DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
Dream Theater => Dream Theater => Topic started by: Pax on August 25, 2015, 06:56:39 AM
-
ABSTRACT
I'm sure most of you noticed the similarity between A Dramatic Turn of Events (ADTOE) songs with Images and Words (IAW) songs.
In these two (Under a Glass Moon (UAGM), Lost Not Forgotten (LNF)), the structural similarity is really high. In fact, the analysis has shown that the every single section of Under a Glass Moon has a counterpart in the ADTOE song. It should also be noted that the both songs use a relatively uncommon melodic major key with frequently lowered 2. degree by a half-step.
ANALYSIS
(Timestamps are taken from the following YouTube videos of the songs: UAGM - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEKTNtmKZEw; LNF - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCYgRUetoiA)
Under the Glass Moon: Lost Not Forgotten:
Keyboard intro, the only section not present in UAGM - 0:00 - 0:42
0:00 - 0:26 - Main theme without the rhythmic accompaniment ------------------------------------------------------ 0:42 - 1:12
0:26 - 0:52 - Main theme with progressively higher notes of the same harmony, drum plays rhythm of the next riff - 1:12 - 1:42
0:52 - 1:02 - Riff with mostly tonic note (riff 1), same rhythm as bass drum ----------------------------------------- 1:42 - 1:53
1:02 - 1:06 - Fill before the unstable section -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1:53 - 1:58
1:06 - 1:19 - Tonally unstable section with multiple rhythm changes ------------------------------------------------- 1:58 - 2:31
1:19 - 1:29 - Verse riff, mostly tonic note (riff 2) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 2:31 - 2:46
1:29 - 1:49 - Verse riff with the singing ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2:46 - 3:16
1:49 - 2:08 - Pre-chorus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3:16 - 3:46
2:08 - 2:35 - Chorus with four verse, drums in 1. and 3. verse play in counter-rhythm in relation to 2. and 4. ------- 3:46 - 4:27
2:35 - 2:51 - Modified riff 1, drums change rhythm multiple times ---------------------------------------------------- 4:27 - 4:43
2:51 - 3:18 - The second stanza, more developed bass line ---------------------------------------------------------- 4:43 - 5:21
3:18 - 3:31 - Different pre-chorus ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5:21 - 5:40
3:31 - 3:59 - Chorus for the second time, same rhythm as the first one ---------------------------------------------- 5:40 - 6:22
3:59 - 4:17 - Bridge theme played on keyboard ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 6:22 - 6:45
4:17 - 4:26 - Guitar joins keyboard in the bridge melody -------------------------------------------------------------- 6:45 - 6:57
4:26 - 4:35 - Drums start playing rhythm ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6:57 - 7:09
4:35 - 4:37 - Instrumental break, one instrument keeps playing and leading to guitar solo --------------------------- 7:09 - 7:10
4:37 - 5:29 - Guitar solo, keyboard and bass guitar play independent melodies in the background ------------------- 7:10 - 8:06
5:29 - 5:47 - New rhythm on drums, before the keyboard solo starts ------------------------------------------------- 8:06 - 8:21
5:47 - 6:10 - Keyboard solo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8:21 - 8:51
6:10 - 6:21 - Instruments play homorhythmic bridge ----------------------------------------------------------------- 8:51 - 9:03
6:21 - 6:48 - Chorus for the final time, this time, drums are not switching rhythm between verse like first two times - 9:03 - 9:46
6:48 - 6:58 - Main theme ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9:46 - 10:01
6:58 - 7:01 - Ending with the motif from riff 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10:01 - 10:06
NOTE
I apologize if I named some terms wrong, I'm not a native English speaker and I've studied musical theory in Serbian. Anyways, I hope you'll be able to understand everything I wrote, and that you'll like it. Feel free to add comments :)
-
'de si, brate? (Serbian for "what's up, buddy?", just so that the mods aren't concerned)
Anyway, this again? ;D
There was a lot of talk about structural similarities between IAW and ADTOE songs back when ADTOE came out, but I was never really bothered by it. I see the analysis as some sort of conspiracy theory, it makes sense but the ones who came up with it had a lot of time on their hands, obviously. Nothing bad about the analysis itself, it only goes too far once people start talking about the band losing inspiration and copying their early material in order to sound like Dream Theater again.
-
There is a big difference between those two: Under a Glass Moon is good song. Thank You.
-
This kind of thing has been done to death. Nothing new here.
-
lol
-
ABSTRACT
I'm sure most of you noticed the similarity between A Dramatic Turn of Events (ADTOE) songs with Images and Words (IAW) songs.
A couple of people claimed to have. The rest of us were told we did.
-
'de si, brate? (Serbian for "what's up, buddy?", just so that the mods aren't concerned)
This old subject is very de si brete :neverusethis:
-
I wish somebody would just make a video with the two songs layered over eachother to end this debate.
One for On The Backs Of Angels/Pull Me Under as well.
-
i've been saying this for years that they're literally the same song but thanks for this :lol
-
They aren't "literally the same song." While there is plenty of room for opinions about "similarity," the statement that they are "literally the same song" is literally wrong.
As Hef said, this has kind of been discussed to death. There are definite similarities and parallels that can be drawn between UAGM and Lost Not Forgotten. The same can be said of On The Backs Of Angels and Pull Me Under. Exactly how similar those songs are in terms of structure and similar musical elements really just depends on how you describe them. As the OP illustrates, you can create descriptions that make them appear structurally almost identical. Personally, I feel that such descriptions are reaching and stretching a bit. But that said, the similarities are still obviously there, and the number of similarities between songs on the two albums are significant enough that it makes me believe it was intentional. And that's fine. But I am fairly comfortable with the opinion that they were intended to be only some very general similarities, and that the creative minds of fans in overanalyzing have read in a lot of similarities that are not intended.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rZLe7LjihE
There we go.
-
I always forget how much I like Pull Me Under till I hear it.
-
People who care :
1. Portnoy - passively aggressively trying to stir up shit.
2. MP Warriors - using it as "proof" that DT 'can't do anything original without MP'.
-
ABSTRACT
I'm sure most of you noticed the similarity between A Dramatic Turn of Events (ADTOE) songs with Images and Words (IAW) songs.
A couple of people claimed to have. The rest of us were told we did.
To me the similarity between UGAM and LNF was blatant from first listen (not the rest though, which I think are just trying to fit the theory).
-
I can hear the structure similarities. But thats about it with the influences, which I don't mind at all.
-
Two songs have a similar form - for some reason has become a big deal.
???
If MP hadn't said anything then this theory would have never blown up like it has.
Wasn't there an AMob song that has the exact same riff as a DT song ?
-
People who care :
1. Portnoy - passively aggressively trying to stir up shit.
2. MP Warriors - using it as "proof" that DT 'can't do anything original without MP'.
Please. If the constant comparison of songs from I&W and ADTOE is "tired" then this s***-stirring is down-right exhausted. If "MP Warriors" means "fans of Mike, grateful for all he did, and considers it a loss that he's gone" then I'm probably in that group, and I could care less about "similarities" or "song structure". As far as I can recall, he made ONE COMMENT on that. He let it go, so why not take the hint?
-
i've prob also said this a thousand times but i can't listen to LNF without feeling like i should be listening to UAGM instead
it has nothing to do with portnoy, and it's really the only song on the album that parallels an I&W song this strongly (OTBOA is the only other that's really somewhat similar, too, tbh) but, bleh
-
It's not like DT is the first band that repeats a formula to make songs, although I think they do it WAY less than other bands, look at Rage Against the Machine for instance, one of the most obvious ones. You would run out of material pretty quickly if you did a completely different structure for every song.
-
I remember when that Thiago guy showed up here with similar analysis (although he did it with multiple songs). He eventually got banned for insulting people when they didn't agree that ADTOE was a complete re-write of I&W. The dude has a hell of a temper and seems to be regarded as an asshat.
That being said, these two songs and OTBOA/PMU have some similarities. It's not that hard to see.
-
he made ONE COMMENT on that.
I know for a fact this isn't true but it doesn't really matter....this argument has been had over and over.
-
He let it go, so why not take the hint?
While Kowtow sarcastically overstated the point, the reason why he likely is not "taking the hint" and "letting it go" is because this thread exists. This thread is, by definition, not letting it go. People are entitled to respond.
-
People who care :
1. Portnoy - passively aggressively trying to stir up shit.
MP may have slightly cared in 2011. No chance he still cares in 2015.
i've prob also said this a thousand times but i can't listen to LNF without feeling like i should be listening to UAGM instead
it has nothing to do with portnoy, and it's really the only song on the album that parallels an I&W song this strongly (OTBOA is the only other that's really somewhat similar, too, tbh) but, bleh
I'd say that OTBOA/PMU is a much stronger parallel, but it doesn't really matter because the songs are different enough anyway. LNF may be structurally similar, but it's different melodically and in terms of mood and vibe.
-
... LNF may be structurally similar, but it's different melodically and in terms of mood and vibe.
^This. I like both UAGM and LNF for what they are. I use LNF to introduce metal fans to DT. It was disappointing to not see LNF live (wasn't in the set list yet). Really it's amazing to me how different they are given the structural similarities. Even more amazing that a band with this many studio albums doesn't have blatant cookie cutter filler songs (imo - I'm sure many would argue exactly opposite).
-
but the ones who came up with it had a lot of time on their hands, obviously.
Yes, because taking the time to understand music beyond an emotional level is "too much time on your hands", but endlessly talking about Portnoy's departure, Petrucci's beard, etc, etc is perfectly fine.
This is how I saw the debate unfold:
- Hey, I've noticed some similarities
- How dare you
- No, I'm serious
- You just hate the band. Bands can repeat themselves
- This is more than just repeating your style
- You are making this up. I don't hear it
- Well, I just hear it, but I'll break it down for you to help you hear it
- Too much time on your hands
Maybe just give the analysis a chance and possibly learn something?
-
but the ones who came up with it had a lot of time on their hands, obviously.
Yes, because taking the time to understand music beyond an emotional level is "too much time on your hands", but endlessly talking about Portnoy's departure, Petrucci's beard, etc, etc is perfectly fine.
This is how I saw the debate unfold:
- Hey, I've noticed some similarities
- How dare you
- No, I'm serious
- You just hate the band. Bands can repeat themselves
- This is more than just repeating your style
- You are making this up. I don't hear it
- Well, I just hear it, but I'll break it down for you to help you hear it
- Too much time on your hands
Maybe just give the analysis a chance and possibly learn something?
Pretty much. From its inception, this debate always sets off a spectacular failure of communication. It's either you hear the similiarities and thus are "stirring shit up that doesn't exist," or you don't and are thus "an ignorant, butthurt fanboy who won't acknowledge reality." Or some such.
These are the relevant points that need to be made with the discussion. I'm shocked how rarely I see them.
1) There are, undoubtedly, massive structural similarities with OTBOA, LNF, and the first half of BAI, at the least.
2) These structural similarities do not encompass all of ADTOE. Certainly, it would be ridiculous to say BMUBMD sounds like anything on I&W (or really anything else in the DT catalog) and BTS obviously stands on its own, just to name two clear examples. So obviously the whole album is not a (structural) copy of I&W.
3) Bands do, indeed, copy song structures all the time. But most bands don't have DT song structures. The I&W songs in question here all have some pretty unique characteristics to them that you don't often see. Take PMU, for example. The very long intro with just acoustic guitar and then the tom-heavy drum riff, the odd staccato riff before the vocals enter, the pre-chorus guitar lead break, the keyboard break between verse 1 and 2, the soft keyboard solo that then goes to the bigger guitar solo, the guitar solo transitioning back into the pre-chorus lead...that's a lot of unique flourishes even in the world of DT music. And then OTBOA reuses every single one of them. It wouldn't be news if DT13 contained songs with the same structure as, say, I Walk Beside You and Wither (though I suppose having two such ones would be a bit uncharacteristic). Those songs have what--eight parts? Ten? And those parts are mostly things songs have to have, like verses and choruses. When you're at 24-for-24 or something, with a lot of nontraditional parts, that's at the very least a strong indicator it's not mere coincidence.
4) If you admit point #3, that does not mean you think OTBOA, LNF, etc. suck. In fact, the complexity of the DT sound (not to mention the production differences and member changes from 1992 to 2011) ensures that the songs really do have a different vibe to them. So the exact reason that it's something people notice is the same reason it's not really something to be upset about! Mind you, I prefer the I&W tracks by quite a bit, and I think ADTOE is their worst James-era album. But even though I acknowledge the structural similarities, I don't think the band committed some great sin with them, or that they did so because they were creatively bankrupt. And I would think that most who acknowledge the similarities probably agree with that. I can't claim to know their motivation, but I don't really have an issue with it. I think the ADTOE songs are pretty good but not great, and that's not because they're dragged down by being like I&W, it's because the little things around the edges (James in a lower register, the poor ADTOE production, slightly less compelling instrumentation) that changed.
So, in sum, it is possible to hold, at the same time, that yes, Dream Theater did reuse some I&W structures for ADTOE songs and that no, that does not make them or these songs bad. And so, ultimately, it's more interesting curiosity than big controversy, really.
-
ABSTRACT
I'm sure most of you noticed the similarity between A Dramatic Turn of Events (ADTOE) songs with Images and Words (IAW) songs.
A couple of people claimed to have. The rest of us were told we did.
To me the similarity between UGAM and LNF was blatant from first listen (not the rest though, which I think are just trying to fit the theory).
I hear structural similarities with PMU and OTBoA, WfS/LtL and FfH/BAI, and Metropolis and Outcry but the structures of UaGM and LnF are identical other than the piano intro in LnF. However, this does not make one a ripoff of the other or lessen the newer song's quality for me. Considering ADToE is my fourth favorite DT album (IaW is second), I clearly don't care about the similarities.
-
but the ones who came up with it had a lot of time on their hands, obviously.
Yes, because taking the time to understand music beyond an emotional level is "too much time on your hands", but endlessly talking about Portnoy's departure, Petrucci's beard, etc, etc is perfectly fine.
This is how I saw the debate unfold:
- Hey, I've noticed some similarities
- How dare you
- No, I'm serious
- You just hate the band. Bands can repeat themselves
- This is more than just repeating your style
- You are making this up. I don't hear it
- Well, I just hear it, but I'll break it down for you to help you hear it
- Too much time on your hands
Maybe just give the analysis a chance and possibly learn something?
Pretty much. From its inception, this debate always sets off a spectacular failure of communication. It's either you hear the similiarities and thus are "stirring shit up that doesn't exist," or you don't and are thus "an ignorant, butthurt fanboy who won't acknowledge reality." Or some such.
Honestly, if that is what the two of you think the debate is about, you have very selective reading skills and weren't really paying attention.
So, in sum, it is possible to hold, at the same time, that yes, Dream Theater did reuse some I&W structures for ADTOE songs and that no, that does not make them or these songs bad. And so, ultimately, it's more interesting curiosity than big controversy, really.
Of course. I don't think anyone is saying otherwise.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rZLe7LjihE
There we go.
That was much better than I thought it would be
-
but the ones who came up with it had a lot of time on their hands, obviously.
Yes, because taking the time to understand music beyond an emotional level is "too much time on your hands", but endlessly talking about Portnoy's departure, Petrucci's beard, etc, etc is perfectly fine.
This is how I saw the debate unfold:
- Hey, I've noticed some similarities
- How dare you
- No, I'm serious
- You just hate the band. Bands can repeat themselves
- This is more than just repeating your style
- You are making this up. I don't hear it
- Well, I just hear it, but I'll break it down for you to help you hear it
- Too much time on your hands
Maybe just give the analysis a chance and possibly learn something?
Pretty much. From its inception, this debate always sets off a spectacular failure of communication. It's either you hear the similiarities and thus are "stirring shit up that doesn't exist," or you don't and are thus "an ignorant, butthurt fanboy who won't acknowledge reality." Or some such.
Honestly, if that is what the two of you think the debate is about, you have very selective reading skills and weren't really paying attention.
You think so? Perhaps I'm mischaracterizing, as the discussion seems to get slightly more civil with time, though that positive change is mitigated by the increasing pointlessness of the exercise. But I think those that don't agree that there are similarities seem not to go to the hard evidence. Rarely, if ever, have I seen a refutation from that side that gets into specifics. It seems more that those on that side seem to think that an admission of similarity equates to one that the ADTOE songs are somehow unworthy or a sign of the band giving up. This likely stems from the abrasiveness with which the theory was first presented; my point was that most of its adherents see far less of the baggage than may be perceived. Perhaps you're right and it's indeed a superfluous point, but hey.
-
I fail to see the issue with structural similarities between songs in a band's works
I mean, fuckin' half the god damn pop songs in the world (exaggeration) follow the same chord structure of I V IV VI (I V VI IV?)(imo it should be I IV VI V), and go verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus. That song structure, I'll call it ABABCB, has been used in Dream Theater's music a ton, just like so many other bands. Does this similarity harm anything, or make the music any worse? No, it doesn't (won't start an objectivity in music argument here though ;D).
-
Honestly, if that is what the two of you think the debate is about, you have very selective reading skills and weren't really paying attention.
I wasn't at DTF when ADToE was released. I was at JP Forum, so I can't tell you what went on here.
But all you have to do is read this thread. Somebody comes in and took the time to give a thoughtful breakdown of what they noticed, and it immediately went into the same old dance instead of discussing what was actually offered up for discussion.
I'll sum it up even more concisely:
DT used qute a few I&W song structures for ADToE. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
That is essentially what became of that discussion. A few took the time to have a back and forth over at the JP Forum about the actual similarities instead of endlessly discussing if it was taboo or rude or if there were some "conspiracy" or making it all about Thiago.
-
Two excellent posts by Pax and The Presence of Enemies. Thank you.
-
Maybe just give the analysis a chance and possibly learn something?
Oh, believe me, it's been almost four years since this thing but I still remember being very entertained by the deep analysis and connections found between UAGM and LNF, as well as PMU and OTBOA. It was only after a little while that people started coming up with other theories, probably just with the intention of disregarding A Dramatic turn of events as a lazy copy of Images and words. We had a bit of fun with the similarities at first, nobody denied them and pretended like they didn't hear them - but then it became an excuse for former fans to bash the album, which I thought wasn't about analysis and learning anymore.
-
He let it go, so why not take the hint?
While Kowtow sarcastically overstated the point, the reason why he likely is not "taking the hint" and "letting it go" is because this thread exists. This thread is, by definition, not letting it go. People are entitled to respond.
Fair point; but the thread is on the similarities of songs. I was talking specifically about the bashing of Mike as a result and those that happen to support him. I don't see why there can't be a reasoned, learned discussion of song structure without disparaging someone who wasn't even present when half the songs under analysis were written/recorded, let alone those that choose not to take sides in what has devolved into a petty argument. This thread doesn't exist because of Mike Portnoy.
-
Pretty much. From its inception, this debate always sets off a spectacular failure of communication. It's either you hear the similiarities and thus are "stirring shit up that doesn't exist," or you don't and are thus "an ignorant, butthurt fanboy who won't acknowledge reality." Or some such.
Is there an option to be "an ignorant, butthurt fanboy" who is "stirring shit up that doesn't exist"? I might go for that. Sounds like it's more fun. :)
(I'm kidding).
-
I haven't been replying since I started the topic, so here's the thing
I'm glad some people got it. I love both ADTOE and IAW. I love both songs I analysed, the analysis is not here because of some ''conspiracy theories'' and shit. I'm not saying LNF rips UAGM off and that the band lost their inspiration. The post fundamental, it has no intention of discussing anything other than the SIMILARITY. I noticed the similarity between the two songs, just like many others did, it was interesting to me, so I went deeper to analyse the stuff, and I found even more similarities than expected and I thought it would be fun and interesting to share. Period.
-
Sorry that I immediately thought this was going to turn into another "lets bash ADTOE" discussions, I realize you had good intentions. As I said in my very first post, there's nothing wrong with the analysis itself. It is very interesting. But as other people pointed out, it's very often an excuse for haters to "stir up shit".
-
I've always heard similarities between the songs on ADTOE and the songs on I & W. I would like to just completely ignore it and say it's because it's the same band writing both albums and of course you will find similarities in orchestration and feel. However, I don't find it to be the case with any other two Dream Theater releases, so it definitely holds water to some extent. It could really just be a case of them wanting to get back to that same feel of Images and Words, which is the album that put them on the map.
-
I don't mind the similarities because I would always rather that they use themselves for inspiration.
I sure wish I could have been a fly on the wall during conversations and during the creation though. I will always wonder how intentional
it was and what they all talked about and agreed on...or maybe disagreed on. As someone mentioned maybe it was set up as an
exercise to get into an I&W mindset. We will never know.
-
All I know is that those are two of the most bad a$$ solo's that JP has ever recorded. I really don't know which one I like better? They are both perfect IMO
-
All I know is that those are two of the most bad a$$ solo's that JP has ever recorded. I really don't know which one I like better? They are both perfect IMO
Yes!
-
Pretty much. From its inception, this debate always sets off a spectacular failure of communication. It's either you hear the similiarities and thus are "stirring shit up that doesn't exist," or you don't and are thus "an ignorant, butthurt fanboy who won't acknowledge reality." Or some such.
Is there an option to be "an ignorant, butthurt fanboy" who is "stirring shit up that doesn't exist"? I might go for that. Sounds like it's more fun. :)
(I'm kidding).
There is a 3rd option :
Acknowledging the possibility that they used the *form* of another song for a newer song and not giving a flying fuck about it because a FORM doesn't mean the music lyrics vocals or rhythms or
melodies are in any way the same.
King Nothing is very similar to Enter Sandman structurally but do they sound identical ? Nope. Not at all.
-
I don't mind the similarities because I would always rather that they use themselves for inspiration.
incestpiration? Hopefully they never try to use Erotomania or DT might end up in the INXS bandwagon.
-
Pretty much. From its inception, this debate always sets off a spectacular failure of communication. It's either you hear the similiarities and thus are "stirring shit up that doesn't exist," or you don't and are thus "an ignorant, butthurt fanboy who won't acknowledge reality." Or some such.
Is there an option to be "an ignorant, butthurt fanboy" who is "stirring shit up that doesn't exist"? I might go for that. Sounds like it's more fun. :)
(I'm kidding).
There is a 3rd option :
Acknowledging the possibility that they used the *form* of another song for a newer song and not giving a flying fuck about it because a FORM doesn't mean the music lyrics vocals or rhythms or
melodies are in any way the same.
King Nothing is very similar to Enter Sandman structurally but do they sound identical ? Nope. Not at all.
-
There is a 3rd option :
Acknowledging the possibility that they used the *form* of another song for a newer song and not giving a flying fuck about it because a FORM doesn't mean the music lyrics vocals or rhythms or
melodies are in any way the same.
I think you're misconstruing what some people are saying. I could be completely wrong, but I don't think that anyone is saying that the corresponding parts are the same melodies, rhythmically or lyrically - I've never felt that way. But in terms of the general vibe or feel, they are similar - if they weren't, it's highly doubtful that people would've noticed the structural similarities in the first place. The biggest issue is the reasoning behind why the band chose to use those old IaW structural outlines for several ADToE songs.
There could be a legitimate reason for what led them to do it, but the fact that the band has remained completely mum on the subject is what causes some fans to suspicious of the reasoning. Had they come out and explained everything right off the bat (media catchphrase "being transparent"), it would probably take all the wind out of the sails of the conspiracy theorists, but they haven't, which leads to the debates we've seen.
-
Let's put the guessing to rest.
Jordan made an iOS app that can listen to songs and spit out a new one based off the song playing. At the time, it was Top Secret so Mangini was left out of the *song writing* loop until he was jumped in.
Robin Thicke hacked into the app and the rest is history.
-
Pretty much. From its inception, this debate always sets off a spectacular failure of communication. It's either you hear the similiarities and thus are "stirring shit up that doesn't exist," or you don't and are thus "an ignorant, butthurt fanboy who won't acknowledge reality." Or some such.
Is there an option to be "an ignorant, butthurt fanboy" who is "stirring shit up that doesn't exist"? I might go for that. Sounds like it's more fun. :)
(I'm kidding).
There is a 3rd option :
Acknowledging the possibility that they used the *form* of another song for a newer song and not giving a flying fuck about it because a FORM doesn't mean the music lyrics vocals or rhythms or
melodies are in any way the same.
King Nothing is very similar to Enter Sandman structurally but do they sound identical ? Nope. Not at all.
I was kidding, but I think you missed the point of the joke: debates on songs are awesome; that's why most of us are here. That's why I, for one, love music the way I do, because it is so open to discussion (why does THIS person LOVE that song, but that person HATES it?). The SECOND - I mean, the literal SECOND - it becomes an ad hominem discussion about the person making the argument, it loses all relevance. Whether someone is "butthurt" or not, whether someone is "stirring shit" or not, is completely, utterly and totally irrelevant to whether the songs are or are not based on a common template. And as Scotty so eloquently said, as long as the band is mum on the subject, we have no other option but to speculate.
-
Pretty much. From its inception, this debate always sets off a spectacular failure of communication. It's either you hear the similiarities and thus are "stirring shit up that doesn't exist," or you don't and are thus "an ignorant, butthurt fanboy who won't acknowledge reality." Or some such.
Is there an option to be "an ignorant, butthurt fanboy" who is "stirring shit up that doesn't exist"? I might go for that. Sounds like it's more fun. :)
(I'm kidding).
There is a 3rd option :
Acknowledging the possibility that they used the *form* of another song for a newer song and not giving a flying fuck about it because a FORM doesn't mean the music lyrics vocals or rhythms or
melodies are in any way the same.
King Nothing is very similar to Enter Sandman structurally but do they sound identical ? Nope. Not at all.
I was kidding, but I think you missed the point of the joke: debates on songs are awesome; that's why most of us are here. That's why I, for one, love music the way I do, because it is so open to discussion (why does THIS person LOVE that song, but that person HATES it?). The SECOND - I mean, the literal SECOND - it becomes an ad hominem discussion about the person making the argument, it loses all relevance. Whether someone is "butthurt" or not, whether someone is "stirring shit" or not, is completely, utterly and totally irrelevant to whether the songs are or are not based on a common template. And as Scotty so eloquently said, as long as the band is mum on the subject, we have no other option but to speculate.
So if the band commented on it, case would be closed?
Hate to break it to you, but JP did address this in an interview and said the accusation was ridiculous. I'm thinking it was maybe 4-6 months after the controversy broke.
So, case closed.........?
-
Provide the link to the interview and case closed.
-
Provide the link to the interview and case closed.
If I get bored tomorrow, maybe. Otherwise, happy hunting. I haven't read it since it was first published however long ago.
-
https://www.guitarworld.com/lord-strings-shred-king-john-petrucci-discusses-dream-theaters-new-self-titled-album
Nevermind, here ya go.
-
So John said there's no truth to the claim that certain songs from ADTOE closely mirrored songs from I&W.
I just can't comprehend how he reconciles this with the obvious similarities between these songs. Not even a slight nod to their structural influences. Does he honestly believe that songs like LnF are unique, or is he just trying to ignore the accusation?
-
LNF is unique. It is completely its own song, melodically, musically and emotionally. Whatever structural things you can point out, great and maybe that's legitimate, but when it gets to the point where you're saying that the song itself is not unique, that's absolutely wrong.
Plenty of artists repeat song structures. That doesn't mean that the songs that repeat the structures are unoriginal.
-
LNF is unique. It is completely its own song, melodically, musically and emotionally. Whatever structural things you can point out, great and maybe that's legitimate, but when it gets to the point where you're saying that the song itself is not unique, that's absolutely wrong.
Plenty of artists repeat song structures. That doesn't mean that the songs that repeat the structures are unoriginal.
-
So John said there's no truth to the claim that certain songs from ADTOE closely mirrored songs from I&W.
I just can't comprehend how he reconciles this with the obvious similarities between these songs. Not even a slight nod to their structural influences. Does he honestly believe that songs like LnF are unique, or is he just trying to ignore the accusation?
Just because you think the similarities are obvious doesn't mean they are. It's obvious that many, including JP, think they are not. To each their own.
-
https://www.guitarworld.com/lord-strings-shred-king-john-petrucci-discusses-dream-theaters-new-self-titled-album
Nevermind, here ya go.
Case closed.
-
https://www.guitarworld.com/lord-strings-shred-king-john-petrucci-discusses-dream-theaters-new-self-titled-album
Nevermind, here ya go.
Case closed.
Well, that's a relief.
-
https://www.guitarworld.com/lord-strings-shred-king-john-petrucci-discusses-dream-theaters-new-self-titled-album
Nevermind, here ya go.
Case closed.
Well, that's a relief.
;) :lol
Of course, people can discuss the similarities as much as they want, it's still interesting. It's just good to know that JP addressed the issue so no one can put the analysis against the band anymore.
-
Question to OP - Can you go into the key signature stuff a little more? I'm curious what makes their keys unusual from a technical standpoint.
-
I thought he explained it pretty clearly, however I believe DT has used the scale/mode for a few other songs too, including Home, the instrumental section of ITNOG, and the sitar bit in Paradigm Shift. It's not too common, but not too unusual either.
-
LNF is unique. It is completely its own song, melodically, musically and emotionally. Whatever structural things you can point out, great and maybe that's legitimate, but when it gets to the point where you're saying that the song itself is not unique, that's absolutely wrong.
Plenty of artists repeat song structures. That doesn't mean that the songs that repeat the structures are unoriginal.
This is pretty much how I feel. I hear the similarities but it doesn't mean LNF is a blatant rip-off of UAGM. Just look at their history. They have always given obvious nods to their influences in the music they write. What's wrong with writing some songs that have the feel of Images and Words? I don't hear rip-off or lack of originality. Go listen to AC/DC and then come back and complain about ADTOE. :lol
-
(https://file.kelleybluebookimages.com/kbb/vehicleimage/evoxseo/xxl/9886/2015-chevrolet-silverado%201500-front-angle3_9886_089_640x480.jpg)
Under A Glass Moon
(https://cdnedge.vinsolutions.com/AP/StockPhotoThumb.ashx?D=0&F=CAC40GMT171A01311.JPG)
Lost Not Forgotten
-
That **might** be something approaching a valid comparison if one of the trucks was a completely different color and had different wheels or something.
-
You're being a wise ass, I hope.
-
Wow. Nice trucks. Wouldn't mind having one of those.
My only comment on this thread would be that I'd rather have DT 'copy" themselves (or get inspired by their OWN music) than by someone else's (i.e. Muse).
Carry on. :metal
-
LNF kicks Glass Moon's ass anytime.
Glass Moon is too short for me, and the only good part is the first prechorus.
-
LNF kicks Glass Moon's ass anytime.
Please. UAGM brought LNF into this world and it can take it out. :D
-
LNF is unique. It is completely its own song, melodically, musically and emotionally. Whatever structural things you can point out, great and maybe that's legitimate, but when it gets to the point where you're saying that the song itself is not unique, that's absolutely wrong.
Plenty of artists repeat song structures. That doesn't mean that the songs that repeat the structures are unoriginal.
Exactly. Someone here already pointed out (almost) every pop song in existence follows the same verse-chorus-etc structure.
-
You're being a wise ass, I hope.
Nope. The pictures you posted imply that LNF is the same thing as UAGM, just with different names (since that Chevy truck and the GMC are pretty much the exact same truck, just one is branded Chevy and the other is branded GMC). As I and others have continually pointed out throughout this thread, that is simply not the case.
They have very similar structures, so they are physically similar pickup trucks, sure, but the melodic, lyrical and emotional content are completely different, so one truck is red and the other one is blue, and they have different sets of custom wheels.
-
Plenty of artists repeat song structures. That doesn't mean that the songs that repeat the structures are unoriginal.
Exactly. Someone here already pointed out (almost) every pop song in existence follows the same verse-chorus-etc structure.
That's like comparing Bingo to the Lottery
-
Plenty of artists repeat song structures. That doesn't mean that the songs that repeat the structures are unoriginal.
Exactly. Someone here already pointed out (almost) every pop song in existence follows the same verse-chorus-etc structure.
That's like comparing Bingo to the Lottery
How?
-
You guys and Petrucci are all in denial. While not identical, Lost Not Forgotten is still so similar to UAGM it's ridiculous. For him to disregard it as a rumor is kind of insulting.
-
More analysis. Less talk about the validity of analysis.
-
OTBOA/PMU is basically just structure, where if you analyze it, they follow the same format, but other than fitting similar roles on their respective albums, have little more in common than any other two DT songs. Most of the stuff I listen to follows the same structure, and even though DT's structures are a bit more unique, it still means little to me.
The strongest similarity to me is the LNF chorus drum pattern, with the alternating bass/snare pattern and the fill placement. But then I got thinking and realized something. The basic drum pattern (bass/snare) was written by JP, not a drummer. It makes sense that JP isn't going to be the most creative drummer, and may sub-consciously have reused the same pattern without realizing it, or came up with the same idea independently. It's just unfortunate that this similar also occurred in a song with a very similar intro. But given that this is the only song where I feel the IaW/ADTOE comparison had any legit comparison to begin with, it's weak proof of any intentional similarity.
Similarities can be provable, but intent is not, and I've never thought there was any stock to the idea that DT intentionally copied themselves.
-
Ok, I really already did the analyzing years ago, so I'm more happy to just observe others provide their comparisons.
But just to keep the theme of the OP back on track, here's a cut and paste of a quick breakdown I did over at JP's forum.
Let’s check out some Outcry / Metropolis
0:00 to 0:41 Met =
0:00 to 0:44 Outcry
Simple keyboard drone fade in with some echo type effects. Instead of guitar hits, keyboard notes
0:41 to 1:21 Met =
0:44 to 1:36 Outcry
Big guitar power chords, with sliding, slippery type fills. Denser chord work with keyboards.
1:21 to 1:41 Met =
1:36 to 1:58 Outcry
Guitar really takes over with more single note lines. On repeat, keyboard joins single line counterpoint type lines
1:41 to 1:50 Met =
1:58 to 2:10 Outcry
Guitar sets up main verse theme. Drums become more AC/DC like (Kick – Snare – Kick Snare)
1:50 to 2:12 Met =
2:10 to 2:33 Outcry
Main theme continues as vocals finally join in. on the same riff as the previous measures.
2:12 to 2:27 Met =
2:33 to 2:50 Outcry
Big huge guitar chords over “There’s no more freedom”
2:27 to 2:36 Met =
2:50 to 3:01 Outcry
One long guitar power chord that feels like a mini intermission or announcement that the first movement is over.
2:36 to 3:08 Met =
3:01 to 3:29 Outcry
“I was told there’s a miracle” with very clean guitar and keyboard hits. Ending with “lake of fire”. The *mellow* bridge part
3:08 to 3:26 Met =
3:29 to 3:52 Outcry
Met = As a chile, Outcry = Rise up
3:26 to 3:35 Met =
3:52 to 4:03 Outcry
Similar repeat of 1:21 to 1:41 of Met (and corresponding Outcry) no vocals.
3:35 to 3:57 Met =
4:03 to 4:26 Outcry
Like previous section, except guitar keeps playing same/similar riff while keys pull back to make room for the vocals to come back in for another verse
3:57 to 4:13 Met =
4:26 to 4:43 Outcry
Prechorus section similar to 2:12 to 2:27 Met section (corresponding Outcry prechorus)
4:13 to …. Met =
4:43 to … Outcry
The big long “intermission” chord again, except this time it leads into the instrumental jam session as opposed to circling back to a verse like the first time.
As I said back then, I tried to make it nonmusician friendly so everybody could follow along with timestamps
-
It's not just song structure, but style. PMU/OTBOA has similar moods as achieved by not only structure, but choice of notes. Mellow, big chord lead up, big riff, verse, sweeping chorus, off timed riff (only happens in PMU at end, but riff is similar after 1st PMU chorus to final riff out), verse, mellow reprise, solo, chorus, reprise off timed riff.
LTL/BAI- instrumental intro that is pleasant, bass only verse, big chorus, heavy riff, more instrumental, mellow solo, instrumental, chorus, instrumental closing. The only true difference is having a chorus played three times instrumentally.
Yes, the structures are blatant. But the mentality of a lot of the parts is similar- different notes and keys/progressions and what not yes. But the feel is very similar during much of the songs. LNF's "tickle" section is very close feel wise to the similar UAGM's respective part. Both play with atonality/chromatics or whatever.
The thing was not a note for note copy, and the notes/scales/progression/whatever sound different than I&W. We all see and hear that. But again, the mood is achieved in a similar way that goes beyond the structures. If JP was shred soloing during the mellow intro of OTBOA, that would change things. But he is not, and as a result, it achieves a similar feeling to PMU, while still having a different notes.
-
I have to say, PMU/OTBOA was always way more noticeable to me than UAGM/LNF. The latter pair was like "okay, I guess so" while the former pair has some pretty clear similarities.
Nevertheless, I love both PMU and OTBOA and would probably rank both, but definitely the latter, higher than most people on this forum.
-
ITPOE is a blatant copy of ACoS and nobody says a thing.
1.- Long Instrumental intro (Prelude - The Crimson Sunrise)
2.- First Voice Part, active and emotive
3.- Second Voice Part (Carpe Diem and Heretic) calmer and darker.
The structure was deviated here in an attempt to throw us off and preventing us from finding this out. As the instrumental section from ACoS here (The darkest of winters) is completely ommited.
4.- Voice returns. And sings a chorus repeating section that turns agressive.
5.- Mindless instrumental section (Reckoning and The Inevitable Summer)
6.- Both Salvation and The Crimson Sunset begin with an extremely epic reprise of the main theme from their respective introductions, to a final voice part.
The similarities are extreme and can't be denied.
NopleaseletmegoI'mnotinsane
-
OTBOA/PMU is basically just structure, where if you analyze it, they follow the same format, but other than fitting similar roles on their respective albums, have little more in common than any other two DT songs. Most of the stuff I listen to follows the same structure, and even though DT's structures are a bit more unique, it still means little to me.
The strongest similarity to me is the LNF chorus drum pattern, with the alternating bass/snare pattern and the fill placement. But then I got thinking and realized something. The basic drum pattern (bass/snare) was written by JP, not a drummer. It makes sense that JP isn't going to be the most creative drummer, and may sub-consciously have reused the same pattern without realizing it, or came up with the same idea independently. It's just unfortunate that this similar also occurred in a song with a very similar intro. But given that this is the only song where I feel the IaW/ADTOE comparison had any legit comparison to begin with, it's weak proof of any intentional similarity.
Similarities can be provable, but intent is not, and I've never thought there was any stock to the idea that DT intentionally copied themselves.
You summed it up perfectly although while the pattern of UAGM and LNF are similar, they are not identical. I still don't know what people are trying to insinuate with this so-called structure similarity. As Blob said, there are similarities with all sorts of songs but DT's are more unique so it stands out a bit.
Do people really think that they sat down and charted out a "structure" that they had to follow? Do they think Jordan may have said, "ooo...we should have an instrumental section here" and John responded, "What the fuck dude? Is there an instrumental section at that point in Pull Me Under? We made a pact to follow the same fucking structure. If you don't want to then you can join Portnoy in Adrenaline Mob!"
It's a serious question.
I thought he explained it pretty clearly, however I believe DT has used the scale/mode for a few other songs too, including Home, the instrumental section of ITNOG, and the sitar bit in Paradigm Shift. It's not too common, but not too unusual either.
Odd that people are so focused on ADTOE and not these other ones.
-
Just chiming in to say that the "Most pop songs have similar structures" argument is totally redundant.
That's like comparing companies that build mass produced housing with someone that wants to recreate the Coliseum in Rome.
-
Just chiming in to say that the "Most pop songs have similar structures" argument is totally redundant.
That's like comparing companies that build mass produced housing with someone that wants to recreate the Coliseum in Rome.
I really don't want to start the whole 'music is completely subjective' argument like I've done in a few other threads (which tends to derail them), but I completely disagree.
I'd say most pop music isn't 'mass produced', just like most progressive music (as well as classical) isn't some high form of art that should be respected any more than pop music.
In classical music, during the 17th (18th? I forget) century, a structure called Sonata form was invented, and the first movement of all symphonies followed this structure (mostly) until the 19 century or so.
In that regard, SYMPHONIES, the so called HIGHEST form of music, you could say, were mass produced. Mozart wrote 41 symphonies. Haydn wrote 104.
You can't really compare music (completely based in opinions) with architecture (there are indeed objective qualities that make it 'better' or 'worse').
-
What Lucien said.
And it spares me from making a similar point in a much more offensive and blunt manner. :lol
-
I'm with Lucien too. Music is, for many people, about connecting. If a certain relationship in a song helps to form that connection, why not use it, even if that relationship has been done before?
-
Im simply saying that if youre going to use the "well many pop songs have similar structure" argument to back up your belief that DT didn't do anything deliberately, I think it's worth pointing out that we're not talking about basic/typical structure. They even went for the same grooves and feel inside a frame work that has many more variables than your average pop song structure.
You can argue that pop music isn't generic. But if you use that argument that says "well many pop songs have a similar structure" then I don't see it as valid as we aren't talking about songs (UAGM) that have typical structure.
That said - my view is that I actually thought it was a really cool and creative thing to have done. I don't see a problem with it. I think it was deliberate and a tip of the hat to some great DT tracks. I personally don't understand how people aren't hearing it or don't accept it was deliberate.
I don't think it's a conspiracy either.
-
Do people really think that they sat down and charted out a "structure" that they had to follow?
Sure - why not? It's an established fact that the band had previously charted out songs after they had written and arranged them so that it was easier for them to remember the individual parts. At that point, they were without a band member who was good at organizing and arranging the individual parts (and, who I imagine was the one who wrote out those charts) AND wanted bring the band back to something a bit more familiar - why not use the song structures from their most popular album (all of which are well known to the fanbase) and use them as starting points for coming up with something new? I'd expect that they kept photos or notes of every song chart (for every album) along with all the other documentation of each album - for instance, there's a photo of JP next to a chart for UaGM in the IaW demo official bootleg, as well as the aforementioned chart for SoC that was given to the fans for the songwriting contest.
Maybe it just started off as a basic writing challenge and they were happy with the results (not unlike the 2003 contest they did involving the chart used for Stream of Consciousness). Who knows how the idea of doing so might have started. But it's a completely believable possibility, and given the fact that the structures to more than half of the songs on ADToE mirror relatively closely those on IaW, more than just coincidence.
Do they think Jordan may have said, "ooo...we should have an instrumental section here" and John responded, "What the fuck dude? Is there an instrumental section at that point in Pull Me Under? We made a pact to follow the same fucking structure. If you don't want to then you can join Portnoy in Adrenaline Mob!"
It's a serious question.
Maybe your first question was serious, but the over-the-top ass-hat comments you followed it up (above) with just show that you're trying to make anyone who believes the reused song structures idea is a fool. :tdwn
-
Do people really think that they sat down and charted out a "structure" that they had to follow?
Sure - why not? It's an established fact that the band had previously charted out songs after they had written and arranged them so that it was easier for them to remember the individual parts. At that point, they were without a band member who was good at organizing and arranging the individual parts (and, who I imagine was the one who wrote out those charts) AND wanted bring the band back to something a bit more familiar - why not use the song structures from their most popular album (all of which are well known to the fanbase) and use them as starting points for coming up with something new? I'd expect that they kept photos or notes of every song chart (for every album) along with all the other documentation of each album - for instance, there's a photo of JP next to a chart for UaGM in the IaW demo official bootleg, as well as the aforementioned chart for SoC that was given to the fans for the songwriting contest.
Different genre, I get it, but Michael Moorcock charts out many of his books before he writes them; x number of chapters of y pages each, each subdivided into three sections, etc. Glorianna I believe was written this way, as were his two books on London. The Elric/Oona series as well. Plays are divided into acts. Songs - even "non-boiler plate, non-pop template" songs are often arranged by section. How many longer pieces begin with an "overture" type piece?
These things have resonance. Introduction, tension, release, climax... there are only so many effective ways of building emotion, and we already know that DT values the role of structure (look at the thought that went into the structuring of ACOS, or 6DOIT, or Erotomania Suite...
-
Im simply saying that if youre going to use the "well many pop songs have similar structure" argument to back up your belief that DT didn't do anything deliberately, I think it's worth pointing out that we're not talking about basic/typical structure. They even went for the same grooves and feel inside a frame work that has many more variables than your average pop song structure.
You can argue that pop music isn't generic. But if you use that argument that says "well many pop songs have a similar structure" then I don't see it as valid as we aren't talking about songs (UAGM) that have typical structure.
That said - my view is that I actually thought it was a really cool and creative thing to have done. I don't see a problem with it. I think it was deliberate and a tip of the hat to some great DT tracks. I personally don't understand how people aren't hearing it or don't accept it was deliberate.
I don't think it's a conspiracy either.
Really well put. All of this :biggrin:
-
:facepalm:
-
Do people really think that they sat down and charted out a "structure" that they had to follow?
Sure - why not? It's an established fact that the band had previously charted out songs after they had written and arranged them so that it was easier for them to remember the individual parts. At that point, they were without a band member who was good at organizing and arranging the individual parts (and, who I imagine was the one who wrote out those charts) AND wanted bring the band back to something a bit more familiar - why not use the song structures from their most popular album (all of which are well known to the fanbase) and use them as starting points for coming up with something new? I'd expect that they kept photos or notes of every song chart (for every album) along with all the other documentation of each album - for instance, there's a photo of JP next to a chart for UaGM in the IaW demo official bootleg, as well as the aforementioned chart for SoC that was given to the fans for the songwriting contest.
Maybe it just started off as a basic writing challenge and they were happy with the results (not unlike the 2003 contest they did involving the chart used for Stream of Consciousness). Who knows how the idea of doing so might have started. But it's a completely believable possibility, and given the fact that the structures to more than half of the songs on ADToE mirror relatively closely those on IaW, more than just coincidence.
Do they think Jordan may have said, "ooo...we should have an instrumental section here" and John responded, "What the fuck dude? Is there an instrumental section at that point in Pull Me Under? We made a pact to follow the same fucking structure. If you don't want to then you can join Portnoy in Adrenaline Mob!"
It's a serious question.
Maybe your first question was serious, but the over-the-top ass-hat comments you followed it up (above) with just show that you're trying to make anyone who believes the reused song structures idea is a fool. :tdwn
you know, I don't agree with you on a whole lot but I thought that this type of response was below you. I guess not. :tdwn :tdwn :tdwn
-
Maybe it just started off as a basic writing challenge and they were happy with the results
That's my take, but I don't even care about the why. It happened, people noticed it. Let people talk about it. It actually seems more "crazy" to me that some people want to endlessly argue the nonsense part of the equation. Talk about the songs so other musicians that like to deconstruct songs can have a fun and informational discussion. The only people talking conspiracy are the "defenders of the faith."
-
Do people really think that they sat down and charted out a "structure" that they had to follow?
Sure - why not? It's an established fact that the band had previously charted out songs after they had written and arranged them so that it was easier for them to remember the individual parts. At that point, they were without a band member who was good at organizing and arranging the individual parts (and, who I imagine was the one who wrote out those charts) AND wanted bring the band back to something a bit more familiar - why not use the song structures from their most popular album (all of which are well known to the fanbase) and use them as starting points for coming up with something new? I'd expect that they kept photos or notes of every song chart (for every album) along with all the other documentation of each album - for instance, there's a photo of JP next to a chart for UaGM in the IaW demo official bootleg, as well as the aforementioned chart for SoC that was given to the fans for the songwriting contest.
Maybe it just started off as a basic writing challenge and they were happy with the results (not unlike the 2003 contest they did involving the chart used for Stream of Consciousness). Who knows how the idea of doing so might have started. But it's a completely believable possibility, and given the fact that the structures to more than half of the songs on ADToE mirror relatively closely those on IaW, more than just coincidence.
Do they think Jordan may have said, "ooo...we should have an instrumental section here" and John responded, "What the fuck dude? Is there an instrumental section at that point in Pull Me Under? We made a pact to follow the same fucking structure. If you don't want to then you can join Portnoy in Adrenaline Mob!"
It's a serious question.
Maybe your first question was serious, but the over-the-top ass-hat comments you followed it up (above) with just show that you're trying to make anyone who believes the reused song structures idea is a fool. :tdwn
you know, I don't agree with you on a whole lot but I thought that this type of response was below you. I guess not. :tdwn :tdwn :tdwn
Way to completely ignore the majority of my post. ::)
But as for something being "below" me? Just because I described your comments as "ass-hat" which were definitely looking to stir up more controversy, rile up the opposing side of the argument, or as I said make us look like fools, this is "below" me? So be it. I call it like I see it, and that's what I see.
-
I wasn't trying to make you look like a fool but you've done a pretty good job of it yourself, hence me ignoring the majority of your post.
-
I wasn't trying to make you look like a fool but you've done a pretty good job of it yourself, hence me ignoring the majority of your post.
to be honest he is pretty right about your 'serious question', as I'm sure DT is a very laid back group of 5 people who wouldn't yell at each other over things like structure
-
Ignore my theory of ACoS, deny it, sure, DTF, thank you.
-
Guys guys guys. Let's stop the bickering. It's just what Portnoy wants !!!!
-
I wasn't trying to make you look like a fool but you've done a pretty good job of it yourself, hence me ignoring the majority of your post.
to be honest he is pretty right about your 'serious question', as I'm sure DT is a very laid back group of 5 people who wouldn't yell at each other over things like structure
haha, I know. Obviously it was exaggerated to have a little fun with it. I definitely didn't think people would react in such an overly sensitive way. But take away my imagining JP threatening to banish JR and I seriously wonder what people think. Do you think of an instrumental section struck them as the way to go that they would nix the idea because it didn't fit in with the so-called structure? It just seems a bit ridiculous to me.
I doubt they had the these charts to look off of from I&W since MP was the keeper of all that anyway and well...he doesn't have a propensity to share at the moment. I just can't fathom they would chart them all out and then require each other to stick within those confines.
-
I doubt they had the these charts to look off of from I&W since MP was the keeper of all that anyway and well...he doesn't have a propensity to share at the moment. I just can't fathom they would chart them all out and then require each other to stick within those conines.
Trying not to get too deep into this at this point, as I'm somewhere between the two hardline camps, but I have to imagine the guys would have been perfectly able to chart out the IAW songs without the original charts. They've played those songs a lot over the years. I could probably even chart out most of the songs on the album just from listening to them a lot, and I don't play an instrument.
-
I doubt they had the these charts to look off of from I&W since MP was the keeper of all that anyway and well...he doesn't have a propensity to share at the moment. I just can't fathom they would chart them all out and then require each other to stick within those conines.
Trying not to get too deep into this at this point, as I'm somewhere between the two hardline camps, but I have to imagine the guys would have been perfectly able to chart out the IAW songs without the original charts. They've played those songs a lot over the years. I could probably even chart out most of the songs on the album just from listening to them a lot, and I don't play an instrument.
I totally agree that they could no problem, I just personally find it hard to believe that they would.
-
I have a theory that it just kind of happened organically.
I remember checking setlist.fm shortly before Portnoy left, and according to their statistics, the top 7 most played live songs by Dream Theater were all from Images and Words . "Wait for Sleep" was the odd song out (and even that was still in the top 15), and "Pull Me Under" was the in the lead, having been played over 400 times live as of 2010, with three other tracks from the album also over 400 not far behind, and three others over 300. Everything about those songs, including their structures, must seriously have been written into their DNA by that point. If you asked Petrucci for the structure of "Metropolis", he could probably recite it to you off the top of his head, verbatim.
So imagine they are siting down to write A Dramatic Turn of Events, their first album without Mike Portnoy in the band. Those songs are so ingrained in their mind that I would not be surprised at all if they just started writing songs that (quite unintentionally, mind you) mirrored the structures of tracks from I&W and didn't even notice without someone else pointing it out to them.
So how come it never happened before?
Because I have a feeling that Portnoy, who was so famously neurotic about details and a major player in the arrangements of their songs, probably prevented it from happening before. If Petrucci and Rudess had written a song that too closely followed something they had done before, Portnoy probably would have said "we have to change that, because it comes to close to 'X song'", unless he wanted to make it an intentional nugget. ADTOE was the first time they had ever written an album without Portnoy, so he wasn't there to point out to them that what they were writing was so similar to songs they had been playing for nearly 20 years at that point.
So I don't think there was anything sneaky or underhanded or even conscious about the whole thing at all. I just think the band subconsciously wrote songs that fit those I&W structures because they were so deeply ingrained in their minds, and Portnoy wasn't there to stop them this time. That is probably why Petrucci denied the rumors that the band was intentionally ripping off their past, because they didn't do it intentionally; it just kind of happened, and that band probably didn't even notice it until Thaigo started posting about it online. At that point, they would never admit that they had "accidentally" replicated the charts, because, frankly, it would have sounded embarrassing, and no one would believe it anyways.
Incidentally, it will probably never happen again, because if they weren't keeping an eye out for that sort of thing before, you can be damn sure they are keeping an eye out for it now!
-
Agree with the guy above.
Pretty sure a reason why Portnoy noted the similarities between both albums was because he basically has I&W tattooed on his soul permanently. I also think he was kind of expecting this.
-
If I'm remembering correctly, someone brought the analysis up on his forum and then he commented on it.
-
Please stop arguing and let me masturbate peacefully to Petrucci's Octavarium solo k thx.
-
I've always maintained the use of I&W charts had to have been a conscious move by the band and it was a cool concept at that. The band has gone on record many times saying the ADTOE was intended to be a representation of the band up to that point (and even though Portnoy was gone, it was the still same DT that the fans expected). What better way to demonstrate this than looking at the I&W charts to draw inspiration for new songs that represented DT's past.
For these reasons I highly doubt any inference that the band wanted to look at the song charts in prior writing sessions, but Portnoy forbid it. It just seems logical that this idea came about post-MP as the band was contemplating how they could prove to the fans that they were still the same DT.
The ITPOE and ACOS comparison is more of a stretch for me, as it falls under the more common universal tenants of writing a 20 minute epic. For example, if ITPOE had an acoustic section I would be more open to this comparison, but seems like a case of the fans finding the similarities, rather than the band deliberately looking at the ACOS song chart.
-
I call it like I see it, and that's what I see.
Mike Portnoy, is that you?? :lol :lol
-
If I'm remembering correctly, someone brought the analysis up on his forum and then he commented on it.
Remember, people don't want facts to interfere with attacking MP.
-
I think the implication and speculations regarding what Mike Portnoy did or did not do, what he "forbade" and what he didn't, in the studio five or more years ago is completely ridiculous. None of us where there, none of us know if this issue was even discussed, let alone HOW it was discussed and who took what sides on what.
Mike is fastidious, and with his love of "nuggetz", I can just as easily see him saying "hey, let's use these as a template! Sort of a revisit, or "internal inspiration corner", and the band saying NO, then when Mike leaves, doing that as a "put this in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. I-Want-A-Break!".
Just as plausible, but alas not as much fun for the Portnoy bashers.
-
:justjen
-
https://www.guitarworld.com/lord-strings-shred-king-john-petrucci-discusses-dream-theaters-new-self-titled-album
Nevermind, here ya go.
Case closed.
:facepalm: :lol
(Awake - track 8)
Let’s check out some Outcry / Metropolis
0:00 to 0:41 Met =
0:00 to 0:44 Outcry
Simple keyboard drone fade in with some echo type effects. Instead of guitar hits, keyboard notes
0:41 to 1:21 Met =
0:44 to 1:36 Outcry
Big guitar power chords, with sliding, slippery type fills. Denser chord work with keyboards.
1:21 to 1:41 Met =
1:36 to 1:58 Outcry
Guitar really takes over with more single note lines. On repeat, keyboard joins single line counterpoint type lines
1:41 to 1:50 Met =
1:58 to 2:10 Outcry
Guitar sets up main verse theme. Drums become more AC/DC like (Kick – Snare – Kick Snare)
1:50 to 2:12 Met =
2:10 to 2:33 Outcry
Main theme continues as vocals finally join in. on the same riff as the previous measures.
2:12 to 2:27 Met =
2:33 to 2:50 Outcry
Big huge guitar chords over “There’s no more freedom”
2:27 to 2:36 Met =
2:50 to 3:01 Outcry
One long guitar power chord that feels like a mini intermission or announcement that the first movement is over.
2:36 to 3:08 Met =
3:01 to 3:29 Outcry
“I was told there’s a miracle” with very clean guitar and keyboard hits. Ending with “lake of fire”. The *mellow* bridge part
3:08 to 3:26 Met =
3:29 to 3:52 Outcry
Met = As a chile, Outcry = Rise up
3:26 to 3:35 Met =
3:52 to 4:03 Outcry
Similar repeat of 1:21 to 1:41 of Met (and corresponding Outcry) no vocals.
3:35 to 3:57 Met =
4:03 to 4:26 Outcry
Like previous section, except guitar keeps playing same/similar riff while keys pull back to make room for the vocals to come back in for another verse
3:57 to 4:13 Met =
4:26 to 4:43 Outcry
Prechorus section similar to 2:12 to 2:27 Met section (corresponding Outcry prechorus)
4:13 to …. Met =
4:43 to … Outcry
The big long “intermission” chord again, except this time it leads into the instrumental jam session as opposed to circling back to a verse like the first time.
Nailed it!.. And some still can't see the similarities.. They copied the structure/mood of five songs of their most popular (and overrated ;D) album.. What finally led them to five new and different songs.. I'm glad they've done that.. Of course MP's leave has something to do with it, only that we'll probably never know exactly in which way..
-
I just don't understand what either side is trying to prove here.
Sure, there are some definite similarities (I mean, Petrucci says they're unintentional, maybe he's telling the truth, but a lot of the stuff is really prominent, particularly on OTBOA which I would have noticed even without this stuff). And some cases where the similarities are exaggerated (they absolutely did not "copy the moods," ToT-147. LNF is a totally different mood than UAGM, Outcry is a totally different mood than Metropolis).
So what? Honestly, so what? Why do we do this every few weeks, only to have it devolve into "MP warriors and DT haters vs. blindly loyal DT fanboys"? Why do we do it, what does it matter?
-
Case closed.
:facepalm: :lol
(Awake - track 8)
Exactly. Even when JP says the accusations are not true, people are willing to take his words as lies only in order to be able to continue with their ADTOE bash-fest. The way I see it is, if we acknowledge JP's words as the truth, we can enjoy the analysis in itself and not worry about it turning into attacks.
Interesting post by The Dark Master on the previous page.
-
The way I see it is, if we acknowledge JP's words as the truth, we can enjoy the analysis in itself and not worry about it turning into attacks.
Nobody is really doing what you are saying. They are saying the structures are the same ... period. Then the defenders of the faith come in and discuss all the nonsense. If the DoF would just keep their paranoia out of it, we could just have a nice analysis talk.
-
They absolutely did not "copy the moods," ToT-147. LNF is a totally different mood than UAGM, Outcry is a totally different mood than Metropolis.
Okay, I give you that this particular aspect of the controversy is very subjective.. Using a word as "mood" is not being so much accurate, is it?.. And I used it to serve that purpose.. Things like these are never black or white.. And that's the problem with the words in bold.. By use them, you're denying the possibility that the respective songs don't look alike at all.. And this actually confuse me because you said too that "there are some definite similarities".. If there are definite similarities between two songs, then their mood can not be different... or at least not different enough to get to say that they have totally different moods..
But ok, I admit it sounded like I was being radical (thus foolish) by saying that they copied the structure and mood.. But what I didn't specify (taking it for granted) is that you don't make a song only by doing its structure or creating a given mood for it.. You have too add notes to it.. Scales, melodies, harmonies.. All these, and relatively more, is what ends up making the song.. And yeah, you have many ways to do that structure, mood, etc: among them, the thoughtful one, and the easy one.. The latter would be the method that is being debated.. You can copy others, you can copy yourself.. But whoever and whatever you copy, that doesn't guarantee you to construct a song that anyone could like, and even that yourself could like..
TLDR: to copy a song structure doesn't make it less or more good.. You have to actually compose the song.. That's always the hard part, whether you extract the structure from another song or not..
And DT, as other in this thread have said, have such an unique song structures made all over their catalogue, that is impossible (*I* *guess*) at some point not to feel like 'Hey, we should do a new song with that structure... It's so awesome that it's a shame see it used in just one song..'
Why do we do this every few weeks, only to have it devolve into "MP warriors and DT haters vs. blindly loyal DT fanboys"? Why do we do it, what does it matter?
I don't see none of those around here.. All I've seen in this thread are constructive discussions full of ambiguous but funny (and some even inspiring) arguments about one of the most striking, intricate and controversial topics the DT world has had in the last few years..
"What does it matter?".. What does it matter football when you're in a DT forum?.. :lol
OTOH, this IS important..
-
Okay, I give you that this particular aspect of the controversy is very subjective.. Using a word as "mood" is not being so much accurate, is it?.. And I used it to serve that purpose.. Things like these are never black or white.. And that's the problem with the words in bold.. By use them, you're denying the possibility that the respective songs don't look alike at all.. And this actually confuse me because you said too that "there are some definite similarities".. If there are definite similarities between two songs, then their mood can not be different... or at least not different enough to get to say that they have totally different moods..
There are structural similarities. If I write two songs with the exact same song structure, but one is happy and one is sad, the moods are totally different.
Why do we do this every few weeks, only to have it devolve into "MP warriors and DT haters vs. blindly loyal DT fanboys"? Why do we do it, what does it matter?
I don't see none of those around here.. All I've seen in this thread are constructive discussions full of ambiguous but funny (and some even inspiring) arguments about one of the most striking, intricate and controversial topics the DT world has had in the last few years..
Then the defenders of the faith come in and discuss all the nonsense. If the DoF would just keep their paranoia out of it, we could just have a nice analysis talk.
This is not constructive. I'm sure I could find something similar from the other side.
"What does it matter?".. What does it matter football when you're in a DT forum?.. :lol
OTOH, this IS important..
I wasn't asking that as a snarky thing, by the way. I was really asking: Why does it matter? What is either side seeking to prove?
-
There are structural similarities. If I write two songs with the exact same song structure, but one is happy and one is sad, the moods are totally different.
This is, once again, the problem with using a word like structure because it isn't just talking about verse-chorus-bridge as names of sections. Prog usually has sections that really don't fall into those names (and only used for lack of a coined term). We are talking about instrumentation as well. The moment of the band pulling back as a guitar power chord rings for a few measures. And that evokes a mood of the end of a movement.
Then the defenders of the faith come in and discuss all the nonsense. If the DoF would just keep their paranoia out of it, we could just have a nice analysis talk.
This is not constructive. I'm sure I could find something similar from the other side.
It gets right to the core of the problem. Go to OP. They gave a very respectful analysis and didn't try to bring in any motives to why this happened. They were immediately met with scorn and ridicule. Maybe just try not jumping on somebody for analyzing music for having a tin foil hat, and just maybe it would be a pretty straightforward discussion sharing musical analysis. You'd think that would be welcomed by DT fans.
Why does it matter?
Because this is what musicians or just music appreciation entails. Deconstructing songs. Talking about music on a deeper level than "rawks".
What is either side seeking to prove?
Then you are asking the wrong question. They are sharing and looking for constructive discussion. Seems like only one side is trying to prove something.
How many pages of this and I think only two actual posts on discussing the structures in any form of detail and thoughtfulness. I made an effort to get it back to the OP's intent by providing something I broke down in 2011. But considering 4 years later the BS back and forth won't die down, I doubt it ever will. Maybe it will work in 2025 when people are far enough removed from feeling like they need to defend DT ... from nothing.
-
There are structural similarities. If I write two songs with the exact same song structure, but one is happy and one is sad, the moods are totally different.
Yes, exactly.. But two things:
1) I never said (and anyone with an ounce of sense would not either) that structure is the same that mood.. I was precisely differentiating from one another.. So yeah, even songs with the same main melodies, similar lyrics, and equal content (like the About to Crashs) could have different moods, though I know it's not the perfect example..
2) [And, again, this is nothing but a subjective issue] I think the moods of PMU/OtBoA, LNF/UaGM, Mpt1/Outcry, FFH/WFS and LtL/BAI are respectively the same, or at least very similar.. And I know it's not just me..
I was really asking: Why does it matter? What is either side seeking to prove?
Ah, OK.. That's another thing.. And maybe you're even hitting the nail on the head by asking that.. Idk what's everyone seeking to prove.. But the thing is that there's nothing to PROVE, or, more precisely, there's no way to prove these kind of things.. Even if JP is telling the truth.. This "truth" is still relative and very obscure anyway.. It's an unusual situation.. And if you go deeper into the causes, and want a prove of something at the same time, you may not getting very far or making the thing less clear than it is from all the arguments we're having right here..
Maybe JM is the one behind all this and we are wasting our time paying attention to the wrong guy.. :justjen :lol
-
We are talking about instrumentation as well. The moment of the band pulling back as a guitar power chord rings for a few measures. And that evokes a mood of the end of a movement.
Sure. On a micro level there might be moments like that. But Outcry absolutely does not evoke the same emotion as Metropolis. And I find it bizarre that some people are contending that it does.
This is not constructive. I'm sure I could find something similar from the other side.
It gets right to the core of the problem. Go to OP. They gave a very respectful analysis and didn't try to bring in any motives to why this happened. They were immediately met with scorn and ridicule. Maybe just try not jumping on somebody for analyzing music for having a tin foil hat, and just maybe it would be a pretty straightforward discussion sharing musical analysis. You'd think that would be welcomed by DT fans.[/quote]
There are some questionable comments on the first page, but nothing as bad as what you're making it sound like. But like I said, both sides of this are being pretty insulting towards the other.
Someone who doesn't hear the comparison is not a "defender of the faith" by default. And in my opinion, saying things like that is a cheap way of "scorning and ridiculing" those who disagree with you.
Why does it matter?
Because this is what musicians or just music appreciation entails. Deconstructing songs. Talking about music on a deeper level than "rawks".
There's a lot to be desired in terms of analysis here. Personally, I don't get anything from a list of timestamps and descriptions of similarities. Okay, there are similarities. No one has shown me why I should care beyond "hmm, that's sort of interesting" which has been my reaction the many times when this has come up in the past.
Maybe if someone were to elaborate on what the similarities mean in the context of the song. I've tried to note that what we have are songs that come across very differently despite their notable similarities in structure. That line of conversation hasn't taken me far. Some people have agreed, everyone on the side of "look at all these similarities," however, has either ignored what I've said or continued to insist that the things I think are strong differences are actually similarities.
And all the while everybody calls everybody else fanboys or haters or "defenders of the faith."
What is either side seeking to prove?
Then you are asking the wrong question. They are sharing and looking for constructive discussion. Seems like only one side is trying to prove something.
Maybe that's the problem. Once again, what does this mean for the songs? There is not a whole to gain from a list of timestamped similarities.
How many pages of this and I think only two actual posts on discussing the structures in any form of detail and thoughtfulness. I made an effort to get it back to the OP's intent by providing something I broke down in 2011. But considering 4 years later the BS back and forth won't die down, I doubt it ever will. Maybe it will work in 2025 when people are far enough removed from feeling like they need to defend DT ... from nothing.
I keep trying to talk about the different emotional and musical aspects of the song, as I think it's interesting that two songs have strong similarities but use those structures to achieve different ends musically, but that really hasn't gotten anyway. I just get told "no, they're copies."
But considering 4 years later the BS back and forth won't die down, I doubt it ever will. Maybe it will work in 2025 when people are far enough removed from feeling like they need to defend DT ... from nothing.
Personally, I think jumping to the conclusion that this is what people are doing when they say they don't hear the similarities or quote Petrucci disputing the claim is not productive. But what do I known.
-
I started to respond, but it really just seems counterproductive. Talking about talking instead of talking about something. I don't care about any of this other than just letting the analysis talk happen. Maybe somebody that has something to offer has decided it just isn't worth the nonsense. That's sad.
-
Sure. On a micro level there might be moments like that. But Outcry absolutely does not evoke the same emotion as Metropolis. And I find it bizarre that some people are contending that it does.
It evokes a similar emotion for me, instrumentally at the least. Outcry is more emotional to me as a result of the lyrical topic. But instrumentally, I get a similar vibe.
I just get told "no, they're copies."
They are not.
Let's hit this-
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7vw9BHKDZhpke_mnJD4UqQ
(https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7vw9BHKDZhpke_mnJD4UqQ)
Look at that guy's Satriani Coldplay video. For copyright stuff fear, I don't want to do the exact link. But he goes over how the songs have more in common than a main melody. That is kind of what I'm trying to say- stuff like substituted chords with similar sounds, similar tempos and so on make a big deal. And actually, the two songs here (If I Could Fly and Viva La Vida) are quite different structurally. So how can two songs completely different sound similar for a good chunk, but not be similar? 12 notes here, only so many ways to organize them.
-
I started to respond, but it really just seems counterproductive. Talking about talking instead of talking about something. I don't care about any of this other than just letting the analysis talk happen. Maybe somebody that has something to offer has decided it just isn't worth the nonsense. That's sad.
That's fair, I don't even hardly care about this anymore. I just hope that instead of attacking people, there might be a little more understanding of why people disagree.
Some people might legitimately not hear it. That doesn't mean they have religious sentiments towards the John Petrucci.
-
The way I see it is, if we acknowledge JP's words as the truth, we can enjoy the analysis in itself and not worry about it turning into attacks.
Nobody is really doing what you are saying. They are saying the structures are the same ... period. Then the defenders of the faith come in and discuss all the nonsense. If the DoF would just keep their paranoia out of it, we could just have a nice analysis talk.
Good point, I'll try to pay more attention to what the people are saying at the moment. It was full of negativity back in the day, I'm glad that the people have moved on if that's the case.
-
The only instance where DT really ripped off previous work was in BC&SL. It had A Change of Seasons, Octavarium, Learning to Live, Pull Me Under and The Glass Prison all in a single album. Yet people complain about ADTOE and IAW.
-
:lol Nice one..
But now seriously, BC&SL is better than all those toghether.. :hefdaddy :heart :metal
-
But now seriously, BC&SL is better than all those toghether.. :hefdaddy :heart :metal
(https://www.transdiffusion.org/images/SimpsonsTechDiff.jpg)
-
You're smart enough for me to explain.. Go live your life now..
I live with serenity now.. Not self-righteous hate.. :azn:
-
But now seriously, BC&SL is better than all those toghether.. :hefdaddy :heart :metal
I like BCSL better than most, but no. TCOT is top 5 DT and ANTR is top 10, but Octavarium and Learning to Live are top 5 as well. And every song in that list rates higher than A Rite of Passage and probably Wither.
-
:lol Nice one..
But now seriously, BC&SL is better than all those toghether.. :hefdaddy :heart :metal
(https://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i238/hefdaddy42/funny/sululaugh.gif)
-
But now seriously, BC&SL is better than all those toghether.. :hefdaddy :heart :metal
I like BCSL better than most, but no. TCOT is top 5 DT and ANTR is top 10, but Octavarium and Learning to Live are top 5 as well. And every song in that list rates higher than A Rite of Passage and probably Wither.
I'm with you on Wither, one of my least favorite DT songs...but I never understood the hate for AROP. Then again, my introduction to metal and my favorite band of all time would be Black Sabbath so I love that DT had a more scaled back and heavy song.
-
I don't understand the hate for AROP either. I like it quite a bit. I like ACOS, 8VM, LTL, PMU and TGP better than it, which isn't exactly the harshest criticism AROP has ever received.
Also I would rate Wither much more favorably than you do.
-
To be more precise:
A Change of Seasons < A Nightmare to Remember The Glass Prison > The Shattered Fortress
Pull Me Under = A Rite of Passage Learning to Live = The Best of Times
The Silent Man (... let's say) = Wither Octavarium < The Count of Tuscany
But whatever, let's get back to the topic..
-
The one of those where you ranked the non-BCSL tracks higher is one where I disagree with you :lol
-
:P :lol
-
I don't understand the hate for AROP either. I like it quite a bit. I like ACOS, 8VM, LTL, PMU and TGP better than it, which isn't exactly the harshest criticism AROP has ever received.
Also I would rate Wither much more favorably than you do.
Me as well. AROP is great fun for me to play along to. I love, LOVE the chorus and everything about it. The lyrics can be taken differently than what the song is about. The guitar lead line is stellar. The vocal melody and harmonies are great. And JM playing basic 8th notes complements it perfectly.
The first verse riff is just sweet, and it not being on the start beat of the measure is cool. MP's backing stuff works well, despite being the big symptom of the problem in the band.
The instrumental section is hit and miss, which is probably where a lot of dislike comes from (iPhone/iPad). I like the syncopated riff incredibly, and the part of JP's solo in that section reminds me of fusion- not sure if it is.
-
^^^ Yes. I agree with all of that. Great song, highly underrated. :metal
-
I don't understand the hate for AROP either. I like it quite a bit. I like ACOS, 8VM, LTL, PMU and TGP better than it, which isn't exactly the harshest criticism AROP has ever received.
Also I would rate Wither much more favorably than you do.
Me as well. AROP is great fun for me to play along to. I love, LOVE the chorus and everything about it. The lyrics can be taken differently than what the song is about.
That is part of what makes great lyrics. You need to be able to debate and discuss. Even though AROP is pretty blunt, there is still some ambiguity. TCOT and ANTR are about one thing...and that is indisputable. Definitely the main thing I dislike about those two songs (as opposed to the growls which I actually dont give a shit about)
-
That is part of what makes great lyrics. You need to be able to debate and discuss. Even though AROP is pretty blunt, there is still some ambiguity. TCOT and ANTR are about one thing...and that is indisputable. Definitely the main thing I dislike about those two songs (as opposed to the growls which I actually dont give a shit about)
Let's be honest here, does anyone really think they know what AROP is about? All of it? We've all got our ideas and preconceptions on the subject and the verses seem a bit more straight forward but seriously, that song isn't blunt at all. Easily the most creative lyrics on the album IMO. ;)
That is kind of what I'm trying to say- stuff like substituted chords with similar sounds, similar tempos and so on make a big deal. And actually, the two songs here (If I Could Fly and Viva La Vida) are quite different structurally. So how can two songs completely different sound similar for a good chunk, but not be similar? 12 notes here, only so many ways to organize them.
And even less ways to organise them in a harmonically pleasing succession. I don't think there's any smaller combination of notes (that sounds good to human ears) that hasn't been tried at this point. What makes something ultimately unique is how it's structured, the tones used, the sounds used, the mood created, how well it disguises the obvious. Eg. counter rhythms and melodies can disguise simpler patterns by applying them in a polymetric way. Certain chords can seem less ordinary by adding say a simple extension or suspension. Stuff like that. Then again being unique doesn't equate to something being good, but sometimes something seems good because it seems unique. It's just if you break it down it probably isn't really unique. lol
We're all using the same notes so it's pretty much impossible to come up with something unique unless you start making irregular or unpredictable sequences and those can be fun but don't necessarily stay good for very long because (imo) one of the reasons we enjoy music is because we connect with the patterns. If there's no predictable pattern to latch onto or the listener doesn't feel the pattern, they probably won't think it's a very good or catchy piece of music.
-
Oh no....not this again please...
How can you even imagine that a band can "get inspired" by the structure of a song?
It's like getting inspired by the frame of a painting...it simply doesn't make sense!
You can "get inspired" (read "copy") by ideas, riffs, moods, solos, even time signature...but not stuctures.
YOU DON'T WRITE SONGS starting from a structure.
Yes, there are similiarities in the structures...but so what?
If you look at most band, you will see that they tend to have similiar structures in different songs across the albums...
In this specific case, structures are similar but all the rest of the songs has nothing to share..
I would have been "worried" in the opposite case...
:facepalm:
-
How can you even imagine that a band can "get inspired" by the structure of a song?
It's like getting inspired by the frame of a painting...it simply doesn't make sense!
You can "get inspired" (read "copy") by ideas, riffs, moods, solos, even time signature...but not stuctures.
YOU DON'T WRITE SONGS starting from a structure.
I get what you're saying about simply writing a song based on generic structures (guitar intro, overture, verse, bridge, chorus, solo, etc). But that's not how DT (at least in the past) did so. In the past, when they developed different parts that they would piece together, these were labeled according to what they reminded the band of. So at times it might be more generic, but usually something far more detailed, such as "Crimson Setup" "UK Rise" and "Muse Riff". So in that case, it is possible to write and be inspired something based on such structures.
Actually, the SOC contest that the band had in 2003, where fans were encouraged to write their own music based on the structural charts (with each section having a descriptive name) the band had written for Stream of Consciousness proves that it can be and has been done. So why is it so hard to believe that the band couldn't have done the same thing, at least as a starting point?
Yes, there are similiarities in the structures...but so what?
If you look at most band, you will see that they tend to have similiar structures in different songs across the albums...
In this specific case, structures are similar but all the rest of the songs has nothing to share..
I would have been "worried" in the opposite case...
:facepalm:
No offense, but your arguments here have already been discussed in this thread - why not have a look at what was already mentioned?
-
How can you even imagine that a band can "get inspired" by the structure of a song?
It's like getting inspired by the frame of a painting...it simply doesn't make sense!
Actually I think it would be more like getting inspired by the composition of a painting and it is one of the big aspect of making an impactful picture. Deciding on a composition (the painting's structure) is one of the first thing one would do before actually painting. The big difference though, is that in music structure is not as important as in paintings.
YOU DON'T WRITE SONGS starting from a structure.
As far as I know things like symphonies are built from a set structure of four movements. So it's definitely something that has been done before. And I don't see why it couldn't still be done today.
-
As far as I know things like symphonies are built from a set structure of four movements. So it's definitely something that has been done before. And I don't see why it couldn't still be done today.
Yes, and during the Classical era, each movement also had their own structure, i.e. 1st movement was sonata form, 2nd and 3rd were ternary, and 4th was either sonata form again or rondo
-
Oh no....not this again please...
How can you even imagine that a band can "get inspired" by the structure of a song?
It's like getting inspired by the frame of a painting...it simply doesn't make sense!
You can "get inspired" (read "copy") by ideas, riffs, moods, solos, even time signature...but not stuctures.
YOU DON'T WRITE SONGS starting from a structure.
Yes, there are similiarities in the structures...but so what?
If you look at most band, you will see that they tend to have similiar structures in different songs across the albums...
In this specific case, structures are similar but all the rest of the songs has nothing to share..
I would have been "worried" in the opposite case...
:facepalm:
I facepalm your entire post. Who are you to say what inspires an artist or not? I have already cited one artist (the great Michael Moorcock, legendary sci-fi writer, musician, and sometime lyricist for Hawkwind and Blue Oyster Cult, among others) who absolutely and by his own admission (I have personally heard him say this) wrote material inspired strictly by the structural limits he self-imposed on himself.
I know they are hacks, and not well known for their songwriting, but there was a band from Liverpool, England called "The Beatles" who often wrote to a "structure", especially in the early days, and what little "genius" they had (if you can even use that word with The Beatles) often came from them piecing verses - written as verses - with choruses - written specifically as choruses - and bridges - written specifically as bridges - to come up with a complete song. Bad example, I know... ;)
-
I must say one thing though. It had never occured to me to actually plan the music I write before actually doing it. Usually I'll come up with a riff, some chords or something else and just add parts until I feel satisfied.
However when I make an illustration, it's the opposite. I'm planning what I'll draw, where I'll place the major elements, which colors I'll use. It's not always set in stone, but I do have a general idea of where I'm going. It's similar in movies. You have storyboard artists who plan all the elements of the major shots that you'll see in the movie before the movie is filmed.
I'll have to try that out when I feel like writing music. I find it a bit stupid to never have thought about doing it before :lol
-
See, when I write music, depending on what kind of music it is (overture, gymnosolitude, symphony movement), I usually write down a ton of ideas then start thinking about how to structure them together. When it comes to symphony movements, I know what structure I'm going to be using going into it, so I come up with a few ideas and loosely apply them to the structure.