darker sounding music when she "lost her mind" (About To Crash). War Inside My Head which talks about post-war trauma is complemented by a heavy riffing tune which exudes a violent musical atmosphere. The Test That Stumped Them All talks about schizophrenia, which is why the music is confused, angry at times, even crazy. Solitary Shell talks about autism, which is why the music is softer, has an acoustic feel, more reserved.
Which brings me to Goodnight Kiss. I used to think this is a bit cheesy and like what other people said here, a momentum killer in the middle of SDOIT. THEN I had my first born a year ago. My view of the song changed drastically after that. Whenever I am listening to that song at night while my child is sleeping beside me, I hug my son. "I want you to know I'll die for one more moment..." FUCK the emotion of those lyrics and the soft music behind it. The music captured the feeling of what it feels to lose a child and become mad about it.
-
Well, if the sentimental aspect of the song adds something for you, I can respect that, but hey, same goes for me and The Best of Times, but I'm still not going to pretend like I like the music better just because I connect with the message.
Either way, the point is, regardless of what SDOIT is about, if I don't think Goodnight Kiss is that great, musically, I won't suddenly fall in love with it, even if I did have a kid.
-
Well, if the sentimental aspect of the song adds something for you, I can respect that, but hey, same goes for me and The Best of Times, but I'm still not going to pretend like I like the music better just because I connect with the message.
Either way, the point is, regardless of what SDOIT is about, if I don't think Goodnight Kiss is that great, musically, I won't suddenly fall in love with it, even if I did have a kid.
Oh, no prob. I am just explaining that the music of the different sections in SDOIT fits based on the context of the song. I find that a lot in DT's music (actually in prog music). Which is why, for example, Caught In A Web has a very angsty vibe and then the solo section with DeDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDe rhythm literally feels like a web is being spun around you.
-
Oh, no prob. I am just explaining that the music of the different sections in SDOIT fits based on the context of the song. I find that a lot in DT's music (actually in prog music). Which is why, for example, Caught In A Web has a very angsty vibe and then the solo section with DeDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDe rhythm literally feels like a web is being spun around you.
Oh, no, I know what SDOIT is about, I just prioritize music over lyrics. Which is why regardless of the context, I'll never really be able to like Dark Side of the Moon as a whole. While it has some great musical moments, some great songs, there's so much filler in there that I can't enjoy the album as a whole.
-
Oh, no, I know what SDOIT is about, I just prioritize music over lyrics. Which is why regardless of the context, I'll never really be able to like Dark Side of the Moon as a whole. While it has some great musical moments, some great songs, there's so much filler in there that I can't enjoy the album as a whole.
I agree with prioritizing the music itself over the lyrics, but in the case of DSOTM, that album has both fantastic lyrics and astounding musicianship. It might not appear to be the most interesting instrumentally, but I can't help but hear no filler. Even the shorter songs have a purpose and take things in a whole new direction.
In the case of Goodnight Kiss, I actually don't feel that the lyrics themselves are anything too special. What does it for me is JLB's vocal delivery, his sheer emotion behind them, and JP's solemn guitar solo. GK succeeds for me in the "instrumentation" department much more easily for me and I could also see how someone could make a much stronger connection being in a similar situation, or having a child of their own as well.
-
In the case of Goodnight Kiss, I actually don't feel that the lyrics themselves are anything too special. What does it for me is JLB's vocal delivery, his sheer emotion behind them, and JP's solemn guitar solo. GK succeeds for me in the "instrumentation" department much more easily for me and I could also see how someone could make a much stronger connection being in a similar situation, or having a child of their own as well.
Agreed. I don't pay much attention to lyrics at all, and they're extremely low priority to me, but I love GK (and all of SDOIT).
The music is a needed break for the pacing after the metal section of WIMH/TTTSTA, and then slowly builds up again, starting with the soft intro, then the drums come in with the full band, then the emotional guitar solo buildup, then becoming a bit more upbeat with Solitary Shell, then into an upbeat rocker with ATC (Reprise), then the big epic finale.
Goodnight Kiss is musically very emotional even disregarding the lyrics, for the reasons stated.
-
In the case of Goodnight Kiss, I actually don't feel that the lyrics themselves are anything too special. What does it for me is JLB's vocal delivery, his sheer emotion behind them, and JP's solemn guitar solo. GK succeeds for me in the "instrumentation" department much more easily for me and I could also see how someone could make a much stronger connection being in a similar situation, or having a child of their own as well.
Agreed. I don't pay much attention to lyrics at all, and they're extremely low priority to me, but I love GK (and all of SDOIT).
The music is a needed break for the pacing after the metal section of WIMH/TTTSTA, and then slowly builds up again, starting with the soft intro, then the drums come in with the full band, then the emotional guitar solo buildup, then becoming a bit more upbeat with Solitary Shell, then into an upbeat rocker with ATC (Reprise), then the big epic finale.
Goodnight Kiss is musically very emotional even disregarding the lyrics, for the reasons stated.
Exactly. The emotional line like "I want you to know I'll die for one more moment" is delivered so emotionally by JLB, and backed up masterfully by JR's keys. Then JP delivers a heartfelt guitar solo. Amazing. And THEN they delivered music that mirrored some sort of descent to madness.
-
I'd agree with you if not for the fact that it remains purely subjective. For example, while IT's orchestrated section doesn't do anything for me, I like the ambient part of TCOT. While in ITPOE it's just broken in 2 sections, and I'm more bothered by Pt. 2's instrumental section rather than the slow buildup.
-
The ambient section in TCOT doesn't really kill the momentum since the song doesn't exactly pick up again and go balls to the wall. The rest of the song is actually sort of mellow.
Exactly. I think the ambient section works as a nice bridge between the heavy part and the ending.
-
I think the songs are fine with breaks, it's just how the breaks work that kind of hinder it...
With IT, the break just does not fit the song. The song is very riffy, heavy, and intense until the break and then... What? Xanadu like ambience? Did it just get 70's prog in here? But really, it's just kind of strange to hear after the heavy beginnings of IT. The orchestra part doesn't really fit either... But i do think that the reprise of the main theme is perfect, they could've just left it at that.
With TCOT, I just think that the break is simply too long. It's very nice, fits the song, and is transitioned into nicely, but it just drags.
Then I don't really see a problem with ITPOE. Put together, the break isn't that long and there's no sudden loss of momentum... but I do kinda think the parts are better as two separate songs. Like going from Ressurection -> Heretic -> Slaughter of the Damned, all of which being verse-chorus style parts, would be weighty to get through. But that's just what I think.
I think the difference with those epics is that they don't exactly have the build-up like 8VM, or the narrative-like musicality like ACOS. I think an epic piece is fine with a break, as long it actually fits the song and doesn't feel tacked on, or isn't too long in context of the piece.
-
I agree with prioritizing the music itself over the lyrics, but in the case of DSOTM, that album has both fantastic lyrics and astounding musicianship. It might not appear to be the most interesting instrumentally, but I can't help but hear no filler. Even the shorter songs have a purpose and take things in a whole new direction.
In the case of Goodnight Kiss, I actually don't feel that the lyrics themselves are anything too special. What does it for me is JLB's vocal delivery, his sheer emotion behind them, and JP's solemn guitar solo. GK succeeds for me in the "instrumentation" department much more easily for me and I could also see how someone could make a much stronger connection being in a similar situation, or having a child of their own as well.
Meh, I didn't think there was anything particularly amazing about his delivery that's not present in other songs. The lyrics weren't that good, either. I usually can ignore bad lyrics, but hearing JLB say ,"I'm just a poor girl" is just awkward, no matter the context. Not to mention that rhyming "girl" with "world" is like #1 most overdone rhyme in the world.
But even instrumentally, I didn't think it was anything special. I'd take the more 'atmospheric' sections of 8VM, TCOT or IT, over GK any day. Or any other atmospheric sections that DT might have in any other song that I can't think of at the moment.
Bottom line is, I'm not a fan of Goodnight Kiss. And it's the main reason why SDOIT is at the bottom of their "super epics" for me. I do enjoy its other parts a lot more, but it's unfortunate that most of them just bleed into each other, so it's hard to listen to them as separate entities.
But that's still getting a bit off topic. The point is, Goodnight Kiss slows the momentum of SDOIT just like the ambient sections of IT and TCOT do with their respective songs, so I see nothing wrong with slowing a large song down in the middle. Frankly, I think it works to a songs advantage, to be able to take you all over the place in a single song is awesome, and part of what makes DT the band that it is.
-
Havent seen SDOIT live so I cant say, but IT seemed to kill the crowd for a bit. Of course it comes back strong though.
It let them relax and get absorbed into the atmospheric part of it. The crowd doesn't have to be jumping up and down and cheering to enjoy the music.
Amen to this. At both DT shows I saw earlier this moment, I stood there with my eyes closed and my hands folded behind my back during the middle section and just let it wash over me. It was one of the more amazing experiences I've ever had at a live show. :coolio
With IT, the break just does not fit the song.
Except that it does. With all due respect to you and anybody else of a similar mindset, I have to wonder what you are listening to if you think it doesn't fit the song. ???
Bottom line is, I'm not a fan of Goodnight Kiss. And it's the main reason why SDOIT is at the bottom of their "super epics" for me. I do enjoy its other parts a lot more, but it's unfortunate that most of them just bleed into each other, so it's hard to listen to them as separate entities.
But that's still getting a bit off topic. The point is, Goodnight Kiss slows the momentum of SDOIT just like the ambient sections of IT and TCOT do with their respective songs, so I see nothing wrong with slowing a large song down in the middle. Frankly, I think it works to a songs advantage, to be able to take you all over the place in a single song is awesome, and part of what makes DT the band that it is.
I cannot agree. After the furiousness of War and Test, Goodnight Kiss does a great job of bringing it down a bit. It's like it gives you the chance to exhale for a few minutes following the ass-kicking the two previous movements gave you. And personally, the latter half of Goodnight Kiss might be my favorite part of the entire 6DOIT suite/song.
-
I cannot agree. After the furiousness of War and Test, Goodnight Kiss does a great job of bringing it down a bit. It's like it gives you the chance to exhale for a few minutes following the ass-kicking the two previous movements gave you. And personally, the latter half of Goodnight Kiss might be my favorite part of the entire 6DOIT suite/song.
I'm not saying the energy shouldn't be brought down. I totally agree that after those two, a breather is in order. I'm just saying I don't enjoy this particular piece all that much.
-
Fair enough. :coolio
-
I'm also saying that it's not fair to say, "Well, the past 3 epics suffer from having that loss of energy in the middle" but then saying that Goodnight Kiss doesn't count because of its context, or any other reason. It does exactly the same thing that those breaks in IT and TCOT do.
-
I'm also saying that it's not fair to say, "Well, the past 3 epics suffer from having that loss of energy in the middle" but then saying that Goodnight Kiss doesn't count because of its context, or any other reason. It does exactly the same thing that those breaks in IT and TCOT do.
Only if you want to oversimplify the reasons why one may work but another may not. It's totally fair, because it's subjective.
For me, the first part of the IT break doesn't work because it lacks musicality, it's sound effects. That kills the momentum completely for me, despite the following orchestral section being by far my favourite part of the album. I'm not interested in hearing the latest stock sample collection they were flipping through.
GK and TCOT both similarly bring the music down too, and both break the continuity in some similar ways, so if you don't think it works that's a fair opinion too, but for me they continue the flow of the song much better in terms of tone and key.
But it's all in the execution, rather than simply the concept, and of course that's subjective, much in the same way that some people may find a transition to be disjointed, while a transition in another song that is technically just as disjointed may work very effectively.
It's a case by case thing, not something you can just summarize and objectively state that all things are equal.
-
Amen to this. At both DT shows I saw earlier this moment, I stood there with my eyes closed and my hands folded behind my back during the middle section and just let it wash over me. It was one of the more amazing experiences I've ever had at a live show. :coolio
The first time I strained to see the orchestra; the second time I took advantage of the break to take a piss.
No regrets.
-
Amen to this. At both DT shows I saw earlier this moment, I stood there with my eyes closed and my hands folded behind my back during the middle section and just let it wash over me. It was one of the more amazing experiences I've ever had at a live show. :coolio
The first time I strained to see the orchestra; the second time I took advantage of the break to take a piss.
No regrets.
I think it would have been more enjoyable if Rudess played th orchestral part live like he did in that one youtube video for a keyboard ad. Personally I cant find enjoyment at a live concert when in the middle of the song the entire band leaves the stage.
-
As I said in other threads before, once you get the narrative of Illumination Theory, the middle section would make a lot of sense.
(lots of great analysis)
That's awesome, really, and helps me understand the song much better. So thank you for that.
Here's the problem, though. Most fans are not going to dig into that much analysis, that much detail, in order to understand a song. Sure, most songs can be appreciated better if you know what it's all about. But musically, the song still has to be able to stand on its own without someone spending a lot of time researching and/or analyzing the lyrics and context in order to get it.
This song is clearly one of the highlights of the album, and if it's really that deep, you'd think that in some interview, Jordan or maybe JP would have mentioned it, and how it's pretty complex and possibly off-putting, but gone on to explain something about it, or at least give some hints. Okay, maybe they did; I didn't read any interviews prior to the release because I didn't want to spoil anything, and I guess I haven't read much after either. Surely, someone asked Jordan about the orchestrated section, and he would have explained it, what it represents, all that. But based on replies here, people seem to like it, but don't really "get" it. What we're left with is, as I said, a really great section that seems to come out of nowhere and break things up for no apparent reason.
-
As I said in other threads before, once you get the narrative of Illumination Theory, the middle section would make a lot of sense.
(lots of great analysis)
That's awesome, really, and helps me understand the song much better. So thank you for that.
Here's the problem, though. Most fans are not going to dig into that much analysis, that much detail, in order to understand a song. Sure, most songs can be appreciated better if you know what it's all about. But musically, the song still has to be able to stand on its own without someone spending a lot of time researching and/or analyzing the lyrics and context in order to get it.
This song is clearly one of the highlights of the album, and if it's really that deep, you'd think that in some interview, Jordan or maybe JP would have mentioned it, and how it's pretty complex and possibly off-putting, but gone on to explain something about it, or at least give some hints. Okay, maybe they did; I didn't read any interviews prior to the release because I didn't want to spoil anything, and I guess I haven't read much after either. Surely, someone asked Jordan about the orchestrated section, and he would have explained it, what it represents, all that. But based on replies here, people seem to like it, but don't really "get" it. What we're left with is, as I said, a really great section that seems to come out of nowhere and break things up for no apparent reason.
I get what you are saying, but I disagree that DT should give hints on the explanation of the song. Especially because this is music of the progressive genre. Prog music has a sort of elitist vibe in it, which begs for the listener to go deeper. Some listeners don't like that elitism, but I think it's inherent in the genre. Prog music, to me, is equivalent to reading poetry, or watching a film with an indie or art film vibe, or reading a comic book from the Vertigo line (or the current Marvel Hawkeye book, hehehe). It's a work of art that asks for analysis. You don't see Jack Kerouac explaining the elements of his poem. Or Akira Kurosawa giving out interviews on how to analyze his films. Or Neil Gaiman or Alan Moore breaking down their comic book scripts, or artist David Aja explaining how he laid out his comic book pages.
-
But when you pick up something by Kerouac or Neil Gaiman, you know what you're in for. You don't just read "On the Road" because you heard it was good. Hopefully whoever recommended it to you also mentioned why, or at least gave you a little background on it. Maybe not. Maybe they know you and know what you like.
DT is prog, but these days, DT is also much more mainstream, and they do need to be aware of their audience. With the long breakdown in "The Count of Tuscany" it's pretty obvious what's going on, as it has literally just been given to us in the lyrics. Some people think it drags things down, some are fine with it, but there's no real need for analysis.
The breakdown in "Illumination Theory" IMO doesn't seem to beg for that analysis. People don't think "Wow, then there's this ambience, then an orchestra. What can this represent? I should study the lyrics and think about this some more." Most people just think "WTF?" Or maybe "Whoa, an orchestra. Cool."
Yes, it's good to challenge the listener. But there's a line between challenging the listener and putting them off. Obviously this line will be in a different place for each person. I just think that DT may have miscalculated where to place it this time.
It took me many, many listens to grasp the intro to "Close to the Edge" by Yes. It took just as many to come to terms with the insane battle scene in "The Gates of Delerium". So these things can and do take time. I haven't listened to "Illumination Theory" nearly that many times yet, so maybe that's still down the road for me. For right now, though, it's just a long song that I don't grok. Albums are twice as long these days, and that's actually one of the reasons I don't play a lot of newer stuff. For "Illumination Theory" I would have to specifically seek out that song. I guess I'm thinking that I shouldn't have to do that to appreciate what they've done.
-
DT is prog, but these days, DT is also much more mainstream,
But how have their past works been any different? I mean, personally, when I first listened to ACOS, I didn't feel the need to research what each passage represented. I just enjoyed the awesome music because it's awesome music. DT has never been that band, that begs for 'research'. The most, I would say, is SFAM, but that's only because it's obvious that there's a plot, and the lyrics don't completely spell it out. Although, if you pay attention to the lyrics, it's still easy to figure out the basics of it.
But even then, I didn't need to do any research to enjoy The Dance Of Eternity, because it's just an awesome little instrumental in the middle of the album. It's a great listen all throughout, and I don't think it requires any kind of research or analysis to be enjoyed.
So in the case of DT, that has never been the case. I mean, deeper analysis can be done with any song, with any kind of music. I can analyze Alice Cooper songs and find some awesome meaning behind certain passages, or certain songs. So it is what it is.
But that's the bottom line, is that it's music. And music can be enjoyed without having to be 'understood', which is something that may not be true for all literary works or art films. And even then, I can enjoy a well put together poem without needing to understand what it means.
-
I'm still trying to figure out if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing. ???
-
I'm still trying to figure out if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing. ???
Well, you're saying that these days, DT is more mainstream, and they understand that their audience isn't always going to be doing that research. I'm just wondering how it was any different before? I mean, I don't know about the fanbase itself, whether back in the 90s, their fanbase consisted of more hardcore Prog fans, but I don't feel like DT's music at any point was at that "Elitist" level.
-
The breakdown in "Illumination Theory" IMO doesn't seem to beg for that analysis. People don't think "Wow, then there's this ambience, then an orchestra. What can this represent? I should study the lyrics and think about this some more." Most people just think "WTF?" Or maybe "Whoa, an orchestra. Cool."
MOST people? which most people? I think most in this forum actually like IT based on polls.
-
I don't say what DT being mainstream has to do with it. Orbert, by saying that DT needs to be more aware of their (more mainstream) audience, it implies that they should dumb their music down a bit for the masses. That's not very prog, is it? :P
-
DT is prog, but these days, DT is also much more mainstream,
But how have their past works been any different? I mean, personally, when I first listened to ACOS, I didn't feel the need to research what each passage represented. I just enjoyed the awesome music because it's awesome music. DT has never been that band, that begs for 'research'. The most, I would say, is SFAM, but that's only because it's obvious that there's a plot, and the lyrics don't completely spell it out. Although, if you pay attention to the lyrics, it's still easy to figure out the basics of it.
But even then, I didn't need to do any research to enjoy The Dance Of Eternity, because it's just an awesome little instrumental in the middle of the album. It's a great listen all throughout, and I don't think it requires any kind of research or analysis to be enjoyed.
So in the case of DT, that has never been the case. I mean, deeper analysis can be done with any song, with any kind of music. I can analyze Alice Cooper songs and find some awesome meaning behind certain passages, or certain songs. So it is what it is.
But that's the bottom line, is that it's music. And music can be enjoyed without having to be 'understood', which is something that may not be true for all literary works or art films. And even then, I can enjoy a well put together poem without needing to understand what it means.
That's selling short music as an art form. Also, the analysis of the meaning does not always have to be in the lyrics. The music itself has meaning, and I believe prog music has that element as it has affinity with classical music which almost always lets the music do the talking.
-
That's selling short music as an art form. Also, the analysis of the meaning does not always have to be in the lyrics. The music itself has meaning, and I believe prog music has that element as it has affinity with classical music which almost always lets the music do the talking.
First of all, again, I wasn't just talking about the lyrics. You can interpret Alice Cooper songs, and their musical passages to get deeper meaning from them as well.
And second, I don't see how enjoying the music for the sheer audio aspect of it is selling it short as an art form. A person can look at a painting and appreciate what's in front of them, without having to know about what kind of brush strokes were used, or what kind of paint it was. Art is art, and people should enjoy it in whatever way they see fit. Same with Prog music, and yes, same with Classical music. No matter how you interpret classical music, I think it's undeniable that the most famous classical pieces all have first and foremost, memorable melodies, that can be appreciated by anyone.
If you say, "Well, this type or art or this type of music needs to be interpreted," then it's you as the fan who's being elitist, not the art piece or the artist. And if the artist is the one why thinks their art needs to be interpreted, then that kind of elitism is precisely what will alienate the artist from their audience, and make them seem like a pretentious douche bag, which DT are not. I some people want to listen to DT to hear some awesome riffs and super fast solos, and that's what they want to enjoy in this band, then it's their right as a paying fan to enjoy the band on that level only.
The orchestral breakdown in IT isn't just some weird, abstract sound effects, but rather a very nice, melodic, beautiful, slow piece of music. And if people want to analyze what it means, that's fine, but it's plenty enjoyable without any kind of analysis.
-
I can analyze Alice Cooper songs and find some awesome meaning behind certain passages, or certain songs.
Quoting simply for the Alice reference!
:metal
-
I can analyze Alice Cooper songs and find some awesome meaning behind certain passages, or certain songs.
Quoting simply for the Alice reference!
:metal
:tup
-
To me, the whole idea of epics (or music in general) is that there is no set formula to what works and what doesn't, epics obviously have to have phases/transitions...well it'd take one heck of a bit of song writing to keep the same riff/feel interesting for 20+ mins.
My bigger issue certainly with IT is that they set out to make "an epic", providing parameters which must be met by default (mainly that the thing must last 18 mins+), I feel like some parts of IT are excessively drawn out as if to meet that criteria, the interlude orchestral/ambience section being one of those. Heck I sometimes think they throw in the easter egg piano part with a 30s gap at the end so that the track ends up being over 20 mins long.
But I don't believe it's a reason that recent epics have been destroyed. ITPOE I find very cool as it gives you the first part, breaks down, then the second "meatier" part comes along, weaving in small aspects of the first part up till the ending which almost repeats a section of the first part.
TCOT I've always thought to be a beautiful song and I have a bias towards it as it was the first DT epic I listened to, however I also thought it to be on par with ANTR, yet the reason it's considered an epic moreso than ANTR is because it has the breakdown and is sectioned, whilst Nightmare is less so.
Interesting argument but I see a lot more behind it than simply "they're worse because they have big long breakdowns".
-
The breakdown in "Illumination Theory" IMO doesn't seem to beg for that analysis. People don't think "Wow, then there's this ambience, then an orchestra. What can this represent? I should study the lyrics and think about this some more." Most people just think "WTF?" Or maybe "Whoa, an orchestra. Cool."
MOST people? which most people? I think most in this forum actually like IT based on polls.
I never said that people don't like the song.
-
Interesting argument but I see a lot more behind it than simply "they're worse because they have big long breakdowns".
-
I was listening to "The Count Of Tuscany" this morning as I was in the shower and I realized something about that song, as well as "In The Presence Of Enemies" and "Illumination Theory" - They all have breaks in the middle that slow-down or kill the momentum of the over-all epic.
For ITPOE, the song was broken up on the album, but even when put together, the second movement clearly ends and the wind sounds only offer a small segue between it and the third movement with the bass guitar beginning it. It feels a bit sudden and the build-up at the end of the second part loses momentum when it just...ends.
For TCOT, the ambient/guitar solo section, while beautiful, just kills the momentum a bit, but at least getting to it is a nice coast into that section, and getting out of it is a better build-up.
And for IT, the ambient/orchestra section is a bit of a buzz-kill, and the band comes back in a la "The Necromancer"-style, which is a bit jarring and sudden. But many fans find the orchestral section to be a bit out of place and killing the momentum built up by the first parts of the epic.
Now when I look back and think about "Octavarium", the song slowly builds up all the way from the beginning to the end, just up to the 4x screamed "TRAPPED INSIDE THIS OCTAVARIUM", then the climax coasts down in to the epic finish of "Razor's Edge". It's very uphill with a lot of momentum built-up to that climactic ending. "A Change Of Seasons" is a bit of a sine wave, so to speak, there nothing really slows the whole piece down or stop it dead in its tracks, but it does go up and down a bit. And "Six Degrees" is segmented in such a way that analyzing it compared to these others would be a bit unfair.
Has anyone else realized this? The thread about "where IT sits with the other epics" brought this to mind, and seeing how SDOIT, ACOS and 8VM still tend to top people's lists of DT epics, it's made me wonder why the other three would be so low, and so this all came to mind.
-Marc.
Having a slow down somewhere in the middle of a 20 minute song is not on its face what would make a song "suffer." It depends what's in the slow down section. Three minutes of volume swells in the middle of the song? Yes, that will put your audience to sleep. But that isn't the only option.
How about "Close to the Edge"? Do you think the slow down section in that song kills the momentum and causes the overall song to suffer? There is no one standard template for how to write a 20 minute song. A song does not "suffer" simply by virtue of containing a slower section in somewhere other than the beginning or end. It depends on what is in there, and how it is executed.
-
I don't say what DT being mainstream has to do with it. Orbert, by saying that DT needs to be more aware of their (more mainstream) audience, it implies that they should dumb their music down a bit for the masses. That's not very prog, is it? :P
Not only that, but if you are looking to please a more "mainstream" audience, I don't think ANY 20-minute epic is going to fit the bill. :lol
-
I don't say what DT being mainstream has to do with it. Orbert, by saying that DT needs to be more aware of their (more mainstream) audience, it implies that they should dumb their music down a bit for the masses. That's not very prog, is it? :P
Not only that, but if you are looking to please a more "mainstream" audience, I don't think ANY 20-minute epic is going to fit the bill. :lol
Captain Obvious to the rescue!! :lol
-
The breakdown in "Illumination Theory" IMO doesn't seem to beg for that analysis. People don't think "Wow, then there's this ambience, then an orchestra. What can this represent? I should study the lyrics and think about this some more." Most people just think "WTF?" Or maybe "Whoa, an orchestra. Cool."
MOST people? which most people? I think most in this forum actually like IT based on polls.
I never said that people don't like the song.
You said mot people think WTF. Please.
-
Not getting the song is not the same as not liking it.
-
My bigger issue certainly with IT is that they set out to make "an epic", providing parameters which must be met by default (mainly that the thing must last 18 mins+), I feel like some parts of IT are excessively drawn out as if to meet that criteria, the interlude orchestral/ambience section being one of those. Heck I sometimes think they throw in the easter egg piano part with a 30s gap at the end so that the track ends up being over 20 mins long.
So "they set out...providing parameters which MUST be met by default" is based purely from conjecture on what you think DT was thinking when they wrote the song?
Not getting the song is not the same as not liking it.
Because we say "What The Fuck" to songs that we like.
-
Not getting the song is not the same as not liking it.
Because we say "What The Fuck" to songs that we like.
No, not typically. But what you do not seem to grasp, is that it might be appropriate in some circumstances for people to have a confused ("WTF") reaction to a song they do not dislike.
-
Not getting the song is not the same as not liking it.
Because we say "What The Fuck" to songs that we like.
No, not typically. But what you do not seem to grasp, is that it might be appropriate in some circumstances for people to have a confused ("WTF") reaction to a song they do not dislike.
OK, if we would be anal about it and disregard that we could, using common sense, imply that a WTF reaction is most likely tied to a feeling of dislking a song, then i will just rephrase the question.
What's the basis for claiming that MOST people (meaning more than 50%) who listened to IT had a WTF reaction to the Embracing Circle?
I did not make the claim. And somehow I am the one being questioned here as if I am the one who is making a claim.
-
Within this thread, there seemed to be more people who didn't "get" the breakdown in "Illumination Theory" than those who did. I didn't actually count. Also, after the release of the album, there was of course a lot of discussion about it, and "Illumination Theory" in particular, and it seemed that most people felt that the breakdown came out of nowhere.
This is not the same as people saying they disliked it. In fact, most people seem to like it. I don't see why you're leaping to the conclusion that something confusing is automatically disliked. I've even stated that it's good to challenge the listener, and that there are pieces of music that I didn't really get until after many listens. If people are questioning you, it's because you've jumped a conclusion, and are defending it, but it's not what I said at all.
Orbert, by saying that DT needs to be more aware of their (more mainstream) audience, it implies that they should dumb their music down a bit for the masses. That's not very prog, is it? :P
Why does being aware of your audience imply that you have to dumb your music down? It seems that you too are putting words into my mouth. What I said was that they've put this complex piece of music out there, with a extended instrumental section, and if it's really meant to encourage the listener to dig deeper, maybe they could say something about it.
In all of the interviews following the release of the album, did no one ever ask about the breakdown in "Illumination Theory"? I remember hearing that there were two songs on the album with an orchestra, one of which was the epic "Illumination Theory". I'm sure the band was asked about it. What did they say? Was it just "Oh yeah, we just put it in there because we thought it sounded cool" or was it more like "Well, that section is meant to take the listener on a journey, something that fits into the theme of the song itself"? Did they even throw us a bone. I really don't know; I don't read a lot of interviews. But erwinrafael seems to think that even saying that much is "selling short music as an art form". You're supposed to just put it out there and not talk about it at all?
Classic prog bands have put out complex works that a lot of people don't get at all, but that's not the band's fault. Tales from Topographic Oceans is an 80-minute piece of music in four movements which is often held up as the epitome of prog excess, but its impetus is well documented and really, is not that hard to get. "Supper's Ready" is seven movements, well over 20 minutes total, but it too comes down to a fairly simple story, which has been explained many times.
When I said that Dream Theater needs to be more aware of their audience, I wasn't talking about dumbing down the music; I was pointing out that not everyone wants to take the time to analyze the fuck out of it in order to understand it.
-
Ambient sections are awesome. It's definitely something where it's application and presentation is very important, otherwise it'll be what we could call a 'momentum killer'. I don't think this happens in any of the Dream Theater song examples though. Also I'd never consider that these sections make a song too long. Or that the epics are bloated or 'self indulgent'. I remember a Geddy Lee interview which defended the idea of 'epics' and long songs in the sense that himself as a composer, never found it to be a kind of self indulgence or act to show off, but more considered the excitement in creating a concept that had bits and pieces that could be fitted together like a puzzle. It was just 'typical boyish enthusiasm' having fun constructing these ideas just happened to result in these 20 minute long songs. They never set out to deliberately try and be better or longer than the preconception of 'normal' songs, it is what it is, and whatever.
Anyway, back to DT. Illumination Theory, the Orchestra section was just :heart at first listen, and the ambient section preceding it, allows the Orchestra to subtly come in quite naturally in the context of such a 'full on' song. On First Impression it was probably one of my favourite moments of the album.
The Count of Tuscany's bit works aswell, the musical foreshadowing of upcoming melodies is fun but most importantly it's breathing room, up and down, acceleration and decline, tension and release. I mean the comment about A Change of Seasons kind of flowing like a sine wave, it still applies to these other examples where the 'flow' has polarising elements that were intended and necessary for the song. Of course you can focus on one side of the coin and even write a song that only focuses on one aspect (like the kind of the non stop relentless thrashy songs that most modern metal seems to stem from). But I think these sections all have their place in DTs music.
In The Presence Of Enemies break is easy enough to defend because the break was deliberately used to bookend the album. It's a presentation thing and maybe, for all we know this break could have been considered a 'momentum killer', but even if it was, the way it's presented doesn't have that effect unless you intentionally put the 2 parts together and personally feel that way. Also, I think you could argue that the change in tone relates to the storytelling elements of ALL of these songs, this song being no exception.
Six Degrees Of Inner Turbulence NEEDS Goodnight Kiss (or something like it) after The Test That Stumped Them All. Whether you like or appreciate the lyrical content or not doesn't matter. If the song was going to be any longer at that point, it needed to adjust itself to balance things out. Although I can understand it not being universally accepted because I've had music playing in the past, had a friend comment on Overture saying how amazing it sounded. By the time About To Crash came on I literally got a comment from the same guy blatantly expressing how much he thought the song sucked. I told him it was the same song that was on 5 minutes ago and he established that "they really let that one turn to shit". By the time War Inside My Head came on he said something along the lines of, "this is more like it, much better song than the last one". I told him it was the same song and he was a bit like ???. By the time it got to Goodnight Kiss I didn't hear a word out of him but he could very well have been thinking that he didn't like it. :lol
Octavarium. This one's weird because it's definitely better as a sum of a greater whole. Including the context and indirect concepts of the album in general. It took many listens to grow on me, and some of that appreciation came from being aware of certain elements in it's writing and composition that don't come across unless you analyse the song on different levels. Now, you shouldn't HAVE to do this to appreciate a song, but if this sort of content helps increase ones enjoyment of the song then ultimately there's nothing wrong with it. It just might not click with some individuals.
I think Illumination Theory is the ultimate epic for DT. It not only stands out on your first listen (like TCOT), but it has a lot of subtle bits that you wouldn't notice at first so the song can grow on you without getting repetitive. It's clearly had a lot of thought put into it's arrangement and it feels like it has something happening on a different level like Octavarium, puzzles to figure out, which gives it some intrigue and mystery. It's also a grower like ACOS in that it seems to get better the more I listen to it. I really think it's the perfect summary of everything that Dream Theater is good at. It does everything well, including the silence. Yes even the silence at the end before the outro seems to be the perfect amount of time. :millahhhh
-
Orbert, by saying that DT needs to be more aware of their (more mainstream) audience, it implies that they should dumb their music down a bit for the masses. That's not very prog, is it? :P
Why does being aware of your audience imply that you have to dumb your music down? It seems that you too are putting words into my mouth. What I said was that they've put this complex piece of music out there, with a extended instrumental section, and if it's really meant to encourage the listener to dig deeper, maybe they could say something about it.
In all of the interviews following the release of the album, did no one ever ask about the breakdown in "Illumination Theory"? I remember hearing that there were two songs on the album with an orchestra, one of which was the epic "Illumination Theory". I'm sure the band was asked about it. What did they say? Was it just "Oh yeah, we just put it in there because we thought it sounded cool" or was it more like "Well, that section is meant to take the listener on a journey, something that fits into the theme of the song itself"? Did they even throw us a bone. I really don't know; I don't read a lot of interviews. But erwinrafael seems to think that even saying that much is "selling short music as an art form". You're supposed to just put it out there and not talk about it at all?
Classic prog bands have put out complex works that a lot of people don't get at all, but that's not the band's fault. Tales from Topographic Oceans is an 80-minute piece of music in four movements which is often held up as the epitome of prog excess, but its impetus is well documented and really, is not that hard to get. "Supper's Ready" is seven movements, well over 20 minutes total, but it too comes down to a fairly simple story, which has been explained many times.
When I said that Dream Theater needs to be more aware of their audience, I wasn't talking about dumbing down the music; I was pointing out that not everyone wants to take the time to analyze the fuck out of it in order to understand it.
I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth; it just seemed like you were implying something that you say you weren't. I'll take you at your word. :)
I don't think, however, that Tales and Supper's Ready are fair comparisons. Sure, they have both been explained to death, but they have been around for 40 years!! Illumination Theory has only been around for seven months, so it hasn't had the advantage of decades of analysis and whatnot. If this were 1974 on a message board somewhere, you'd probably still have people wondering what the hell Tales is all about. :lol
Besides, even if the breakdown does come out of nowhere (which is debatable), I am not sure why that is an issue. Sudden left turns, or whatever, are a trademark of DT's music, by their own admission, so if we can assume for the sake of argument that that breakdown IS a sudden left turn, it's like the 184th sudden left turn in DT history! :lol :lol
Know what I mean? :)
-
Fair points, all.
I guess to me it's the combination of things. Maybe not everyone thinks it comes out of nowhere, but clearly some people think so, possibly most. Maybe not everyone thinks it kills the momentum up to that point, but clearly some do. But it's also a very new piece of music compared to those others I cited, and hasn't been analyzed over and over.
-
A Change of Seasons had 6 or so years of work before it was finished.
That's why it's better than the rest. It had the most time to be refined.
-
Actually there was little change until they actually recorded the EP.
-
I'm much more into prog than metal, and I think you've hit upon one of the bigger problems I have with those later epics. I think that they don't flow as well as "A Change of Seasons" or "Octavarium" in general, but I've never given much thought as to why. But I think that that's it. The mellow sections slow everything down.
Now, it's not just a simple matter of losing momentum. To me, it's just that they make the song a lot longer for -- and it's hard to put this delicately, so I won't even try -- no real reason. With both "The Count of Tuscany" and "Illumination Theory", those sections are great, and the songs wouldn't be the same without them, but they seem to come out of nowhere and in both cases, I find myself wondering when we're going to get back to the song.
Very much agree with this. This is one of the things that have always amazed me about Neal Morse's epics. Off the top of my head I can't think of any Neal-penned epics that do not flow like melted butter from one movement to the next. Kaleidoscope has a couple of minor things that sounded a little bit forced, though.
As for Dream Theater....I enjoy most of their long songs and think many of them flow just fine, but some of them are pretty herky-jerky going from one section to the next. Octavarium is like this. I think it would have made more sense to split Octavarium into separate movements in the same "suite" but that's actually a pretty minor beef. Illumination Theory -to me- is the worst offender here. I still don't get the point of it. It shares nothing in common with the main song, does nothing to carry the song forward, and -at least for me- kills the climax of the song. I thought it would be better in a live setting, but it wasn't. Too bad, because it's a good song, especially the last few minutes.
-
Isn't the theme from the first part reprised in the Embracing Circle? :huh: You may want to listen again.
It feels like IT has two climaxes, a minor and major one, the minor being the instrumental section right before the Embracing Circle. It definitely feels like that section achieves the height of its momentum and that continuing in that direction would have dragged it on a bit. It's presence was only there for exactly how long it needed to be. The orchestral section offers a breather and the sudden breakdown ending it adds immensely to the drama. Call it disjointed (which I am not denying), but that still remains one of my favorite moments from DT12 as the song plunges back into the energetic fray of things. I see it as the calm before the storm, and the subsequent sections keep building up to the song's actual climax. This is why I feel IT works so well the way it's structured. Of course, I don't really expect many to agree with me here, but those are just my 2 cents.
-
Why is everyone in this thread acting like "momentum" is the most important quality in a musical work? DT's longer pieces (yes, even ACOS) generally don't have the same intensity all the way through, and for good reason: actually keeping "momentum" going for twenty minutes is boring.
-
Momentum can mean a couple of different things. In the course of an extended piece, it's natural to have quieter moments in between heavier/faster parts. You have to have contrast; you can't just go full speed the whole way through. I agree that that gets tedious. But if the song is a journey, you want to feel like you're moving the whole time. There's a way to have some contrast or take a breather without literally stopping everything. With "Illumination Theory", everything literally just stops. I guess I'm more a fan of movements "flowing" into each other, rather than the music completely stopping, then starting up again.
-
Momentum can mean a couple of different things. In the course of an extended piece, it's natural to have quieter moments in between heavier/faster parts. You have to have contrast; you can't just go full speed the whole way through. I agree that that gets tedious. But if the song is a journey, you want to feel like you're moving the whole time. There's a way to have some contrast or take a breather without literally stopping everything. With "Illumination Theory", everything literally just stops. I guess I'm more a fan of movements "flowing" into each other, rather than the music completely stopping, then starting up again.
I agree with this. ACOS certainly has slower parts, but it flows and feels apart of the song musically and lyrically. IT doesnt seem to musically flow when it goes to the slower part. Just kind of comes to a halt.
-
Momentum can mean a couple of different things. In the course of an extended piece, it's natural to have quieter moments in between heavier/faster parts. You have to have contrast; you can't just go full speed the whole way through. I agree that that gets tedious. But if the song is a journey, you want to feel like you're moving the whole time. There's a way to have some contrast or take a breather without literally stopping everything. With "Illumination Theory", everything literally just stops. I guess I'm more a fan of movements "flowing" into each other, rather than the music completely stopping, then starting up again.
I think that's one of those things where trying to embrace the flow would be a little bit futile, though. If you want to write a song with a soft, soothing middle section, you're going to have to bring everything to a full stop - better to be brave, and bold, and daring, and have the band actually put their instruments down than to sort of keep it humming under. Illumination Theory is more of a statement, and I think that sumptuous, gorgeous moment is earned not just by the song, but by the entire album that precedes it.
I think it's the kind of thing that wouldn't be possible to do without alienating a few members of the fanbase, but I think the most powerful art is often about risk. For the people who like what they achieved, it's broken eggs in an omelette. In that sense I'm just lucky enough to be one of the people who thinks Illumination Theory is fucking gorgeous and wouldn't have it any other way. Yes, it stops! It crashes to a halt. That's the point, and it's bloody wonderful. The song stops, but the story pushes on, and it wrings every last emotion out of that orchestra, gloriously, and when the band comes back in it's like hearing them through new ears.
-
As usual, rob absolutely nails it. :tup :tup
-
Rob basically got it. Yeah, the band stops playing. The music stops being loud and heavy for a while. That's the whole point.
-
As usual, rob absolutely nails it. :tup :tup
-
Momentum can mean a couple of different things. In the course of an extended piece, it's natural to have quieter moments in between heavier/faster parts. You have to have contrast; you can't just go full speed the whole way through. I agree that that gets tedious. But if the song is a journey, you want to feel like you're moving the whole time. There's a way to have some contrast or take a breather without literally stopping everything. With "Illumination Theory", everything literally just stops. I guess I'm more a fan of movements "flowing" into each other, rather than the music completely stopping, then starting up again.
I agree with this. ACOS certainly has slower parts, but it flows and feels apart of the song musically and lyrically. IT doesnt seem to musically flow when it goes to the slower part. Just kind of comes to a halt.
-
Momentum can mean a couple of different things. In the course of an extended piece, it's natural to have quieter moments in between heavier/faster parts. You have to have contrast; you can't just go full speed the whole way through. I agree that that gets tedious. But if the song is a journey, you want to feel like you're moving the whole time. There's a way to have some contrast or take a breather without literally stopping everything. With "Illumination Theory", everything literally just stops. I guess I'm more a fan of movements "flowing" into each other, rather than the music completely stopping, then starting up again.
I think that's one of those things where trying to embrace the flow would be a little bit futile, though. If you want to write a song with a soft, soothing middle section, you're going to have to bring everything to a full stop - better to be brave, and bold, and daring, and have the band actually put their instruments down than to sort of keep it humming under. Illumination Theory is more of a statement, and I think that sumptuous, gorgeous moment is earned not just by the song, but by the entire album that precedes it.
I think it's the kind of thing that wouldn't be possible to do without alienating a few members of the fanbase, but I think the most powerful art is often about risk. For the people who like what they achieved, it's broken eggs in an omelette. In that sense I'm just lucky enough to be one of the people who thinks Illumination Theory is fucking gorgeous and wouldn't have it any other way. Yes, it stops! It crashes to a halt. That's the point, and it's bloody wonderful. The song stops, but the story pushes on, and it wrings every last emotion out of that orchestra, gloriously, and when the band comes back in it's like hearing them through new ears.
Basically this. You are a man of better words than I. :tup
-
Disagree with the OP. I feel ITPOE is by far their most intense 20+ song. The wind section or whatever is the only reprieve from petal to the metal music.
8V IMO suffers the most. A long intro of being mellow, 30 seconds minutes of rocking, then back down for 7 minutes.
-
Momentum can mean a couple of different things. In the course of an extended piece, it's natural to have quieter moments in between heavier/faster parts. You have to have contrast; you can't just go full speed the whole way through. I agree that that gets tedious. But if the song is a journey, you want to feel like you're moving the whole time. There's a way to have some contrast or take a breather without literally stopping everything. With "Illumination Theory", everything literally just stops. I guess I'm more a fan of movements "flowing" into each other, rather than the music completely stopping, then starting up again.
I agree with this. ACOS certainly has slower parts, but it flows and feels apart of the song musically and lyrically. IT doesnt seem to musically flow when it goes to the slower part. Just kind of comes to a halt.
Because the "halt" is part of the narrative of the song. From Grounded Reality to Transcendence then back to Grounded Reality. The halt marked the transition.
That said, if somebody can come up with a credible explanation of how the choochoo train transition from Another World to The Inevitable Summer in ACOs is any less out-of-left-field than the transition between the Embracing Circle and the Pursuit of Truth in IT, I would gladly quit this forum.
-
Rob basically got it. Yeah, the band stops playing. The music stops being loud and heavy for a while. That's the whole point.
Yes. Silence and ambience has a musical function too.
-
That said, if somebody can come up with a credible explanation of how the choochoo train transition from Another World to The Inevitable Summer in ACOs is any less out-of-left-field than the transition between the Embracing Circle and the Pursuit of Truth in IT, I would gladly quit this forum.
Because ACoS doesn't stop to switch genres for five minutes.
-
A Change of Seasons had 6 or so years of work before it was finished.
That's why it's better than the rest. It had the most time to be refined.
Many of those years were during the period where their songwriting skills were at their most amateurish (ie pre-IAW). A couple of weeks of songwriting from the modern band easily exceeds what the band at that time was capable of in a couple of years. Time is not a deciding factor in quality.
Despite the refinements made for the 1995 recording, the core basis of the song still strongly highlights those early flaws, and that's why it's the weakest of the bunch imo.
-
That said, if somebody can come up with a credible explanation of how the choochoo train transition from Another World to The Inevitable Summer in ACOs is any less out-of-left-field than the transition between the Embracing Circle and the Pursuit of Truth in IT, I would gladly quit this forum.
Because ACoS doesn't stop to switch genres for five minutes.
Well, you referred to a different section as you are apparently referencing Live, Die, Kill to Embracing Circle. Second, I was talking about the transitions, the point where one section led to the other, because the complaint is that the transitions did not flow well in IT while in ACOS, the transitions are smooth. I still can not understand how the ACOS transition going to The Inevitable Summer can be considered smooth, relative to IT.
And on the complaint about switching genres...that's so...un-prog?
-
Momentum can mean a couple of different things. In the course of an extended piece, it's natural to have quieter moments in between heavier/faster parts. You have to have contrast; you can't just go full speed the whole way through. I agree that that gets tedious. But if the song is a journey, you want to feel like you're moving the whole time. There's a way to have some contrast or take a breather without literally stopping everything. With "Illumination Theory", everything literally just stops. I guess I'm more a fan of movements "flowing" into each other, rather than the music completely stopping, then starting up again.
I think that's one of those things where trying to embrace the flow would be a little bit futile, though. If you want to write a song with a soft, soothing middle section, you're going to have to bring everything to a full stop - better to be brave, and bold, and daring, and have the band actually put their instruments down than to sort of keep it humming under. Illumination Theory is more of a statement, and I think that sumptuous, gorgeous moment is earned not just by the song, but by the entire album that precedes it.
I think it's the kind of thing that wouldn't be possible to do without alienating a few members of the fanbase, but I think the most powerful art is often about risk. For the people who like what they achieved, it's broken eggs in an omelette. In that sense I'm just lucky enough to be one of the people who thinks Illumination Theory is fucking gorgeous and wouldn't have it any other way. Yes, it stops! It crashes to a halt. That's the point, and it's bloody wonderful. The song stops, but the story pushes on, and it wrings every last emotion out of that orchestra, gloriously, and when the band comes back in it's like hearing them through new ears.
I actually think that the "stop" produced by the ambient portion followed by the orchestra is, ironically, a great way to "interact" with us, the listeners. Imagine if the band had done another way and/or kept the momentum flowing. Lyrically, it would seem like the band is preaching lessons to us like they know what we're going through. The questions POSED in the first movements would be killed off by the REALIZATIONS in the last because it basically talks like "Life is this, so you got to do this."
With that in mind, let us remind ourselves that the band is really ambitious to write a song ABOUT HUMANITY AND THE PURSUIT OF MEANING. They could've just told us their point of view about this straight away, but no, and that ambient-orchestral section followed by the great lyrical content of Surrender, Trust and Passion is a great way to REFLECT upon that and think about how do we want to live our own lives and how do we pursue what is meaningful to us. IMO that is MATURE songwriting.
This song could actually hit you close to home if you understand anything about Existentialism, Nihilism and THE HUMAN CONDITION. If not, you could google it. :)
-
A Change of Seasons had 6 or so years of work before it was finished.
That's why it's better than the rest. It had the most time to be refined.
Many of those years were during the period where their songwriting skills were at their most amateurish (ie pre-IAW). A couple of weeks of songwriting from the modern band easily exceeds what the band at that time was capable of in a couple of years. Time is not a deciding factor in quality.
Despite the refinements made for the 1995 recording, the core basis of the song still strongly highlights those early flaws, and that's why it's the weakest of the bunch imo.
Well, I know we disagree. I find the immaturity in DT's earlier music charming, and adds to the experience of listening to it.
-
That said, if somebody can come up with a credible explanation of how the choochoo train transition from Another World to The Inevitable Summer in ACOs is any less out-of-left-field than the transition between the Embracing Circle and the Pursuit of Truth in IT, I would gladly quit this forum.
Because ACoS doesn't stop to switch genres for five minutes.
There ya go. I was thinking the same thing and did mention it previously. ACOS is a very well thought out and executed stretch of music. The transitions don't stray too far from the overall theme. IT is just all over the place. It sounds like a collection of certain passages from previous songs on other albums. It's like The Shattered Fortress of 20+ min epics, but they forgot the "epic" part.
That said, if somebody can come up with a credible explanation of how the choochoo train transition from Another World to The Inevitable Summer in ACOs is any less out-of-left-field than the transition between the Embracing Circle and the Pursuit of Truth in IT, I would gladly quit this forum.
Because ACoS doesn't stop to switch genres for five minutes.
And on the complaint about switching genres...that's so...un-prog?
Yeah, I think he meant it went from prog to un-prog.
-
Yeah, I think he meant it went from prog to un-prog.
But the whole idea of switching genres mid-song is a very prog thing to do in itself. So that doesn't make sense at all.
-
Yeah, I think he meant it went from prog to un-prog.
But the whole idea of switching genres mid-song is a very prog thing to do in itself. So that doesn't make sense at all.
Exactly.
Besides, progressive rock/metal is a fancy term for symphonic rock, so the middle section sounding like something out of a classical piece of music is arguably one of the most prog things they've ever done.
-
I think you guys missed the point. I wouldn't say it's necessarily about genre change persay. It's more about the transition as it relates to the content of the song. The classical type stuff is fine and worked great in SDOIT Overture because it set the template for what the entire song was doing. At the same time, using guitars, bass and drums. IT just slaps ambient keys into the middle of the song out of nowhere and it doesn't sound anything like the rest of the song. I also think TCOT suffers from this as well but not as much. In fact, I have no idea what IT is trying to do in it's entirety. Each section of the song reminds me of something I've already heard before. It sounds like a 22 min collection of cut & paste. Reminds me more of a Schmedley Wilcox than an epic album closer.
-
Yeah, I think he meant it went from prog to un-prog.
But the whole idea of switching genres mid-song is a very prog thing to do in itself. So that doesn't make sense at all.
Exactly.
Besides, progressive rock/metal is a fancy term for symphonic rock, so the middle section sounding like something out of a classical piece of music is arguably one of the most prog things they've ever done.
That's reaching.
-
Agreed. I'm pretty sure that most bands known for their symphonic rock would be surprised to learn that they've been playing prog metal all this time.
-
Agreed. I'm pretty sure that most bands known for their symphonic rock would be surprised to learn that they've been playing prog metal all this time.
Although Epica, I would definitely say is a Symphonic Prog Metal band.
-
I just listened to Illumination Theory and ACOS today. ACOS is superior in every way from beginning to end. The Inevitable Summer is probably one of the best pieces of guitar work I've ever heard from JP. Some say their songwriting skills were amateurish back then. I don't think so. They were at the top of their game and continued to be for about a 10 year stretch up through 8VM. After that, I don't think they have payed attention to the songwriting as much. They've been too busy touring and that has been the main focus. Not saying they can't write songs anymore. They just aren't devoting as much time to it.
-
I think you guys missed the point. I wouldn't say it's necessarily about genre change persay. It's more about the transition as it relates to the content of the song. The classical type stuff is fine and worked great in SDOIT Overture because it set the template for what the entire song was doing. At the same time, using guitars, bass and drums. IT just slaps ambient keys into the middle of the song out of nowhere and it doesn't sound anything like the rest of the song. I also think TCOT suffers from this as well but not as much. In fact, I have no idea what IT is trying to do in it's entirety. Each section of the song reminds me of something I've already heard before. It sounds like a 22 min collection of cut & paste. Reminds me more of a Schmedley Wilcox than an epic album closer.
So you have read through this whole thread and despite all the explanations, you still think there is no coherence in IT? Still no purpose for the ambient and classical section?
-
I just listened to Illumination Theory and ACOS today. ACOS is superior in every way from beginning to end.
Well, if SCOS suits your personal musical preferences more, then you have every right to feel that way, but the lyrics? Come on. Regardless of the sentimental meaning behind the lyrics of ACOS, they actually weren't that well written. By any standards.
-
I think you guys missed the point. I wouldn't say it's necessarily about genre change persay. It's more about the transition as it relates to the content of the song. The classical type stuff is fine and worked great in SDOIT Overture because it set the template for what the entire song was doing. At the same time, using guitars, bass and drums. IT just slaps ambient keys into the middle of the song out of nowhere and it doesn't sound anything like the rest of the song. I also think TCOT suffers from this as well but not as much. In fact, I have no idea what IT is trying to do in it's entirety. Each section of the song reminds me of something I've already heard before. It sounds like a 22 min collection of cut & paste. Reminds me more of a Schmedley Wilcox than an epic album closer.
I don't think we missed a single trick.
-
Yeah, I think he meant it went from prog to un-prog.
But the whole idea of switching genres mid-song is a very prog thing to do in itself. So that doesn't make sense at all.
Exactly.
-
Fine. Halfway through the song is a drastic progressive change in style that makes the song less enjoyable for many.
-
Fine. Halfway through the song is a drastic progressive change in style that makes the song less enjoyable for many.
And it also makes it MORE enjoyable for many.
-
The Count of Tuscany is damn near perfect in my eyes. Every time I finish it, I feel happy about myself, and life. The ambient middle is full of melancholic dread, and then from the moment the acoustic kicks in, the whole thing is just classic DT.
Starts off as creepy and angry, then becomes so unabashed in its optimism that I can't help but love it. Surprised to see such criticism, honestly. It is unimaginable to me that anybody could finish that song and not love it. It's gorgeous, and the simplistic, child-like lyrics only add to its romantic quality.
-
The Count of Tuscany is damn near perfect in my eyes. Every time I finish it, I feel happy about myself, and life. The ambient middle is full of melancholic dread, and then from the moment the acoustic kicks in, the whole thing is just classic DT.
Starts off as creepy and angry, then becomes so unabashed in its optimism that I can't help but love it. Surprised to see such criticism, honestly. It is unimaginable to me that anybody could finish that song and not love it. It's gorgeous, and the simplistic, child-like lyrics only add to its romantic quality.
:clap:
You're new but I like you already. :biggrin:
-
I think you guys missed the point. I wouldn't say it's necessarily about genre change persay. It's more about the transition as it relates to the content of the song. The classical type stuff is fine and worked great in SDOIT Overture because it set the template for what the entire song was doing. At the same time, using guitars, bass and drums. IT just slaps ambient keys into the middle of the song out of nowhere and it doesn't sound anything like the rest of the song. I also think TCOT suffers from this as well but not as much. In fact, I have no idea what IT is trying to do in it's entirety. Each section of the song reminds me of something I've already heard before. It sounds like a 22 min collection of cut & paste. Reminds me more of a Schmedley Wilcox than an epic album closer.
So you have read through this whole thread and despite all the explanations, you still think there is no coherence in IT? Still no purpose for the ambient and classical section?
Just because someone wrote up an essay on it, doesn't mean everyone is going to agree with the interpretation, or suddenly decide the song works. Just saying.
-
I think you guys missed the point. I wouldn't say it's necessarily about genre change persay. It's more about the transition as it relates to the content of the song. The classical type stuff is fine and worked great in SDOIT Overture because it set the template for what the entire song was doing. At the same time, using guitars, bass and drums. IT just slaps ambient keys into the middle of the song out of nowhere and it doesn't sound anything like the rest of the song. I also think TCOT suffers from this as well but not as much. In fact, I have no idea what IT is trying to do in it's entirety. Each section of the song reminds me of something I've already heard before. It sounds like a 22 min collection of cut & paste. Reminds me more of a Schmedley Wilcox than an epic album closer.
So you have read through this whole thread and despite all the explanations, you still think there is no coherence in IT? Still no purpose for the ambient and classical section?
Just because someone wrote up an essay on it, doesn't mean everyone is going to agree with the interpretation, or suddenly decide the song works. Just saying.
I can see this very quickly devolving into a "that's just, like, your opinion man" discussion. :lol
-
I think you guys missed the point. I wouldn't say it's necessarily about genre change persay. It's more about the transition as it relates to the content of the song. The classical type stuff is fine and worked great in SDOIT Overture because it set the template for what the entire song was doing. At the same time, using guitars, bass and drums. IT just slaps ambient keys into the middle of the song out of nowhere and it doesn't sound anything like the rest of the song. I also think TCOT suffers from this as well but not as much. In fact, I have no idea what IT is trying to do in it's entirety. Each section of the song reminds me of something I've already heard before. It sounds like a 22 min collection of cut & paste. Reminds me more of a Schmedley Wilcox than an epic album closer.
So you have read through this whole thread and despite all the explanations, you still think there is no coherence in IT? Still no purpose for the ambient and classical section?
Just because someone wrote up an essay on it, doesn't mean everyone is going to agree with the interpretation, or suddenly decide the song works. Just saying.
Sure, disagreement with interpretations, or on whether DT executed well its what it was trying to do in IT, is fine. But "In fact, I have no idea what IT is trying to do in it's entirety." after everything that's been discusssed here is quite a stretch if one is actually listening to what the others are saying.
-
I think you guys missed the point. I wouldn't say it's necessarily about genre change persay. It's more about the transition as it relates to the content of the song. The classical type stuff is fine and worked great in SDOIT Overture because it set the template for what the entire song was doing. At the same time, using guitars, bass and drums. IT just slaps ambient keys into the middle of the song out of nowhere and it doesn't sound anything like the rest of the song. I also think TCOT suffers from this as well but not as much. In fact, I have no idea what IT is trying to do in it's entirety. Each section of the song reminds me of something I've already heard before. It sounds like a 22 min collection of cut & paste. Reminds me more of a Schmedley Wilcox than an epic album closer.
So you have read through this whole thread and despite all the explanations, you still think there is no coherence in IT? Still no purpose for the ambient and classical section?
Just because someone wrote up an essay on it, doesn't mean everyone is going to agree with the interpretation, or suddenly decide the song works. Just saying.
Sure, disagreement with interpretations, or on whether DT executed well its what it was trying to do in IT, is fine. But "In fact, I have no idea what IT is trying to do in it's entirety." after everything that's been discusssed here is quite a stretch if one is actually listening to what the others are saying.
An interpretation is just an opinion though. If one disagrees with that particular opinion, then the point fully remains.
-
I think you guys missed the point. I wouldn't say it's necessarily about genre change persay. It's more about the transition as it relates to the content of the song. The classical type stuff is fine and worked great in SDOIT Overture because it set the template for what the entire song was doing. At the same time, using guitars, bass and drums. IT just slaps ambient keys into the middle of the song out of nowhere and it doesn't sound anything like the rest of the song. I also think TCOT suffers from this as well but not as much. In fact, I have no idea what IT is trying to do in it's entirety. Each section of the song reminds me of something I've already heard before. It sounds like a 22 min collection of cut & paste. Reminds me more of a Schmedley Wilcox than an epic album closer.
So you have read through this whole thread and despite all the explanations, you still think there is no coherence in IT? Still no purpose for the ambient and classical section?
Just because someone wrote up an essay on it, doesn't mean everyone is going to agree with the interpretation, or suddenly decide the song works. Just saying.
Sure, disagreement with interpretations, or on whether DT executed well its what it was trying to do in IT, is fine. But "In fact, I have no idea what IT is trying to do in it's entirety." after everything that's been discusssed here is quite a stretch if one is actually listening to what the others are saying.
An interpretation is just an opinion though. If one disagrees with that particular opinion, then the point fully remains.
So even the point that the lyrics in The Pursuit of Truth gives the answers to the questions in Live, Die, Kill is STILL subject to disagreement? that we can still say that we have no idea what Illumination Theory is trying to do IN ITS ENTIRETY?
-
An interpretation is just an opinion though. If one disagrees with that particular opinion, then the point fully remains.
I don't see the point of disagreeing with someone's interpretation, unless the person disagreeing had a different interpretation of their own. And if that's the case, then they should be able to put their own context on why the musical piece is structured the way it is.
-
So even the point that the lyrics in The Pursuit of Truth gives the answers to the questions in Live, Die, Kill is STILL subject to disagreement? that we can still say that we have no idea what Illumination Theory is trying to do IN ITS ENTIRETY?
We get it, you wrote up an interpretation. It doesn't magically make IT work as a song to those who feel it doesn't flow or work successfully as a song.
An interpretation is just an opinion though. If one disagrees with that particular opinion, then the point fully remains.
I don't see the point of disagreeing with someone's interpretation, unless the person disagreeing had a different interpretation of their own. And if that's the case, then they should be able to put their own context on why the musical piece is structured the way it is.
One can disagree with an interpretation without needing a counter-interpretation.
-
One can disagree with an interpretation without needing a counter-interpretation.
That just sounds like stubbornness. Sort of a, "Until I hear the band tell us exactly what it's about, I won't accept any theories." Therefore until the band breaks it down, you just keep assuming it's all random stuff pieced together for the hell of it... Except, any real Dream Theater fan should know that's not how they do things, especially when they go so far out of their way to talk about how proud they are of this song. Clearly there's a method to the madness, and if people can't see it, or if they think that the band would actually just throw some ideas together without a thought, then I feel like that person doesn't know the band very well at all.
Personally, I could care less if a song sounds 'disjointed.' Having so many different musical ideas in one song is a major part of what makes DT awesome. I don't even need to understand the context of it.
-
One can disagree with an interpretation without needing a counter-interpretation.
That just sounds like stubbornness. Sort of a, "Until I hear the band tell us exactly what it's about, I won't accept any theories." Therefore until the band breaks it down, you just keep assuming it's all random stuff pieced together for the hell of it... Except, any real Dream Theater fan should know that's not how they do things, especially when they go so far out of their way to talk about how proud they are of this song. Clearly there's a method to the madness, and if people can't see it, or if they think that the band would actually just throw some ideas together without a thought, then I feel like that person doesn't know the band very well at all.
That is completely off base to what I was saying. It's not a case of "this interpretation is correct until someone comes up with a better one". This is music, not science. An interpretation is completely self contained. I can read it, look at it in context, and decide whether I think it fits, and if I don't, then I can disagree with it. I don't need to have my own interpretation to believe that another one is wrong. And even agreeing with the lyrical interpretation, it doesn't change how effective the song works.
I think it's stubbornness that people can't accept that regardless of one theory/opinion that has been put forward, that people are allowed to have an equally valid opinion that the song is disjointed and not cohesive.
-
I think it's stubbornness that people can't accept that regardless of one theory/opinion that has been put forward, that people are allowed to have an equally valid opinion that the song is disjointed and not cohesive.
Sure. But personally, when its disjointedness had been brought up, or when people said, "the ambient section kills momentum" or whatever, and I said something like, "The exact same thing occurs in SDOIT," there's always some excuse as to why SDOIT is better. Whether it's the context, or whatever. I just don't see why SDOIT gets a free pass, just because we know what it's about? The simple fact is, it's another piece of music that has all the same "flaws" that IT has. I'm not saying these people need to feel the exact same way about SDOIT, but I'm saying that if I think that SDOIT suffers from these flaws just as much, then suddenly they try to change my opinion about that. And then they complain when we do the same about IT.
Here's a fact: SDOIT is just as disjointed as IT. If you like SDOIT in spite of that, that's fine, you're well within your rights to do so. But don't talk about IT as if it's more flawed, just because it doesn't suit your personal tastes.
-
I don't really mind the supposed structural weaknesses of TCOT as prog epics are supposed to screw around with traditional ideas of structure anyway. I like the fairytale storyline, the emotions it evokes within my consciousness, and it makes the time fly by, whereas with some shorter songs, I'm counting the minutes.
-
I think it's stubbornness that people can't accept that regardless of one theory/opinion that has been put forward, that people are allowed to have an equally valid opinion that the song is disjointed and not cohesive.
Sure. But personally, when its disjointedness had been brought up, or when people said, "the ambient section kills momentum" or whatever, and I said something like, "The exact same thing occurs in SDOIT," there's always some excuse as to why SDOIT is better. Whether it's the context, or whatever. I just don't see why SDOIT gets a free pass, just because we know what it's about? The simple fact is, it's another piece of music that has all the same "flaws" that IT has. I'm not saying these people need to feel the exact same way about SDOIT, but I'm saying that if I think that SDOIT suffers from these flaws just as much, then suddenly they try to change my opinion about that. And then they complain when we do the same about IT.
Here's a fact: SDOIT is just as disjointed as IT. If you like SDOIT in spite of that, that's fine, you're well within your rights to do so. But don't talk about IT as if it's more flawed, just because it doesn't suit your personal tastes.
Execution is a big part of anything working. There's honestly not THAT much difference between the demo and studio version of Take Away My Pain, but they're crucial enough differences that the demo version is one of my favorite Dream Theater ballads ever and the studio is one of my least favorite tracks on FII. I love both 6DoIT and IT (Myung's bass coming in after the orchestra might be the best part of DT12) but it's perfectly human to have one work for you and the other not based on nothing scientific or specific, but gut instinct. That's the same reason, and again I love Illumination Theory and think erwinraefael's analysis is interesting, I don't think an analysis of the lyrics' themes is honestly going to convince anyone that the pacing of an instrumental transition suddenly works for them. It's an instinctive thing.
-
I think it's stubbornness that people can't accept that regardless of one theory/opinion that has been put forward, that people are allowed to have an equally valid opinion that the song is disjointed and not cohesive.
Sure. But personally, when its disjointedness had been brought up, or when people said, "the ambient section kills momentum" or whatever, and I said something like, "The exact same thing occurs in SDOIT," there's always some excuse as to why SDOIT is better. Whether it's the context, or whatever. I just don't see why SDOIT gets a free pass, just because we know what it's about? The simple fact is, it's another piece of music that has all the same "flaws" that IT has. I'm not saying these people need to feel the exact same way about SDOIT, but I'm saying that if I think that SDOIT suffers from these flaws just as much, then suddenly they try to change my opinion about that. And then they complain when we do the same about IT.
Here's a fact: SDOIT is just as disjointed as IT. If you like SDOIT in spite of that, that's fine, you're well within your rights to do so. But don't talk about IT as if it's more flawed, just because it doesn't suit your personal tastes.
It has nothing to do with "knowing what it's about". The music remains the same, and the lyrical context doesn't necessarily change that, even though it can.
It's funny how SDOIT being disjointed is a "fact", and to think otherwise is an "excuse", yet if someone has the same opinion of IT, they're being a hypocrite ignoring interpretations and being stubborn, and must write a counter-essay to back up their opinion.
I have never seen SDOIT get a free pass on anything, so I don't see any basis here for claiming a bias in the general fanbase.
Nothing here is fact, it's all opinion. They're all executed in very different ways, some more successfully than others. If one works better than another, then there's no contradiction, or excuse, it's plain and simple opinion, because this is music! What works in one song does not automatically work in another. As our new friend Ambassador GKar points out, even a minor change can make all the difference to the listener.
SDOIT has a sustained chord at the end of a song, then as the chord fades out, the next section starts over the top of that several seconds later, utilizing that sustained chord as chordal/textural backing as the clean guitar comes in. It's a short break in the sense that there isn't continuity of tempo/meter, but there is a continuity in that the band is still playing throughout the transition without break, and the sense of music/key/note is maintained, working on both ends (all imo of course, as is the following opinion of IT).
IT fades out a chord, but then plays wind chime samples for one and a half minutes, then eventually an orchestral section comes in. For me that is one and a half minutes of dead space, no music, no band. I get the feeling they were browsing a sample collection in the studio and thought it sounded neat, so they stuck it in there. How that might fit into a "concept" doesn't change that for me at all. I love what comes before and after the break, but I don't like the break.
If you can't see how people *might* just differentiate those two sections as listeners, you're not listening to music very hard. You're entitled to whatever opinion you want on both songs, that's not the issue, but the two opinions do not have to be related for anyone.
-
So even the point that the lyrics in The Pursuit of Truth gives the answers to the questions in Live, Die, Kill is STILL subject to disagreement? that we can still say that we have no idea what Illumination Theory is trying to do IN ITS ENTIRETY?
We get it, you wrote up an interpretation. It doesn't magically make IT work as a song to those who feel it doesn't flow or work successfully as a song.
WHERE THE HELL IN MY POSTS IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE DID I PUSH MY INTERPRETATION? Please, Blob, show me. What is the context of my latest posts? That somebody claimed that "In fact, I have no idea what IT is trying to do in it's entirety." EMPHASIS: IN ITS ENTIRETY. Somebody can not make a sense of Illumination Theory IN ITS ENTIRETY. As if saying that nothing makes logical sense in the whole song, IN ITS ENTIRETY. Did I direct him to my interpretation? NO.
Am I the one who made a hyperbolic claim? NO. But somehow I am the one who is being stubborn here.
-
It has nothing to do with "knowing what it's about". The music remains the same, and the lyrical context doesn't necessarily change that, even though it can.
Well, in that case, SDOIT has no excuses. If people think that IT is more cohesive, then they have every right to think that.
It's funny how SDOIT being disjointed is a "fact", and to think otherwise is an "excuse", yet if someone has the same opinion of IT, they're being a hypocrite ignoring interpretations and being stubborn, and must write a counter-essay to back up their opinion.
Hey, IT is disjointed too. Except it's a stupid term with a negative connotation that doesn't apply to either. There's nothing wrong with having some disjointedness in a song. It works in both cases, IMO.
Although when I'm talking about SDOIT's disjointedness, I'm talking about some of the more abrupt transitions it has, rather than how it chooses to go into the slow section. Either way, I'm not gonna argue if it's good or bad, I'm just saying, it's there. Everything negative that's being said about IT, could easily be said about SDOIT.
I have never seen SDOIT get a free pass on anything, so I don't see any basis here for claiming a bias in the general fanbase.
What about the OP? Basically saying, "there's a slow break in the middle that kills the momentum, this is why the latest three epics suffer, and ACOS, 8VM and SDOIT don't."
-
(https://persephonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/costanza-popcorn.gif)
-
I have never seen SDOIT get a free pass on anything, so I don't see any basis here for claiming a bias in the general fanbase.
What about the OP? Basically saying, "there's a slow break in the middle that kills the momentum, this is why the latest three epics suffer, and ACOS, 8VM and SDOIT don't."
Because a "break" is being used here as a fairly general term to cover many concepts. I don't think ACOS and Octavarium have a break in the same sense as IT does (TCOT is arguable). They're different issues, both of which can work in some cases, and not work in others.
It comes down to what part of the flow is being "broken"? ACOS's transitions are instantaneous changes in tempo, but the music soldiers on, with no pauses. Those to me are jarring transitions, but not what I'd call a break. I'm not a fan of ACOS due to those transitions, so I'm not arguing that makes it better, or even worse. Just different.
TTTSTA > GK is a break in tempo with a continuity of music/key. GK > Solitary Shell is a break in music with a continuation of drums/tempo. I understand how people feel those break the flow too much. They work for me. Each to their own!
TCOT is more borderline, with a longer break in tempo, but I still feel a strong continuity of music through the pads continuing, and then soon after the guitar swell melody. It is the closest to IT out of the bunch, but it's a much more musical break, and that whole section itself is intentionally freeform/loose for timing in the guitar melodies, so they couldn't have continued the tempo into the section anyway. That's a big difference to why it works for me. It has to lose the tempo, because it's a musical section that has none. Usually that kind of style is reserved for the start of DT's songs, rather than smack bang in the middle.
Then we come to IT itself. To me that section is a break in every regard. It stops dead in its tracks for me. A break in tempo, a break in musicality, a break in tone, just samples. I'm not hearing any part of the band as I do in every other instance. That doesn't hold the song together well enough for me.
But there is an obvious comparison in structure between those latter two songs, and I get why you take issue with the OP saying IT suffers in clear ways that TCOT doesn't. I think there's a definable difference, but the comparison is wide open.
-
Because a "break" is being used here as a fairly general term to cover many concepts. I don't think ACOS and Octavarium have a break in the same sense as IT does (TCOT is arguable). They're different issues, both of which can work in some cases, and not work in others.
It comes down to what part of the flow is being "broken"? ACOS's transitions are instantaneous changes in tempo, but the music soldiers on, with no pauses. Those to me are jarring transitions, but not what I'd call a break. I'm not a fan of ACOS due to those transitions, so I'm not arguing that makes it better, or even worse. Just different.
TTTSTA > GK is a break in tempo with a continuity of music/key. GK > Solitary Shell is a break in music with a continuation of drums/tempo. I understand how people feel those break the flow too much. They work for me. Each to their own!
TCOT is more borderline, with a longer break in tempo, but I still feel a strong continuity of music through the pads continuing, and then soon after the guitar swell melody. It is the closest to IT out of the bunch, but it's a much more musical break, and that whole section itself is intentionally freeform/loose for timing in the guitar melodies, so they couldn't have continued the tempo into the section anyway. That's a big difference to why it works for me. It has to lose the tempo, because it's a musical section that has none. Usually that kind of style is reserved for the start of DT's songs, rather than smack bang in the middle.
Then we come to IT itself. To me that section is a break in every regard. It stops dead in its tracks for me. A break in tempo, a break in musicality, a break in tone, just samples. I'm not hearing any part of the band as I do in every other instance. That doesn't hold the song together well enough for me.
But there is an obvious comparison in structure between those latter two songs, and I get why you take issue with the OP saying IT suffers in clear ways that TCOT doesn't. I think there's a definable difference, but the comparison is wide open.
But wait... Did I read something wrong? Or didn't the OP say that TCOT suffers as well. Wasn't their whole argument that ITPOE, TCOT and IT suffer the way their previous mega-epics don't.
Frankly, I don't think any of them suffer. Yes, IT halts it completely and does something the previous epics don't, by breaking the flow of the music completely, but it's the direction the song took, and let's hypothetically say they separated it into two tracks, suddenly, there wouldn't be anymore "break in the flow" because it would be a start of a new song, for all intents and purposes, like ITPOE. Does that suddenly make it better? Does it change the composition in any way? No. It's still the same notes, played and mixed in exactly the same way. So ultimately, the question is, is the music itself good? And if people don't like it, that's all there is to it. But to say that there's something inherently wrong with the song because of the direction the band chose for it... Just rubs me the wrong way.
Also, when we're talking about the song being disjointed and stuff, as I recall, that break that goes into the orchestral section isn't the only thing people are talking about. They say things like "it feels like a bunch of ideas haphazardly thrown together".
-
You're right, the OP does mention TCOT on the negative. Either way, I stand by my own opinion on the matter. I think it works there effectively.
As for the opinion of IT feeling like a lot of ideas thrown together, maybe it is a bit that way, but I think all of their epics have that element, and usually to great effect. Of course a 20+ minute song is going to have a lot of changes. I expect that, and I want that from those long songs.
The only one I feel suffers for that is ACOS, because I don't feel the connection between the pieces as I do for the rest, and it doesn't feel like it was written as one piece. There are enough musical themes to tie most of the rest together. Octavarium in particular has strong common threads running through every single section that makes it clear it's the same song.
Hypothetically splitting IT wouldn't change anything for me based on my issue with the song, so I'd still judge it the same way, much in the same way that splitting SDOIT as a song or a suite or whatever you want to call it doesn't change what that is to me. It's still the same chunk of music. Enjoy it with your ears, not with a checklist. :P
-
You're right, the OP does mention TCOT on the negative. Either way, I stand by my own opinion on the matter. I think it works there effectively.
As for the opinion of IT feeling like a lot of ideas thrown together, maybe it is a bit that way, but I think all of their epics have that element, and usually to great effect. Of course a 20+ minute song is going to have a lot of changes. I expect that, and I want that from those long songs.
Exactly! To say that IT is wrong for being like that is to deny DT their own DTness.
There are enough musical themes to tie most of the rest together. Octavarium in particular has strong common threads running through every single section that makes it clear it's the same song.
It may seem that way, but imagine playing a segment of Medicate for someone who never listened to DT, and then playing Full Circle, and try to see how many people would guess that it's actually one song. :lol
-
You're right, the OP does mention TCOT on the negative. Either way, I stand by my own opinion on the matter. I think it works there effectively.
As for the opinion of IT feeling like a lot of ideas thrown together, maybe it is a bit that way, but I think all of their epics have that element, and usually to great effect. Of course a 20+ minute song is going to have a lot of changes. I expect that, and I want that from those long songs.
Exactly! To say that IT is wrong for being like that is to deny DT their own DTness.
Yes, but again, it's all in the execution rather than the concept. Sticking lots of different sections together is not a problem, but then there's the fully subjective issue of whether or not is was effective. It's not always quantifiable beyond just feeling one works and one doesn't either. How does a blistering speed Sonic the Hedgehog solo work in the middle of Metropolis? Who cares? It just does! :lol
There are enough musical themes to tie most of the rest together. Octavarium in particular has strong common threads running through every single section that makes it clear it's the same song.
It may seem that way, but imagine playing a segment of Medicate for someone who never listened to DT, and then playing Full Circle, and try to see how many people would guess that it's actually one song. :lol
It's clear if you listen to it as a whole and actually hear all of those themes! Full Circle may be the one part that is an exception to that though. I could probably find two parts of any DT song over 8 minutes and get the same response though. I could take any two parts of ACOS and a new listener wouldn't know they were the same song. I wouldn't want to deny DT their DTness!
-
Wait, Blob, how exactly does the, what you call, the wind chimes section have no music? Seriously? By any definition of the word, that is music. To say otherwise seems rather silly, if you ask me.
-
Wait, Blob, how exactly does the, what you call, the wind chimes section have no music? Seriously? By any definition of the word, that is music. To say otherwise seems rather silly, if you ask me.
It's barely, at best. It's wind chimes and birds chirping. The band isn't playing anything, for a minute and a half. If I stepped outside (it could happen one day!) and heard the same noises, I wouldn't consider it music.
-
Yes, but again, it's all in the execution rather than the concept. Sticking lots of different sections together is not a problem, but then there's the fully subjective issue of whether or not is was effective. It's not always quantifiable beyond just feeling one works and one doesn't either. How does a blistering speed Sonic the Hedgehog solo work in the middle of Metropolis? Who cares? It just does! :lol
Again, I'm compelled to say, EXACTLY!
The point is, you can't say, "IT is bad because it sounds like a bunch of unconnected ideas thrown together" isn't really a valid statement if you like ACOS or SDOIT. But to say, "This time, I don't like how it came out" is a different story.
It's clear if you listen to it as a whole and actually hear all of those themes! Full Circle may be the one part that is an exception to that though. I could probably find two parts of any DT song over 8 minutes and get the same response though. I could take any two parts of ACOS and a new listener wouldn't know they were the same song. I wouldn't want to deny DT their DTness!
Of course, if we're only analyzing recurring themes, than one might confuse Through My Words with Through Her Eyes, since they both share the same underlying piano. Heck, people might assume that The Mirror and Space-Dye Vest are somehow connected. :lol Or vice versa, if someone is familiar with those two instances, then who's to say whether the recurring themes in 8VM don't come from different songs?
-
Yes, but again, it's all in the execution rather than the concept. Sticking lots of different sections together is not a problem, but then there's the fully subjective issue of whether or not is was effective. It's not always quantifiable beyond just feeling one works and one doesn't either. How does a blistering speed Sonic the Hedgehog solo work in the middle of Metropolis? Who cares? It just does! :lol
Again, I'm compelled to say, EXACTLY!
The point is, you can't say, "IT is bad because it sounds like a bunch of unconnected ideas thrown together" isn't really a valid statement if you like ACOS or SDOIT. But to say, "This time, I don't like how it came out" is a different story.
That's kind of implied by speaking about a song though. It doesn't have to imply anything negative about that particular trait. It's a perfectly fine way to present the opinion, and I don't think it needs to be worded differently to be acceptable. I can say "I dislike song A because of the samples" and then say "I love song B because of the samples" without needing to specify that liking or disliking a song isn't inherent to the use of samples at all. It's not objective enough to need such specificity.
-
That's kind of implied by speaking about a song though. It doesn't have to imply anything negative about that particular trait. It's a perfectly fine way to present the opinion, and I don't think it needs to be worded differently to be acceptable. I can say "I dislike song A because of the samples" and then say "I love song B because of the samples" without needing to specify that liking or disliking a song isn't inherent to the use of samples at all. It's not objective enough to need such specificity.
Okay, but look at it this way, there's a difference between saying, "I dislike song A because of the samples" and "I dislike song A because it has samples". The first one implies that those particular samples don't appeal to this person, while the second one implies that this person doesn't approve of any samples, period, which is why the song isn't good.
But if someone said, "I like Space-Dye Vest," but then they said, "But I dislike Honor Thy Father because it has samples," then they're implying that samples are a bad thing, yet they like a song that's notorious for samples. The only way that would make sense to me is if they said, "I dislike samples, but I like Space-Dye Vest in spite of it having samples."
-
Okay, but look at it this way, there's a difference between saying, "I dislike song A because of the samples" and "I dislike song A because it has samples". The first one implies that those particular samples don't appeal to this person, while the second one implies that this person doesn't approve of any samples, period, which is why the song isn't good.
But if someone said, "I like Space-Dye Vest," but then they said, "But I dislike Honor Thy Father because it has samples," then they're implying that samples are a bad thing, yet they like a song that's notorious for samples. The only way that would make sense to me is if they said, "I dislike samples, but I like Space-Dye Vest in spite of it having samples."
I get your point, but I think you're over-analyzing people's criticisms in this thread. :lol I think the intent of their comments are clear.
-
What a clusterfuck. DTF never disappoints. :lol
I would just like to say that I really get tired of seeing the word "disjointed" used as a criticism of DT's music. Virtually every one of their songs that are at least, say, 6 minutes long has different sections that don't necessarily go together naturally. "Disjointed" is a feature of their songs. If you don't like "disjointed" then maybe this isn't the band for you. Let it go. Find other reasons for why you dislike song X.
-
What a clusterfuck. DTF never disappoints. :lol
Yeah! Maaaaaan!
I agree we should start moving away from "disjointed," but I don't know if DT's music is innately disjointed. Disjointed sort of has a negative connotation, a sense that they couldn't be bothered to include a flow, but I think DT generally tend to nail it. There's usually a drive and a forward momentum - and even when there isn't, nobody can really agree which songs they are!
I think that's probably why we have so many disagreements about what jointedness is. Scarred is pasted together in a way that sounds incoherent, to me - those ideas are sandwiched together in a way that, to my ears, doesn't belong. It's not the sudden changes that bother me, they've got some really bloody good sudden changes in other songs, so the suddenness can't possibly be the problem. It's just that those particular musical ideas sit awkwardly, like a crooked smile. I don't hear the development, it's not ploughing forward, it's going forward then backwards and sideways and despite some great riffs I just get lost. It's like it's making progress and then we're back to "Blood hear me" again. I thought we'd moved on. I'd moved on!
Which I think is the same thing The Great Pretender was getting at with this post - "IT is bad because it sounds like a bunch of unconnected ideas thrown together" isn't really a valid statement if you like ACOS or SDOIT. But to say, "This time, I don't like how it came out" is a different story.
I don't agree with that, I don't think any of those songs sound like a bunch of disconnected ideas thrown together, I think all three are connected as fuck - but I get that people spend a lot of time criticising one song for doing a thing, then praising another song for doing the same thing. And that means the problem can't be the thing it's doing, just the music they're trying to do that thing with.
-
Momentum can mean a couple of different things. In the course of an extended piece, it's natural to have quieter moments in between heavier/faster parts. You have to have contrast; you can't just go full speed the whole way through. I agree that that gets tedious. But if the song is a journey, you want to feel like you're moving the whole time. There's a way to have some contrast or take a breather without literally stopping everything. With "Illumination Theory", everything literally just stops. I guess I'm more a fan of movements "flowing" into each other, rather than the music completely stopping, then starting up again.
I think that's one of those things where trying to embrace the flow would be a little bit futile, though. If you want to write a song with a soft, soothing middle section, you're going to have to bring everything to a full stop - better to be brave, and bold, and daring, and have the band actually put their instruments down than to sort of keep it humming under. Illumination Theory is more of a statement, and I think that sumptuous, gorgeous moment is earned not just by the song, but by the entire album that precedes it.
I think it's the kind of thing that wouldn't be possible to do without alienating a few members of the fanbase, but I think the most powerful art is often about risk. For the people who like what they achieved, it's broken eggs in an omelette. In that sense I'm just lucky enough to be one of the people who thinks Illumination Theory is fucking gorgeous and wouldn't have it any other way. Yes, it stops! It crashes to a halt. That's the point, and it's bloody wonderful. The song stops, but the story pushes on, and it wrings every last emotion out of that orchestra, gloriously, and when the band comes back in it's like hearing them through new ears.
Bolded text above: :tup That's precisely how I feel.
But with that said, I want to respond to the "alienated' comment above. Now, I may not be the "average fan" since most of those don't pay for a Meet and Greet. So, you know, I'm kinda, well a fanboy. :lol I certainly don't begrudge them for what they did with Illumination Theory. It definitely took balls to do it. And I respect them and I respect their artistic expression. And I will say this: the orchestral section -in and of itself- is quite the beautiful piece. I love it for what it is, I'm just not too crazy about _where_ it is. ;)
But yeah, they definitely get a big thumbs up from me for this album and the fact that it actually sounds different than the last couple of albums. Dream Theater never disappoints in that. Every one of their albums sound quite a bit different from each other. This s/t album is no exception.
-
That's cool - I'm completely with you on the last paragraph, and I think I'm with you on the rest, too. There are songs I don't like, there are songs that alienate me, but that doesn't mean I wish they never wrote them, far from it, and it sounds like you're coming from a similar place with Illumination Theory. Alienation isn't constant, I don't mean, "you'll never like DT again" - it's just an inevitable side-effect when a band does something risky that someone is going to be alienated. Temporarily. For as long as that song's on.
A couple of grumpy fans is often a sign of a band in good health, because it means the band's changing, and challenging themselves. Just as some fans will love what a band's evolved into, it's only right that others will prefer their earlier stuff - but it's not even an early/late split, with Dream Theater. I mean, there are those who have A Change of Seasons as a cut-off, and those who have SfaM, and even those who cut off with Octavarium or Black Clouds, but I think the fact that there's no real overarching consensus proves that they're doing their job in an interesting way, and that the band still have something to say. With Illumination Theory, it's like they're talking directly to me - with Scarred, I'm not so fortunate! I love the vast majority of what they do, but sometimes it's just my turn.
-
Wait, Blob, how exactly does the, what you call, the wind chimes section have no music? Seriously? By any definition of the word, that is music. To say otherwise seems rather silly, if you ask me.
It's barely, at best. It's wind chimes and birds chirping. The band isn't playing anything, for a minute and a half. If I stepped outside (it could happen one day!) and heard the same noises, I wouldn't consider it music.
Let us know if that actually ever happens :P, but in the meantime, it's music. Or are we ignoring the keyboard that is floating along during that entire section? For someone who loves JR as much as you do, I am shocked that you would suggest that a piece of music he clearly plays pretty much all of is not music.
-
I disagree with OP. To me, IT is the best epic effort since Trial of Tears. I love all the music (and birds), but as a vocals/lyrics fan first and foremost, I find 8VM and TCOT silly and overdone.
-
I love coming from a classical music background. After years of classical piano training, I started listening to Zep, Rush, and Yes. After that, I got into Iron Maiden and many other bands before picking up a little free CD in a music store back in '89 called When Dream and Day Unite.
After having played classical music for so many years, it's easy to understand the separation of DT's music. You have an idea, the idea flows, then changes. The tempo changes with the idea. Each idea has a unique sound and feeling to it. To keep a pure flow of the same thing over and over again is not how music, particularly a piece well over 20 minutes is done. If you do that for that amount of time, the sound becomes bland, starts to blur, and you will actually lose interest after you have heard it a couple of times because there is no distinction. If you really enjoy a 25 minute long song that is the same thing for 25 minutes, for God's sake, please visit your local techno club and start dancing.
I've said this to many people, but will say it here. DT writes their music first of all for their own personal pleasure to see what it is they can create at that moment. During creativity, the flow changes, yet it is still flowing, you may not understand why, but that's not the band's concern. They finish the product, put it out there for you to enjoy and to see if you enjoy listening to it as much as they enjoy playing it for you. There is the connection.
You can complain all you want about how this doesn't sound right, or I didn't like how the break comes, or I don't like the lyrics or anything anyone could possibly complain about. In the end, they present it, you decide if you like it or not. Bitching about it doesn't do a damn thing in how the band writes their songs. They are a group of people who are constantly changing. Their writing styles will show that change.
Personally, I love the breaks, because I understand them. Take a few minutes of your day and actually listen to some classical music...Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin....to name a few. Come back and complain how you didn't like how Beethoven ruins the flow of Piano Sonata No. 14. There are definate breaks and tempo changes there....fantastic changes.
Today's prog metal/rock is the latest form of classical style writing. It has movements and each piece has life. If you don't like the breaks or changes, so be it, but to me, these are modern classics and I personally enjoy each and every one of them....rant over.
brash
-
That's a brash statement :neverusethis:
Welcome ;)
FTR I tend to agree re the breaks and to me it's more about whether the individual parts catch my ear more than if they "flow" into each other and for me IT does that better than just about any other epic they've done.
-
Welcome brash47. Welcome to banging your head against the wall. You'll either develop a super thick forehead or an aversion to walls. But, it can be fun too. For the record, I stand with your opinion since I also was weened on classical music. I've mentioned it on several occasions several years ago and was promptly abused or ignored.
inb4 someone calls brash47 a condescending &*%$#(.
-
I love coming from a classical music background. After years of classical piano training, I started listening to Zep, Rush, and Yes. After that, I got into Iron Maiden and many other bands before picking up a little free CD in a music store back in '89 called When Dream and Day Unite.
After having played classical music for so many years, it's easy to understand the separation of DT's music. You have an idea, the idea flows, then changes. The tempo changes with the idea. Each idea has a unique sound and feeling to it. To keep a pure flow of the same thing over and over again is not how music, particularly a piece well over 20 minutes is done. If you do that for that amount of time, the sound becomes bland, starts to blur, and you will actually lose interest after you have heard it a couple of times because there is no distinction. If you really enjoy a 25 minute long song that is the same thing for 25 minutes, for God's sake, please visit your local techno club and start dancing.
I've said this to many people, but will say it here. DT writes their music first of all for their own personal pleasure to see what it is they can create at that moment. During creativity, the flow changes, yet it is still flowing, you may not understand why, but that's not the band's concern. They finish the product, put it out there for you to enjoy and to see if you enjoy listening to it as much as they enjoy playing it for you. There is the connection.
You can complain all you want about how this doesn't sound right, or I didn't like how the break comes, or I don't like the lyrics or anything anyone could possibly complain about. In the end, they present it, you decide if you like it or not. Bitching about it doesn't do a damn thing in how the band writes their songs. They are a group of people who are constantly changing. Their writing styles will show that change.
Personally, I love the breaks, because I understand them. Take a few minutes of your day and actually listen to some classical music...Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin....to name a few. Come back and complain how you didn't like how Beethoven ruins the flow of Piano Sonata No. 14. There are definate breaks and tempo changes there....fantastic changes.
Today's prog metal/rock is the latest form of classical style writing. It has movements and each piece has life. If you don't like the breaks or changes, so be it, but to me, these are modern classics and I personally enjoy each and every one of them....rant over.
brash
I don't think any of us are under the illusion that when we complain about certain things, that DT is going to say, "Whoa, Shadow Ninja doesn't like this, we better change it". But that does not preclude us from discussing things. This is a discussion board after all. It would be pretty boring if we all just sat around saying, "Yeah, I like that song" "Me too" "High five, bro". Who would actually enjoy that?
-
I don't think any of us are under the illusion that when we complain about certain things, that DT is going to say, "Whoa, Shadow Ninja doesn't like this, we better change it". But that does not preclude us from discussing things. This is a discussion board after all. It would be pretty boring if we all just sat around saying, "Yeah, I like that song" "Me too" "High five, bro". Who would actually enjoy that?
This. But it really feels sometimes like that's exactly what people want. They want to state their opinion, and then have that opinion validated by other people who agree with them, and nothing more. And when someone who disagrees comes along, it's suddenly, "Well, if you don't like my opinion, don't read the thread then." ::)
-
Personally, I love the breaks, because I understand them.
Implying that those that don't like them don't understand them.
-
After having played classical music for so many years, it's easy to understand the separation of DT's music. You have an idea, the idea flows, then changes. The tempo changes with the idea. Each idea has a unique sound and feeling to it. To keep a pure flow of the same thing over and over again is not how music, particularly a piece well over 20 minutes is done. If you do that for that amount of time, the sound becomes bland, starts to blur, and you will actually lose interest after you have heard it a couple of times because there is no distinction. If you really enjoy a 25 minute long song that is the same thing for 25 minutes, for God's sake, please visit your local techno club and start dancing.
I'm with ZirconBlue inasmuch as I don't like the idea that people who don't like the longer songs aren't learned enough to understand them - but it's a blemish on what's otherwise a very good post. The quoted, particularly, is a wonderful, blissful paragraph.
Three minute songs often have perfect flow, but of course they do - they stop after three minutes! A good twenty minute song isn't aiming to do something you could accomplish in a three-minuter, it's aiming to do things you might not be able to even if you put seven back-to-back. I think brevity is wit, and I think with the latest album Dream Theater have added some fantastic and much-needed short songs to their catalogues that are stronger for being concise and precise - DT12 is an album you could set your watch to - but I think a well-crafted symphony of set-ups and payoffs and callbacks, bristling with ideas that tell a long-form story can be more rewarding than any number of short songs matched minute-for-minute. It's just that shorter ones are more often good, because the long ones are harder to get right. They need to work harder to justify that timeslot.
-
I love DT's epics, and find all of them hugely enjoyable apart from ITPOE , but I wouldn't count any as among their absolute best top ten or so compositions, and none are on the level of songs like Karn Evil 9, Tarkus, Supper's Ready, Close to the Edge, etc. DT's epics are all at least slightly flawed in their own way, and can't match to the perfection of some of their other, shorter recordings.
Yes, I prefer the 'simpler' Surrounded to Octavarium. It has more impact. I find it hard to view SDOIT as one long song, and see it more as a superlative concept album comprised of shorter songs.
-
I've said this to many people, but will say it here. DT writes their music first of all for their own personal pleasure to see what it is they can create at that moment.
This isn't quite true. The band is incredibly cognizant of what kind of fans they have, and what they're expecting. DT have a sound that they're not going to betray. This has been evoked many times in many interviews with the band's members.
-
First,
I didn't mean to imply people do not understand the breaks, sorry it came out that way. I was just stating my personal opinion. I think my main point was that I love music, all music, I find redeeming qualities in pretty much anything that catches my attention long enough for me to listen to it for a period of time.
DT has changed their sound over the years as will any group that lasts over time and any group that has had as many member changes as this band has. I here constants in Petrucci's playing, I hear constants in Myung's playing. If you listen to older Rudess material before DT, you still here his inherent style. There are core basics that all great musicians like these guys have. When you mix those sounds, and keep changing members, there will always be change.
For the statement where the above poster said DT definately takes into account what their audience listens to, of course that is true, but you have to look deeper into what a musician is. The musician writes and plays for themselves before anyone is ever cognizant of what they are doing. Don't for a second think that a musician and writer first thinks....WOW, the crowd will think this is the shit! My fans will definately approve! The musician has to personally approve of what they have created. When that happens, then they put it out for us to listen to. There in lies my statement, they write to their own personal pleasure first, then enjoying it, release it to us. If they didn't personally like what they wrote, they wouldn't dare record or release.
Even sold out pop musicians do that. They may have betrayed themselves along the way, but they still enjoy what they have released. If they didn't take enjoyment out of it, they would end up like George Michael, Prince and those like him....fighting the record company, not writing anymore.
brash
-
I think you guys missed the point. I wouldn't say it's necessarily about genre change persay. It's more about the transition as it relates to the content of the song. The classical type stuff is fine and worked great in SDOIT Overture because it set the template for what the entire song was doing. At the same time, using guitars, bass and drums. IT just slaps ambient keys into the middle of the song out of nowhere and it doesn't sound anything like the rest of the song. I also think TCOT suffers from this as well but not as much. In fact, I have no idea what IT is trying to do in it's entirety. Each section of the song reminds me of something I've already heard before. It sounds like a 22 min collection of cut & paste. Reminds me more of a Schmedley Wilcox than an epic album closer.
So you have read through this whole thread and despite all the explanations, you still think there is no coherence in IT? Still no purpose for the ambient and classical section?
So, just because others have certain opinions about music, I'm supposed to change my mind? Really? I never said anyone had to agree with me. I stated my opinion about the song and how it compares to other lengthy DT songs. That's it. You either agree with it or you don't.
-
It's not about changing your mind. You're saying you "have no idea what IT is trying to do in it's entirety" when there has been quite a lot of discussion about exactly that.
You may not agree, but if you've read all the discussion about what Illumination Theory is about and still claim to have no idea what it's about, then you're just not paying attention.
-
Well, any amount of discussion regarding what the song is about is all subjective anyway. Lyrically, the message can be interpreted many different ways. I'm talking about the arrangement of the song musically, which is the main reason why I listen.
If lyrics speak to me on a personal level then great, but they don't make the song. The music does. As I said before, sections are patched together with familiar musical passages from previous material and even worse, they don't flow well. IT doesn't score any originality points with me at all. That's why I'm not sure what the song is trying to accomplish.
Take for example, Breaking All Illusions from the previous album. I've heard some say that the lyrics aren't that great. So what? I don't let lyrics ruin a song. James still does a great job singing and the music is absolutely brilliant. That's what matters the most, to me anyway. Whatever IT is doing, it's not doing much for me.
-
sections are patched together with familiar musical passages from previous material
Are they?
-
Yeah, I'd love to hear that assertion unpacked a little more.
-
Well, any amount of discussion regarding what the song is about is all subjective anyway. Lyrically, the message can be interpreted many different ways. I'm talking about the arrangement of the song musically, which is the main reason why I listen.
If lyrics speak to me on a personal level then great, but they don't make the song. The music does. As I said before, sections are patched together with familiar musical passages from previous material and even worse, they don't flow well. IT doesn't score any originality points with me at all. That's why I'm not sure what the song is trying to accomplish.
Take for example, Breaking All Illusions from the previous album. I've heard some say that the lyrics aren't that great. So what? I don't let lyrics ruin a song. James still does a great job singing and the music is absolutely brilliant. That's what matters the most, to me anyway. Whatever IT is doing, it's not doing much for me.
That makes sense, and I agree with you for the most part. Prior to this discussion, I was in the same position as you. I didn't understand musically what "Illumination Theory" was trying to do, and it felt very disjointed, literally a bunch of stuff thrown together. Musically, I still feel that that's what it is. I hadn't really dug into the lyrics.
But it's also true that in general, the music and lyrics are meant to be taken together. The music can add something to the lyrics, and the lyrics can be embellished by the music. In this case, there has been discussion about what the lyrics are saying, and how that's represented in the music (and sound effects, and the sometimes jarring shifts, and the whole package). I've gained a greater understanding for the piece because of the discussion of the lyrics, and with it a greater appreciation for the work as a whole. I still don't really care for it, but that's where the subjectivity kicks in. I can appreciate and admire something, but still not like it. That's where I am with "Illumination Theory". A hell of a work, but it just doesn't thrill me.
Anyway, my main issue was with your statement that you don't understand what the piece is trying to do "in it's entirety" but now you're saying that you're not really considering the entirety after all, just the music. So we're back to my statement that you really do have to consider both the music and lyrics, or you're really not going to get the piece in its entirety.