I can't speak for Dream Theater fans in general, but I don't have any problem with anything that post said. I don't agree with any of it (except, in some cases and to some extent, JLB's vocals), but he spoke valid opinions. And he also took the care to mention that they are great musicians, so it's not like the guy's delusional. He just has some opinions that I disagree with.
Heck, I've seen more DT-insulting posts here on the DTF.
He hides behind a lot of words and musical knowledge, but basically his post seems to boil down to: "I can't trash these guys because I like them. But prog is just wanky, and I don't like it. And DT disappoints me because here's some other stuff I really don't like, but it's obscure, so I'll sound cool if I mention it, and I don't think DT are as good as that." If he doesn't like them, fine. To each his own. The cool thing about music, as well as lots of other forms of art, is that it is able to provoke such different reactions from different people.
But he goes on for quite awhile without really saying much more than what I just posted.
I don't think this is exactly a fair summary, myself. First, he didn't say he couldn't trash the guys because he likes them, he said he couldn't trash Awake or Images and Words because he grew up listening to those albums and is therefore sentimentally attached. And second of all, the 'obscure' albums he brought up were relevant to his point. Especially the second one, where he was saying that he doesn't mind very technical music, he just likes more coherent structures for the technicality.
I actually agree with bosk1, for the simply reason that his arguments, though possibly valid are not explained. What does "coherent structure" even mean, musically speaking?
I mean, take this quote: "The thing is about Dream Theater is that, at times it really feels like they took the worst, most pompous aspects of old progressive rock and metal bands and just ran with it." Does he ever explain which aspects he is talking about? Or why they are pompous? Or what pompous means when used in relation to songwriting?
Or take this quote: "A lot has been said about their lengthy solo passages; they often feel remarkably self-indulgent and frankly, i've never thought that Petrucci or Rudess were ever that interesting from a melodic standpoint. Petrucci actually has some good moments on those two albums I cited in my first paragraph, but half of the time he basically runs scales without really doing much of anything noteworthy to me". I'm not the most knowledgeable person, musically speaking, but how can something be simultaneously self-indulgent and not noteworthy? If it is a display of musical prowess, it may be self-indulgent, but also probably noteworthy. If it is just a few scales together, it may not be noteworthy, but does not seem to me to be self-indulgent.
He mentions that "a lack of overall musical cohesion and taste. (in terms of structure and focus)" is the biggest flaw of Metropolis Pt.2, but how do you define musical cohesion? Even if you could define it satisfactorily, is it not the nature of progressive music to develop and change and thus be incoherent? Not to mention that taste is not a universal parameter, but very much a personal one.
Another problem of his is that "With Dream Theater, in all honesty most of their solos feel very interchangable; you could nearly splice in a lead from a different song and i'd have a hard time noticing intially. (and that is coming from somebody who listens to a lot of progressively minded artists in metal and rock)". I know that I would certainly notice, even though I'm sure that I wouldn't upon first (or second) listening to Watchtower's Energetic Disassembly notice anything different if they did that. It's really about how well you know the music. There were a lot of parts of On the Backs of Angels that took me a while to notice as part of the song, but once I did I could not imagine their being changed.
In this quote he once more fails to explain what he means: "I should also make a bit of a note - James Labrie isn't that great of a singer. I liked his vocals on Awake, but apparently he blew them out from vomiting thanks to food poisoning and he never fully recovered. He's not terrible, i've heard substantial more grating singers in general, but his vocal melodies also have a real bad tendancy to clash horrible with the music underneath. Train of Thought stands out massively in this record; his voice just isn't appropriate for what was (ostensibly) supposed to be a heavy album" Is there a necessary type of singer in a heavy album? How does his vocal melodies clash with the rest of the song? Any examples?
So while his point might be valid, they are (as most opinions, including my own, are) ultimately very subjective. He seems to me to be very much a genre-listener, which is once more something that flaws his arguments. He says some melodies from Metropolis Pt.2 are some of the most cloying he's ever heard in metal music. But the very word cloying is (once more) subjective, given that it means excessively sweet/exaggerated. Even worse, complains like that are pretty much invalid, it's like saying: "That instrumental track did not have enough singing"; or "That drama wasn't funny enough"; or "That puzzle-game didn't have enough action". I'm pretty sure DT did not desire to be very metal when they wrote Through Her Eyes or The Spirit Carries On...
Topic: nevermind (Read 7084 times)
