The Ministry Of Lost Souls Instrumental Section...

[BlackInk]

Drowning-flashback or not. Still a cool instrumental section.

[FretMuppet]

It's never been pointless... it's quite dramatic and makes perfect sense.

[BlobVanDam]

Because the tempo and tone don't match the beginning part of the song at all. I'll give them credit for trying with the transition but it's pretty clear at that part they were trying to weld two pieces together that kinda sorta matched at best.

That's the point I think... overall it's a quite romantic song, but this is the part when someone is drowning and everything changes. I think it's quite logical... while smooth transitions are generally easier to swallow, sometimes it's more interesting when you shake things up a bit.

I've always seen people justify wonky musical sections on the recent albums as the music corresponding with the lyrics or story in a song but I honestly don't think the band implements those things well enough for that to actually be the case. I mean I guess if you really want that transition to represent someone drowning it could be but whenever I've heard the song I've never gotten that out of it.

Just out of curiosity, how would you justify the instrumental section to say, Metropolis or Or Take The Time within the context of the lyrics? I don't see how a lot of these sections, old or new DT, correspond. It's just music to me.
Wasn't IaW mostly written instrumentally before they put any words to it? (Metropolis being the only exception that comes to mind).

Now, I'm not a big fan of the TMOLS instrumental section, but I just don't see how this instrumental section fits the lyrical content any worse than many of the DT classics. IaW's instrumental sections had no more regard for the "story" than any modern DT as far as I'm concerned. I'm not arguing the difference in quality or flow, as that's not where my issue lies with your statement. But I don't see a problem with people applying their own interpretation to a musical passage.
If I want to believe that the Metropolis unison represents John Petrucci time travelling in a Delorean to ancient Rome, don't you dare tell me that's a wonky interpretation. Don't you dare. But that section makes no more sense to the song than the TMOLS one. It just happens to be better.

[Liberation]

^ Agreed entirely.

[DarkLord_Lalinc]

Yeah, the "it doesn't quite fit the story, the characters and the music" argument is getting stale and has always been poor, in my opinion. "How can a 240 BPM unison express the feelings of the character in the lyrics?" is just silly. Dream Theater has always had long and complex instrumental sections, as it's a part of what the genre is. Why did people in 1992 didn't go like "Why is this instrumental section here?" in Metropolis? 1) Because it's awesome, 2) Because the internet wasn't what we know it to be today, and people didn't become critics in all of a sudden.

Just my two cents here, and I know people can just say "I don't like it", and that's fine. What bothers me the most is the pretentious argument that follows; and I've heard many of those.


EDIT: On the topic, I do think some of DT's instrumental sections are just way too much  The guitar lead/keyboard lead pattern is getting a bit old. I take In the Presence of Enemies as an example, of a super climatic moment that goes down with a rather extensive instrumental section. I think that the bit before the solos is pretty cool, and they should have figured a way to transition into the super fast run before Jordan's reprise of the main theme, or something.

[TAC]

What makes the song too long is the outro.

It's their best outro, man.

I just think it's goes on for too many bars.

Wow. I feel quite the opposite. To me, with each key change the melody gets even more emotional. The moment it changes for the second time gives me chills and almost brings me to tears every time I hear it.

That's cool! I don't not like like.

[The Presence of Frenemies]

TMOLS is a top 10 song for me. Two of JPs 10 best solos, and the third-best outro, behind TBOT and Octavarium.

The instrumental section works fine for me, but I do think it could've been cut down. If they just did fast riffing for a bit and then cut straight to JPs solo, then the unison, then the breakdown, it would be an even better song. The biggest offender in the section, IMO, is those two Rudess leads on the organ-ish type sound. It's that classic Rudess "What if I threw something weird in here?" vibe that doesn't really go with what everyone else is playing. In general, I'm also not a fan of the extended instrumental riff sections--unless they're amazing riffs, you might as well get to the solos.

Even though there are some moments that drag or annoy, though, the song's highs erase them from my memory as I listen.

[Raoul Sanchez]

I don't mind the instrumental section really. It's definitely completely out of place compared to the rest of the song, but the rest of the song, to me at least, sounds like an aimless meandering mess of half-finished ideas to begin with, so that doesn't bother me to much.

[krands85]

I love TMOLS, it's a top 15 song for me and only bettered by ITPOE and TCOT on their last 2 albums for me. I love the instrumental section too, I enjoy the contrast with the rest of the song.

[Ben_Jamin]

... Is a flashback to the rescue and drowning of the main characters. There, it's not random, pointless and unnecessary anymore. It has a purpose! YAY!

I've been saying it has a purpose for a good while. Thats a good way to see it, I saw it as a struggle to deal with living her life anymore, the struggle to either take his hand or keep on living in vain. Then she decides "wanted to deserve a place, a place beside you."

[Dublagent66]

What makes the song too long is the outro.

It's their best outro, man.

It's really not.

This.  Their best outro is LTL. 

[bss4life15]

What makes the song too long is the outro.

It's their best outro, man.

It's really not.

This.  Their best outro is LTL. 

You win

Also TMOLS is my favorite SC song and the instrmental is fucking awesome, even if it feels a little out of place

[FlyingBIZKIT]

TMOLS is one of my least favorite DT songs. I just feel it's a weak song, when being compared to many others. Repentance is by far, my favorite from SC.

[Pols Voice]

I don't like the instrumental section too much. Not only because it doesn't fit the song, but also because it's pretty stale. The rest of the song is very good, though. The best song on SC.

The instrumental section of Metropolis isn't comparable to this. That song is way more intense and rocking already. Shoehorning a fun, fist-pumping kind of thing into a slow, melancholy song is weird. A lot of the instrumental stuff in Sacrificed Sons also seems bizarrely out of place to me.

[orcus116]

Because the tempo and tone don't match the beginning part of the song at all. I'll give them credit for trying with the transition but it's pretty clear at that part they were trying to weld two pieces together that kinda sorta matched at best.

That's the point I think... overall it's a quite romantic song, but this is the part when someone is drowning and everything changes. I think it's quite logical... while smooth transitions are generally easier to swallow, sometimes it's more interesting when you shake things up a bit.

I've always seen people justify wonky musical sections on the recent albums as the music corresponding with the lyrics or story in a song but I honestly don't think the band implements those things well enough for that to actually be the case. I mean I guess if you really want that transition to represent someone drowning it could be but whenever I've heard the song I've never gotten that out of it.

Just out of curiosity, how would you justify the instrumental section to say, Metropolis or Or Take The Time within the context of the lyrics? I don't see how a lot of these sections, old or new DT, correspond. It's just music to me.
Wasn't IaW mostly written instrumentally before they put any words to it? (Metropolis being the only exception that comes to mind).

Now, I'm not a big fan of the TMOLS instrumental section, but I just don't see how this instrumental section fits the lyrical content any worse than many of the DT classics. IaW's instrumental sections had no more regard for the "story" than any modern DT as far as I'm concerned. I'm not arguing the difference in quality or flow, as that's not where my issue lies with your statement. But I don't see a problem with people applying their own interpretation to a musical passage.
If I want to believe that the Metropolis unison represents John Petrucci time travelling in a Delorean to ancient Rome, don't you dare tell me that's a wonky interpretation. Don't you dare. But that section makes no more sense to the song than the TMOLS one. It just happens to be better.

Well honestly I really don't care about how the two are supposed to tie together because I think that DT just isn't that good at emotionally connecting the two. I think we're thinking along the same lines, I just brought it up because I've often seen other posters say "yeah well this section is supposed to represent this or that" in trying to demonstrate why a section is more impressive than people are giving it credit for.

[hefdaddy42]

I kind of agree.  Nothing in the music "represents" anything in the lyrics, since all of the music is written before any of the lyrics.  Although, I suppose, you could argue that the lyrics are written to fit the lyrics.  But I don't buy that too much, either.

[Zook]

I kind of agree.  Nothing in the music "represents" anything in the lyrics, since all of the music is written before any of the lyrics.  Although, I suppose, you could argue that the lyrics are written to fit the lyrics.  But I don't buy that too much, either.

Me neither. That's just absurd.

[orcus116]

hef stop hitting the sauce and modding.

[Metropolis Pt. II]

It still sounds completely out of place to me.

I don't feel that it's out of place. To me, the problem is that it's not very interesting. The main riffs being played beneath the solos are relatively straightforward, repetitive, and pretty boring IMO. That's why the song isn't higher on my list of favorites.

[Dream Team]

It's interesting. One of my other favorite bands, Iron Maiden, has trade-off solos in 99% of their songs no matter the lyrical subject. They seem to be able to largely avoid criticism for this; one reason may be that the solos are usually quite melodic and so apparently aren't regarded as "wanky". Maybe it's due to large differences in the attitudes of their respective fanbases, but DT and IM are more alike as bands than people realize. So to me, it all boils down the structure and transition - if it's well-executed, I'll enjoy it no matter what the lyrical content of the song is.

[TAC]

It's interesting. One of my other favorite bands, Iron Maiden, has trade-off solos in 99% of their songs no matter the lyrical subject. They seem to be able to largely avoid criticism for this; one reason may be that the solos are usually quite melodic and so apparently aren't regarded as "wanky". Maybe it's due to large differences in the attitudes of their respective fanbases, but DT and IM are more alike as bands than people realize. So to me, it all boils down the structure and transition - if it's well-executed, I'll enjoy it no matter what the lyrical content of the song is.

Been listening to a lot of Thin Lizzy lately and they have a similar style when it comes to the solo sections.