DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
Dream Theater => Dream Theater => Topic started by: MirrorMask on March 21, 2017, 01:47:20 PM
-
I had an idea for this topic for some time, but this gave me the suggestion to open a thread about it:
It's funny, my earliest thought about DT - based on comments I'd read before actually hearing the music - was that DT is not a band for "normal" people like me, only for musicians or nerds with a high IQ :laugh:
So, question: how many of you like DT first and foremost for their musical ability, and how many are instead in "just" because they happen to like the songs and the style of the band regardless of the actual skills required to craft said songs?
I'm not a musician, I don't consider myself ignorant of music, but surely I am not able to grasp things a musician can. I took singing lessons for several years, and I don't even remember when I was briefly introduced to piano; I know which are the notes on a keyboard, and I have a good ear to recreate easy melodies and I can play Beethoven's Ode to Joy on a keyboard, and that's it. Discussions about drum fills and chord progressions on guitars are completely alien to me. I "know" and recognize that the guys in DT are immensely skilled, but what I don't know is if a song, a solo or a melody that I happen to like requires a godlike skill of the instrument, or it's actually very easy.
And point is, I "don't care". Not in a dismissive way, but in the end, knowing if a part is insanely difficult or not, has a little impact for me on the liking of the song. I make an example, in comparison, with a drum intro every metlhead knows: the Painkiller one. I love it, because it's so badass and pumps you up for the song. Is it very difficult and requires days and days of practice to learn it? kudos to Scott Travis, but that wouldn't make me appreciate the intro that much more. It's something very simple that anyone who mastered double bass could do in their sleep? I don't care, I still love the intro.
Same for Dream Theater songs. I happen to like the music and I dearly love James as a singer (so his voice is basically the "instrument" I pay attention to), that's why I'm a fan, and while I surely realize, recognize and appreciate the evident and immense musicianship of the other members, the difficulty and craziness of a musical section will never be the defining factor in my appreciation of a DT song.
Anyone else like me or I'm in the vast minority among DT fans?
-
I'd say their technical abilities blew me away initially (well still do). I was intrigued by how awesome of a musician every one of them were, but that doesn't have staying power. It's the songs that keep me coming back to DT. To me, that separated DT from other technical musical geniuses, DT were able to display that within the confines of songs that made sense and were catchy.
-
I'd say their technical abilities blew me away initially (well still do). I was intrigued by how awesome of a musician every one of them were, but that doesn't have staying power. It's the songs that keep me coming back to DT. To me, that separated DT from other technical musical geniuses, DT were able to display that within the confines of songs that made sense and were catchy.
Perfect.
-
I am very much in the camp that prefers good songwriting. The virtuosity impresses me, but I have a huge problem when the band (or anyt band) over indulges. I'll give you an easy example -- Endless Sacrifice. That song could have done with a minute or minute and a half solo, splitting time between JP and JR. Instead, it's a five minute wankfest in the middle of a song that really had a powerful chorus.
Immediately turned me off.
It's not ALL the time, there are plenty of songs where I like the extended showing off. But if my ear says to me that it isn't enhancing the actual song, and instead enhances the technical component of the band at the expense of the song, it's a MAJOR turnoff.
Metropolis sits a fine line. I love it, but when I first heard it, my reaction was "why are they extending that solo section out so much, just get back into it..."
So I am IN because I like the songs. I am happy DT are virtuosos in regard to their playing ability, because it gives them an ability to craft even more interesting songs. But if they go overboard (again, we're all different, so I'm referring to my ears), it really gets on my nerves. For me, it is about the song, first and foremost. Long songs are awesome when done right. But when it becomes about showcasing talent instead of enhancing the mood of the song, it drives me batty.
-
I'd say their technical abilities blew me away initially (well still do). I was intrigued by how awesome of a musician every one of them were, but that doesn't have staying power. It's the songs that keep me coming back to DT. To me, that separated DT from other technical musical geniuses, DT were able to display that within the confines of songs that made sense and were catchy.
I agree with all of that. But the thing is, because the songs are so technical, I cannot really separate out their technicality. It is an integral part of the songs. It isn't "technicality for technicality's sake." But the complexity and technicality of a lot of DT songs is part and parcel to why they are such good songs. So, in answer to the question in the threat title, I am going to say "yes." Ultimately, it falls back to the songs. But the technicality makes the songs what they are.
-
If technicality is required (which of course it is) to bring us the songs, then I'd say it's important to me.
-
Virtuosity means nothing to me without songwriting.
This is why I can't listen to Vai or Satch or SRV.
Sure they can shred like buggery - but their music bores me to death.
-
Very very much. If they werenīt that proficient on their instruments thay wouldnīt be able to play such intrincate music, and to me thatīs what sets apart DT from the rest of bands. To me thats their trademark.
-
This is why I can't listen to Vai or Satch or SRV.
I could never understand how people equate Vai and Satch in that sense. Vai, I can absolutely see the criticism of technicality getting the better of him. Satch, I mean, one word: Chickenfoot.
-
True.
I can't listen to a Vai solo without him just doing tricks and showing off.
Satch is more melodic I concede.
-
Regarding the OP, my stance on it is very selfish: it has to be interesting to *me*. Meaning, what held my interest 10 years ago is unlikely to hold my interest these days. 15 years ago I was *all* about blazing unison sections and pure display of skill. But, after listening to songs and bands doing that for 15 years, it doesn't hold my interest anymore, especially when the bands aren't changing their own approach over time. DT got very formulaic with their technical sections, to the point where you know a keyboard solo is mandatory because JP had just finished his. Less so in TA though, I hope that trend holds.
-
Virtuosity means nothing to me without songwriting.
This is why I can't listen to Vai or Satch or SRV.
Sure they can shred like buggery - but their music bores me to death.
Vai, Satch and SRV are all shred, no songwriting? Do you just watch the vids and not listen to the songs? All of their songs are based on singable melodies.
For Satch, Always With You. Always With Me is a good example.
For Vai, if we talk about main albums (not the albums of extra song ideas), almost all songs are based on a beautiful melody. Listen to Whispering A Prayer, Velorum, Answers, and I Know You're Here.
-
I can understand the thing with Vai, but yet he wrote a brilliant song like "Tender surrender".
Satriani is a great melodic songwriter. Maybe not as creative as he used to be. Just listen to "The forgotten (part two)"
And SRV... A shredder? Are we talking about Stevie Ray Vaughan? One of the most intense and versatile blues players ever? Now I just wanna listen to "Ain't gone 'n' give up on love".
-
Kind of a side bar here, but if memory serves, the main criticism of Dream Theater from this forum used to be that they were soloing too much. I'm not saying that every fan thought this way, or even that the majority did, but it felt like every thread eventually touched on the subject at some point or another. Since A Dramatic Turn of Events, I almost never hear people complain about this anymore. Say what you will about the overall quality of the band's music since then, but I think it's fair to say that they've really toned down the shreddy stuff.
-
Yup. Great observation.
-
Kind of a side bar here, but if memory serves, the main criticism of Dream Theater from this forum used to be that they were soloing too much. I'm not saying that every fan thought this way, or even that the majority did, but it felt like every thread eventually touched on the subject at some point or another. Since A Dramatic Turn of Events, I almost never hear people complain about this anymore. Say what you will about the overall quality of the band's music since then, but I think it's fair to say that they've really toned down the shreddy stuff.
Good post, I agree, they definitely have.
-
Yea they definitely have, but I wouldn't mind if some of that was brought back. Doesn't need to be over the top, but more moments like the beginning of a Life Left Behind would be welcomed.
-
Yea they definitely have, but I wouldn't mind if some of that was brought back. Doesn't need to be over the top, but more moments like the beginning of a Life Left Behind would be welcomed.
But see, to me, when that sort of thing is used sparingly, like it that song or the "wanky" sections of LNF and Outcry on ADTOE, for example, it makes them stand out more in a positive light. Using ADTOE, those are two pretty "over the top" sections. But to me, the fact that the album isn't littered with those types of sections on a lot of songs really elevates those parts in those two songs intead of it being "more of the same."
-
Yea, definitely needs a balance and I think TA had a little less of that balance IMO and ADTOE had the right balance. But that's just my opinion.
-
I saw a vid of SRV playing Texas Flood. It was finger chewingly tedious.
Even the rhythm section looked bored to death
I just cannot bear that type of blues.
Look at me soloing - over a 12 bar in 6/8 time at 60bpm whilst the band is just there to keep time.
I'm not saying all SRV is that but thats the worst kind scenario of blues bands.
Literally nothing new.
-
Sounds to me like the blues aren't your thing.
-
I guess the shorter song format of the last 2 albums doesn't lend itself to those long instrumental/solo sections.
Personally, I love those sort of sections and I have to admit the technical ability on show does tend to increase my enjoyment of a song - but only up to a point. If the majority of DTs songs were much 'simpler', then I wouldn't love the band nearly as much. But that doesn't mean going over the top is automatically going to make me love the song. Outcry and LNF for example - neither are in my top 3 tracks from ADTOE. And Enigma Machine seems like a pretty technical song, but I don't enjoy it much at all - it's my least favourite instrumental I think.
I'm no musician, so I can't appreciate the music on certain levels that others may do, but I do tend to enjoy the instrumental sections. Who knows why, but I guess it's a part of what makes me prefer the longer songs generally. Saying that though, I think they found something a bit extra and different with TA. Despite all the short songs, I really quite like the album - they managed to get so many memorable sections as well as some awesome melodies into the shorter songs.
-
Yea, definitely needs a balance and I think TA had a little less of that balance IMO and ADTOE had the right balance. But that's just my opinion.
Right on. Obviously, they were going for something different with TA, focusing on the story more so than ever before so the wanking wasn't as present. I agree with you though, I think ADTOE is a great example of modern DT striking a healthy balance between song craft and wanking.
-
I saw a vid of SRV playing Texas Flood. It was finger chewingly tedious.
Even the rhythm section looked bored to death
I just cannot bear that type of blues.
Look at me soloing - over a 12 bar in 6/8 time at 60bpm whilst the band is just there to keep time.
I'm not saying all SRV is that but thats the worst kind scenario of blues bands.
Literally nothing new.
I am right there with you. I can appreciate that it is terrific playing. But it does nothing for me at all.
And Enigma Machine seems like a pretty technical song, but I don't enjoy it much at all - it's my least favourite instrumental I think.
I can understand that. And I think you are right about it being pretty technical. But it is one of few that stands out as being such on DT12, so again, I think it underscores the point that they have been more restrained as a whole on the last three albums. And to me, Enigma Machine is also a good example of a complex song that doesn't sound nearly as complex as it is.
-
Sounds to me like the blues aren't your thing.
Not when it's completely rigid and boring like that. Oh - blues scale over a i - iv - v ? How ingenious.
The good thing about it is - it's so formulaic - that if you turn up to a jam night and don't know any of the songs - you can all just play a 12 bar.
-
Kind of a side bar here, but if memory serves, the main criticism of Dream Theater from this forum used to be that they were soloing too much. I'm not saying that every fan thought this way, or even that the majority did, but it felt like every thread eventually touched on the subject at some point or another. Since A Dramatic Turn of Events, I almost never hear people complain about this anymore. Say what you will about the overall quality of the band's music since then, but I think it's fair to say that they've really toned down the shreddy stuff.
I tend to agree. Since the Dramatic album, they've really toned down this aspect of their songs that I felt was starting to get prominent from Six Degrees up until the last two albums with Portnoy, where personally I feel that many songs were derailed by a 5 minutes solo section that had no real connection to the rest on the song (someone earlier mentioned Endless Sacrifice, why am I listening to a mellow and melanchonic song about long distance relationships and I have to sit through 5 minutes of LTE with a circus break in the middle?).
The crazy sections are still there, but they seem to fit better with the song; Outcry's solo section is as wanky as it gets, but I don't mind it at all and it doesn't take me out of the song.
-
Considering my first song by Dream Theater was Another Day (which doesn't really stick out technically), and the album that made me a fan instead of a casual listener whenever friends / my father played them was Falling Into Infinity, I'd say that the songs are more important to me first. I was never a "music nerd" nor was I ever a musician. So the technical part of DT was actually something I had to get used to, and to learn to enjoy.
-
I wish DT had a less technically fluent keyboardist. The taste element so many haters complain about would become a much less valid point of attack.
-
...in the end, knowing if a part is insanely difficult or not, has a little impact for me on the liking of the song.
I've always been impressed with virtuosity. Of course the music has to be good to my ears but if there's some impressive musicianship then that definitely has an impact on me.
Dream Theater's technical skills is a big part of what makes them Dream Theater. It's just what they do.
-
For me, Dream Theater is the band that shows that you can be highly technical while being musical. So it is a big aspect, although of course, musicality still has a greater weight. That's the reason why I do not like much the SC to BC&SL era. They were moving too much into the technical side without being musical. BC&SL, in particular, have a lot of songs that have long instrumentals that seems to be there just for the sake of having long instrumentals.
A lot of people seem to be saying that The Astonishing is not very technical. But to my ears, it is highly technical. Especially on the composition side. The intricacy of having recurring themes, of matching musical styles to characters, over a 2 and a half hour record needs a lot of technical skill.
-
The technical skill is extremely important. That's what makes it a DT song and not a song by anyone else.
-
So Vacant isn't a Dream Theater song.
-
So Vacant isn't a Dream Theater song.
It is. But if you have a whole album of Vacant and Anna Lee, is that a Dream Theater album? :p
-
It is. :)
-
So Vacant isn't a Dream Theater song.
It is. But if you have a whole album of Vacant and Anna Lee, is that a Dream Theater album? :p
That's pretty much what we got on TA and some people will tell you it is still Dream Theater. :rollin
On a technicality note, I'm fine with it until it turns into wankery. Then, it's just a bunch of noise.
-
So Vacant isn't a Dream Theater song.
It is. But if you have a whole album of Vacant and Anna Lee, is that a Dream Theater album? :p
That's pretty much what we got on TA and some people will tell you it is still Dream Theater. :rollin
It is.
-
So Vacant isn't a Dream Theater song.
It is. But if you have a whole album of Vacant and Anna Lee, is that a Dream Theater album? :p
That's pretty much what we got on TA and some people will tell you it is still Dream Theater. :rollin
No, because the complexity of TA is seeing the whole, not in the individual songs.
-
A lot of the individual songs are pretty complex as well, although they might sound straightforward upon just a casual listen.
-
I've actually got a question related to this one. Would you accept less virtuosity (like fewer fast, technical passages) if it meant getting more new DT music? As the band get older, and their technical abilities undoubtedly start to dwindle (fingers don't move as quickly up and down the keyboard/fretboard), this is something we must consider.
-
A lot of the individual songs are pretty complex as well, although they might sound straightforward upon just a casual listen.
Well, this is what I personally feel about the virtuosity: having enough skills to make complex things sound easy. Or even use them for clearly complex passages, that still sound musical and not the "wankery" as it is defined when being criticized.
I've actually got a question related to this one. Would you accept less virtuosity (like fewer fast, technical passages) if it meant getting more new DT music? As the band get older, and their technical abilities undoubtedly start to dwindle (fingers don't move as quickly up and down the keyboard/fretboard), this is something we must consider.
The Astonishing is the proof that they can still put out good quality music, with the occasional heavy fast passages, without the need for a gazillion notes per second. I would be fine with that.
Also, I don't think you need that many notes to be heavy - The Mirror is as heavy as it gets, the initial riff could fit in Pantera's catalogue, and still it is so simple: DA-DA-DA DA-DA-DA DA-DA- DA PA-PA-PA PA-PA-PA PA-PA-PA DADADA, DADADA-DADADADA DADADA, DADADA-DADADADA etc... so simple and yet so heavy.
-
The Astonishing is the proof that they can still put out good quality music, with the occasional heavy fast passages, without the need for a gazillion notes per second.
I think that, at any given point in their career, there has been PLENTY of proof of that. The Astonishing doesn't need to be "the" proof.
-
That goes without saying, I was more replying directly to the "What if they grow older and lose speed" scenario, since this is their most recent album.
-
So Vacant isn't a Dream Theater song.
It's the exception that proves the rule.
-
I actually don't listen to DT *just* for the technicality. It was the songwriting first and foremost that drew me in.
-
I love instrumentals. However, above everything else, the music needs to have an emotion. Many of my favorite moments in DT are Petrucci solos (BAI, LITS, TBOT etc,) or really big epic sections like the ending to TCOT or Octavarium.
Some of the complex sections are still very melodic. That's my favorite type of complexity, where it's still memorable. Some examples of great instrumental sections with lots of changes that are still musical include BF, BAI, Outcry, LTL, SDOIT and IT.
The stuff from DT I dislike are solos that are just runs with no feeling or emotion. Jordan is the most guilty of this. As much as I enjoy his playing, the leads he plays on his solo albums like Feeding The Wheel or Rhythm of Time are nearly all melodic while still being technical; however in DT the majority of his solos are more notes than music to me. Nearly all the solos from both JR and JP on TOT are like this. While that style of playing may require a ton of skill, it becomes boring and formulaic when there is no emotion.
So yes, technicality does matter, but what matters just as much (if not more) is the knowledge of when to use or not use that technicality in a song, and how to use it while still being melodic and emotional.
-
So yes, technicality does matter, but what matters just as much (if not more) is the knowledge of when to use or not use that technicality in a song, and how to use it while still being melodic and emotional.
I basically agree with you.
-
So Vacant isn't a Dream Theater song.
It is. But if you have a whole album of Vacant and Anna Lee, is that a Dream Theater album? :p
That's pretty much what we got on TA and some people will tell you it is still Dream Theater. :rollin
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/54/b2/3f/54b23fb44e686fa030db901c8a2f717d.gif)
-
As the Late, Great Peppi Marchello once said "Speed Ain't Nothing Without Class."
-
The technicality is what drew me to DT. Not everything has to be technical though. They are at there greatest when they blend the technical WITH the melodic and emotional. This is what really sets them apart.
-
I don't think complexity always has to mean the fastest or the most time signature changes. It can be something that's simply more creative and throws something unexpected at you. And I think The Astonishing, for example, was great at this. You're listening to some cool, melodic rock tunes at first, and then Lord Nefaryus comes on, and it's a freaking tango beat. How many rock bands dabble in tango?
Then A Savior In The Square comes on, and aside from that progression from acoustic to heavy, you get to 3:21 and there's that choral bit, small as it may be, that immediately grabs attention. Point is, I think that kind of stuff is approached with the same mindset as anything fast and complex on their part.
But I never understood the criticism that DT (or that kind of stuff at all) is just for musicians and nerds. I mean, okay, maybe nerds in a sense that people who actively and passionately analyze things they like, but by that definition, everyone on earth is a nerd about SOMETHING. It may not be perfect for people who only listen to music passively, and only have enough attention span to enjoy simple, catchy hooks. But "not perfect" doesn't mean they wouldn't appreciate it. It's just a little foreign to them, and DT has plenty of catchier stuff to ease them into the idea, I think.
Kinda going off on a tangent there, but yeah, the bottom line is, I think technical skill fairly important for DT. Like the post above me says, their balance of the technical and the tasteful is precisely what sets them apart. They manage to find that balance, and not sacrifice either quality, and that's essentially what makes DT DT. If they abandoned their technical aspects, they'd still be a nice and pleasant band to listen to, but they'd be abandoning half of their identity. I don't agree that they did this with The Astonishing, but they did dial the complexity back a bit, and even then, people were already up in arms about the album, so yeah, clearly it's not an aspect that they could just take or leave.
-
At this point, if I like the music and the organic passion and energy is there, that's all that matters to me.
-
I remember on JP's Rock Discipline instructional video, he was talking about the importance of having technical skills. He was explaining that the more tricks and skills you have on the instrument, the more freedom you have to express yourself musically and take your art to a higher level.
It's easy to hear that perfect solo in your head, but if you don't have the chops to carry it out, it will never come to fruition. I agree with that 100% :tup
-
Having all the techniques in the world mean nothing if you can't write a good song.
I like The Astonishing more than most because I'm way more into songwriting than technical ability.
-
Having all the techniques in the world mean nothing if you can't write a good song.
Yes, but so what? Technical ability and good song writing are not mutually exclusive. Do you not grasp that?
-
sigh...
-
Re: How much the tech skill in DT is important for YOU?
Having all the techniques in the world mean nothing if you can't write a good song.
Can't you Grasp That ?
-
Yes, but the false correlation you are trying to make between "tech skill" and "good song writing" has nothing to do with the question you purport to be answering.
-
You're acting as though I said that being an incredibly technical guitar player *MEANS* you can't write a good song.
That's not what I meant at all. You just love bitching with me recently for no reason.
I meant that being an insanely technical guitar player doesn't mean you automatically write the best songs...
But to answer the original question in ways you can grasp -
Technical skill is not that important *TO ME*. They could release an album of 12 songs like Our New World and it wouldn't bother me if it was all 4/4
*IF* the songs were all great. If I want to listen to a really technical DT album there are plenty to choose from.
-
Having all the techniques in the world mean nothing if you can't write a good song.
I like The Astonishing more than most because I'm way more into songwriting than technical ability.
The Astonishing has best of both worlds. Great songs with technical prowess throughout. Without their technical skills and musical knowledge, TA wouldn't be as good. :)
-
Personally, I'll take better songs with less technical proficiency over super technical songs that suck. I knew decades ago they were amazing musicians. To me, their songwriting has wavered as of late.
-
Personally, I'll take better songs with less technical proficiency over super technical songs that suck.
Same here. Needless to say, nothing indicates that a song can't be BOTH technical AND nice sounding, there are plently examples of this in DT's discography, but in the extreme example you made, I'd go for the former choice too.
-
Personally, I'll take better songs with less technical proficiency over super technical songs that suck. I knew decades ago they were amazing musicians. To me, their songwriting has wavered as of late.
The songwriting has not wavered. Writing a two hour musical with recurring themes and full orchestra arrangement can not be done without considerable songwriting skills. They are just writing songs that do not suit your taste.
-
Personally, I'll take better songs with less technical proficiency over super technical songs that suck. I knew decades ago they were amazing musicians. To me, their songwriting has wavered as of late.
I don't get that. I think with the last two albums they've done well at writing songs and not focusing on writing 10+ minute epics. That was JP's approach to DT12 and it paid off well. There are some great songs on that album.
-
Personally, I'll take better songs with less technical proficiency over super technical songs that suck. I knew decades ago they were amazing musicians. To me, their songwriting has wavered as of late.
The problem is that Dream Theater are not the Beatles.
Yes, they have good songs, but in my opinion if they turn their focus on that... they are not that good. DT songs reduced to their most basic form are just plain average (with a few exceptions).
But they are master musicians and they can take their ideas to places were very few bands can. They can add very ambitious and intrincate musical passages, and take a lot of time to develop that ideas because they have the kind of fans that like these things.
DT best part are in the arrangements. Itīs what make them special, not the songwritting.
-
I love instrumentals. However, above everything else, the music needs to have an emotion. Many of my favorite moments in DT are Petrucci solos (BAI, LITS, TBOT etc,) or really big epic sections like the ending to TCOT or Octavarium.
Some of the complex sections are still very melodic. That's my favorite type of complexity, where it's still memorable. Some examples of great instrumental sections with lots of changes that are still musical include BF, BAI, Outcry, LTL, SDOIT and IT.
The stuff from DT I dislike are solos that are just runs with no feeling or emotion. Jordan is the most guilty of this. As much as I enjoy his playing, the leads he plays on his solo albums like Feeding The Wheel or Rhythm of Time are nearly all melodic while still being technical; however in DT the majority of his solos are more notes than music to me. Nearly all the solos from both JR and JP on TOT are like this. While that style of playing may require a ton of skill, it becomes boring and formulaic when there is no emotion.
So yes, technicality does matter, but what matters just as much (if not more) is the knowledge of when to use or not use that technicality in a song, and how to use it while still being melodic and emotional.
I'm in a bus and with an old crappy cellphone, so thank you for writing down my thoughts.. :tup This is exactly how I feel about the whole issue, and yet, this:
If they werenīt that proficient on their instruments thay wouldnīt be able to play such intrincate musics.
I think is wrong... since it seems like the same but it is not.. And I think that's Kotowboy's main point, with which I agree.. Being technically good doesn't make you a good songwriter but, even more: it's not even something neccesary to achieve that.. You don't need to know any technics at all to be a good composer, meaning by this a guy who does music that's liked for some, starting for him/her.. So I'm not sure if I agree with JP that knowing more necessarily provides you more freedom to compose.. I'd say it even limitates your imagination for being distracting at the same time that being helpful.. I mean, with that kind of thinking, and having the ability to actually do it, you can think or feel -and I know for a fact this happens a lot- that you MUST at some point prove that you know what you apparently know.. And I'm far from saying JP is that kind of musician; in fact, that's one of the reasons why I think he's as good as he is.. Not just for what he does (extremely awesome songwriting: riffs, melodies, solos and what not) but for what he doesn't do: showing off more than a certain amount of time that in the end and being the technically great he is it's inevitable I suppose..
tl/dr: Mmmm, nope, I think you should read all what I wrote, otherwise you won't catch my opinion.. It's a very complex matter.. ;)
-
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/17972170_1537755296235715_4594363367007587874_o.jpg?oh=41365d57efa95500fced4997916f3579&oe=5982DA95
Totally agree with this :tup
-
Knowing technique does give you a lot more freedom to compose. Would Freddie Mercury be able to even imagine writing Bohemian Rhapsody if he does not think he can pull of convincingly the range of vocal styles needed in that song? Would he be able to write Somebody To Love if he doesn't think he can pull off an Aretha Franklin? Would Brian May even dare write a song with dixieland arrangement if he doesn't believe he has the chops to play the guitar and make it sound like a jazz band? Would Steve Vai be able to write Whispering A Prayer if he doesn't have the chops to make the guitar sound like a beautiful voice and if he can not pull off a convincing build up from simple beautiful melody to disciplined shredding in five minutes?
-
Knowing technique does give you a lot more freedom to compose. Would Freddie Mercury be able to even imagine writing Bohemian Rhapsody if he does not think he can pull of convincingly the range of vocal styles needed in that song? Would he be able to write Somebody To Love if he doesn't think he can pull off an Aretha Franklin? Would Brian May even dare write a song with dixieland arrangement if he doesn't believe he has the chops to play the guitar and make it sound like a jazz band? Would Steve Vai be able to write Whispering A Prayer if he doesn't have the chops to make the guitar sound like a beautiful voice and if he can not pull off a convincing build up from simple beautiful melody to disciplined shredding in five minutes?
No, they wouldn't be able.. But that wasn't my point.. What I was saying is that knowing technique doesn't make you instantly a better musician.. Of course it was more likely for Freddie to make that and plenty other songs because he studied and practiced a lot.. But he could imagine and actually create those pieces for his musical talent to compose; not magically for his technical knowledge..
And, besides, yeah, they did create all of that... but we'll never know what would've happened if they hadn't come to the technical knowledge they achieved.. Would they have made better songs?.. And this is the only possible answer it matters: probably.. I'm not saying musicians are better without that knowledge.. Only that, if you're a capable musician and you already have the talent and the imagination that makes you compose from good to excellent songs, you don't need to know any extra technique to improve yourself, altough, naturally, it may help..
-
What is important for me in Dream Theater is the technical virtuosity of each member, and the songwriting, and the range of styles they produce. I am a musician - being pretty good on both guitar and piano - so I perhaps appreciate the technical side more than if I weren't - but on its own, technique is not enough. As an example, consider Michael Angelo Batio. There's probably nobody more technically adept at pure shredding, but in my opinion he has an awful tone and such a mechanical playing style such that more than a couple of minutes of his playing is unlistenable. Contrast that with JP's outro solo in 'Best of Times'.
Another example is Yngwie. Great guitar player, not a bad songwriter, but his songs come nowhere near the level of complexity of DT's which means for me that they're not as interesting, since what you get is a 3 minute radio tune with a shredding solo using harmonic minor scales and diminished arpeggios. I'm a huge Paul Gilbert fan, but even he's getting boring for me with each new album seemingly indistinguishable from the last.
So to answer the OP, DT's tech skill for me is hugely important, but mainly because it lends them the ability to keep writing interesting music, rather than appreciating the mechanical virtuosity for its own sake.
-
To me, their technical ability is a huge part of what makes them great. All the bands I truly love have very gifted musicians. However that coupled with their songwriting is exactly why I love them so much.
Self indulgent, extended soloing as wankery? Well, I understand that many find it boring, and I agree that it is sometimes unnecessary, but I can't think of a time I wished it wasn't there.
Of course, if you understand the bands I love and my favorite albums by them (Rush: Hemispheres, Jethro Tull: Thick As A Brick, Yes: Close to the Edge, Genesis: Foxtrot, DT: Scenes From a Memory), you'll understand that I love soloing, concept albums and lengthy songs.
Regarding SRV's "shredding". Um, sorry, that isn't shredding. That's the blues and every note he played was dripping with emotion. EVH is one of the greatest guitarists of all time, but I don't like his solos: flash with little to no emotion.
YMMV