Your Controversial Opinions on DT

[MoraWintersoul]

All I'm saying is, stuff like "there's nowhere to set my aim so I'm everywhere" and all of the other emotional triggers for band lyrics that are quoted as cheesy are a part of the human experience. Saying stuff like that is cheesy is invalidating a common part of being a person and  the ways to express it. I know I'm not explaining myself very well, but what can you do

I think I follow you, and yeah the words are no good..  But in the same regard, calling it cheesy is just a perspective of that experience, not necessarily a disregard or dismissal of what emotions are triggered from these generalised or maybe cliché terms. This perspective might even evoke different types of emotions that are relevant to their experience.

I mean, it's okay if you're, like, a (n aspiring) literary critic or something, and looking at it from a purely stylistic point of view, and you have a good idea about what you're saying. But I think way too many people throw that word around to signify "as a rational, cool, human person I am SO above stuff like "but above all, thank you for my life" or "love is an act of blood and I'm bleeding"; it's so lame and I like my expressions of raw human emotion refined and exquisite." Of course, everyone in this thread is going to say this is not true for them

[robwebster]

You've now got me trying to work out what cheesiness is. I think it's a bit more specific than that, I don't think it can fairly apply to any expression of emotion, but it's definitely something that's a bit too subjective to hold much water as a criticism. It's a reaction, more than a critique. Says more about the listener than the music they're listening to.

I think... maybe cheesy is something that's aiming to be poetic and/or earnest and comes out artless and/or trite? Or maybe the dissonance created when you try to express something goofy or half-hearted with sincerity and conviction? Whatever it is, I don't think Space-Dye Vest's it. I'd give you depressing, but I'd have thought even Jimmy Edam-Eyes would have to squint to find cheese in it. New one on me.

[425]

I think you're onto something on both counts, there, robwebster. Perhaps you could say that it has to do with the dissonance between the... emotional depth or significance(?) of the subject and that of the language. Because I think you could call either deep, poetic writing about an unworthy subject or trite writing about an emotionally significant subject examples of cheesiness.

I just think that some people have started to go too far in the application of that label. I could certainly imagine a love song or a breakup song with "cheesy" lyrics, but it seems that some people are applying that to most or all songs with those topics when I would never dream of doing that.






Steven Wilson, who is of course one of the darlings of this forum, said something in an interview for his latest solo album that I found really interesting and noteworthy and that I think is applicable to this topic:

"One of the things about my lyrics is, I try to be simple. I do it with the music, too. I don’t like things to be complex, intellectual or obtuse just for the sake of it. I love the simplicity of certain phrases. What’s special about being to say ‘I love you,’ but in a new way… it’s so hard to do that. They’re such clichés, in a way. Being afraid to love someone, being in love with someone… if you can find a way to make these things sound fresh again, that’s a really special thing to do."

I think that's noteworthy when people talk about love songs or breakup songs being "cheesy." I think it's certainly possible to do that, but it's also definitely possible, as Wilson says, to use a clichéd phrase or idea but to make it work. And until today, I hardly knew anyone doubted that Kevin Moore did exactly that with the words to Space Dye Vest. Even though he may use a phrase or two that has been used many times before, the emotion is genuine and he finds a new way to approach the topic.

[robwebster]

That's Orwell's rule, really - never use a long word when a short one will do. I love it as a rule. Brevity is wit, short words are more expressive than long ones. Why say "Aesthetically pleasing" when "Gorgeous" is shorter, sharper, and drips with connotations? The shortest words are the most powerful. Regrettably, it's not a rule I always stick to! But it's always in the back of my mind.

Good quote - although I'd also say "complex," "intellectual" and "obtuse just for the sake of it" are exactly the reasons I didn't try Grace for Drowning. Everything about the publicity yelled, "This is an album you're unlikely to love," then when they released Remainder the Black Dog any excitement I might've had just ebbed away - if that's what they're selling, I'm not buying!

The Raven That Refused to Sing did surprise me, the title track teased me in and I think it's a great disc, but I still wouldn't exactly say the album's an advert for musical simplicity. Luminol and The Holy Drinker are fantastic songs, but gratuitous and obtuse seem like fair descriptions of both.

[ReaPsTA]

I just like to use the right word(s).

Scarlett Johansson is gorgeous.  Big Ben is aesthetically pleasing.

[robwebster]

Big Ben is magnificent, handsome, arcane...

Aesthetically pleasing is a bit too scientific - as are most long words. Not all, but I tend to find they convey meaning but not feeling. More letters, less said.

Useful if you're trying to be dispassionate, though! Great for analysis.

[ReaPsTA]

I can see why you would find Big Ben more of a visceral experience than I would.

[Rodni Demental]

Here's the thing (I'm sorry!  ), if you're experiencing something through a cheese filter, then no matter what comes through it is gonna have a taste of cheesiness. It's a perspective to feel that SDV is kinda 'cheesy'. Maybe the whole thing isn't, but a couple of lyrics might come across that way. "I'll never be open again" might be quite an emotional line, it might be powerful. But not necessarily to everyone. I think the line is cheesy because it sounds like emotional hypocrisy to me as opposed to the sincerity that it's supposed to represent. I don't think anyone could ever say that line with sincerity. It seems to me that offence is easily taken at the notion that something someone appreciates is being dismissed or disregarded by others, and the justification is summarised quite poorly (ala, cheese is a very subjective and probably insufficient word to describe what's really going on). Simply put though, if someone feels this way about the song, then it relates to the fact that they're not connecting with it. Furthermore, to assume they don't understand why they're using the word, is to invalidate their experience and point of view. Besides, as stated, there's good cheese too!

It makes me think, the thought of whether you feel something to be cheesy (god I hope I stop saying that word soon  ), is related to your experience. And it's somewhat of a knee jerk reaction, you don't analyse every aspect of why you felt that way, you just did. So, you didn't connect with the ideas, perhaps you've already been through the experience before and it's become a cliché to you because you've 'been there, experienced that' kinda deal. It shouldn't take away from anything that someone else feels from the song though.

I love, Far From Heaven, Beneath The Surface, Along For The Ride, Wither, Forsaken, The Ministry Of Lost Souls, of the more recent ballads of sorts if you will, or examples of DT holding back and presenting a more mellow piece, and as much as I like these songs, admittedly they probably have some of the cheese factor DEPENDING ON YOUR PERSPECTIVE, or interpretation of your own experience. (Let's consider that Space Dye Vest is in the same category for a moment). I personally find SDV to have more cheesy elements, (not feeling the sincerity of the emotional ideas being expressed) than any of the above songs. But that's not to say that people won't find plenty of lines in these songs that could be interpreted and experienced quite differently. Eg. "And the darkness turned to pain, and never went away" That's a fairly powerful line isn't it? Quite effective? I guess the part that turns it to cheese, is the "never went away" part, because.. I'm sure that's not true. And it certainly wouldn't be as impactful to say; "The Darkness turned to pain, and eventually went away". It's weird because it isn't/wasn't cheesy if you feel the emotional impact of the line, but if you've experienced if before or something similar, it's not going to have the same impact, and might end up getting filtered through the cheese tube.

So, just trying to consider ways of understanding what it could mean, how many mainstream songs that you hear on the radio do you think are cheesy? Most of them? In fact, I'm guessing a lot of us are very dismissive of certain music because we don't connect to it, or it's familiar in a way that doesn't interest us, but you better bet that someone will think something quite differently. The proof is in the popularity of these pieces, someone is enjoying it on a certain level clearly.

And really trying to understand where the term even came from, think about it, cheese takes time to develop and take form, in it's original form it's not even cheese, it's something else. The first cliché lines weren't clichés until they became relative truth to someone or a group of people, based on stereotypes and points of view. It's inevitable under certain conditions, the cheese will grow, although whether it becomes a classic vintage, or just leave a bitter taste in your mouth, only time will tell.   

Anyway.. I'm trying to grasp and pinpoint something that is so abstract that I can only try and express how I might personally interpret it, and probably still fail to express myself sufficiently, so my understanding could never encompass the full spectrum of what it might mean to different people.

[425]

@robwebster:
I recently read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language," actually. I think that rule is good in a general sense, but I think it's important to not interpret it as an endorsement of using imprecise short words in place of more precise, evocative longer words. It is certainly good to avoid pointlessly obscure language, though, I agree. Especially when it's actually less connotative, as in your "aesthetically pleasing example."

I have not listened to Grace For Drowning myself, but I have gotten that impression from the press and reviews of that album. But personally, I love The Raven That Refused to Sing, even though it can meander a bit in parts. It was my album of the year for 2013, by a narrow margin.

@Rodni Demental:
Personally, I think with both of the lines you've named ("I'll never be open again" and "The darkness turned to pain and never went away"), the word "never" is not meant to be the evaluation of an objective observer, but a description of the feeling. Said using more words, I think Kevin means that he feels like he'll never be open again. Same with John meaning that it feels like the pain will never go away. Myself, I think it's a particularly emotionally powerful hyperbole.

[TheGreatPretender]

I'm completely in agreement with MoraWintersoul here. I have a hard time calling any genuine expression of justified human emotion "cheesy," and Space Dye Vest is written better than the vast majority of emotional songs anyway. I'm sorry, but I can't get along with throwing any sad lyrics into the "emo" bin and labeling it cheesy.

Generally I try to avoid labeling lyrics as "cheesy," because I think there are more descriptive terms for bad lyrics, but if ever I do, it's not going to be an emotional breakup song, it will be something about dragons and swords or whatever. I think when we reach the point when we're labeling a line such as "I'll never be open again," which is emotionally powerful and literarily efficient, descriptive and vivid, as "cheesy," because... I don't really even know why? is a point where we've gone too far in applying that label.

In my book, SDV has among of the best lyrics of any DT song and would be up there with all songs in general. I'd point especially to "I'll never be open again" and "There's nowhere to set my aim, so I'm everywhere/Never come near me again, do you really think I need?" as examples of truly great lines.

Well, my biggest beef is with, "Pool in the shape of a heart". Just seems like it was written so that female listeners would go,  "Oh, he's so broken, he's such a damaged soul! It's okay, Kevy wevy! I will fix you!" 

[425]

I think that's an interesting thought (and certainly one implied in the testimony of at least one band member: "With false sensitivity/You cut yourself open so people would adore you"). But I also think it is irrelevant to the quality of the line. I don't know how you could call it clichéd, because I've never seen anyone use that particular phrase before, and I don't find it shallow as a line, either. Especially because of the context that he's bleeding—maybe the "x in the shape of a heart" could be hackneyed, but when he's "bleeding a pool," that adds something of a morose element to it which is novel, and, I think, a) fitting with the tone of the song and b) detracting from any feeling that the line was calculated for a stereotypical female audience.

[TheGreatPretender]

And again, I wasn't the one who brought the term "Cliché" into the conversation. I just think the line is overly angsty and corny. And besides, I highly doubt that the line is referring to an actual swimming pool. It sounds and fits nicer than "puddle" but even a puddle can be referred to as a pool in looser terms. Hearing that line, I never for a second imagined this "pool" to be bigger than a puddle. Although maybe I'm wrong. Maybe that pool in the shape of a heart is precisely the pool that Conan O'Brian is talking about. 

Either way, you're absolutely right, the way I feel about that line is precisely described in that Raise The Knife verse.

[425]

It's a linguistic technicality, but you're right, "pool" can mean the same thing as "puddle," and I'm almost positive that's how Kevin meant it (not a literal swimming pool, though that is an interesting parallel with the Conan sample that I'd never thought of before). Still, the image of him bleeding enough to cause what could be properly called a "pool" is certainly a morose one. I can see someone objecting to it if they have an issue with the use of descriptions of physical harm to symbolize emotional harm, which some people do find melodramatic and therefore dislike (and that seems to be your objection to it). However, personally, I think such images are often fitting and powerful. And I think Kevin's "pool in the shape of a heart" is one such image.

[Rodni Demental]

@Rodni Demental:
Personally, I think with both of the lines you've named ("I'll never be open again" and "The darkness turned to pain and never went away"), the word "never" is not meant to be the evaluation of an objective observer, but a description of the feeling. Said using more words, I think Kevin means that he feels like he'll never be open again. Same with John meaning that it feels like the pain will never go away. Myself, I think it's a particularly emotionally powerful hyperbole.

Fair point. Because the other line I have gripe with is "Never come near me again". Sounds really resentful, and even if it's just an expression to symbolise the way the writer felt at that moment, I feel that the residual effect of this sort of statement lingers and ultimately looses it's effect over time because it's a static, unresolved feeling and even as a listener, you won't be stuck on that note forever. I guess the paradox in our difference of opinion is that I am an objective observer whether the writer wanted that or not, but I'm also feeling out the song as I experience it. So perhaps I should appreciate what song is meant to evoke, but I can't really help what that will be on a personal level and I guess that naturally changes over time, at the end of the day, any song won't feel the same way it did the first time you heard it, so I suppose the way it makes you feel after many listens will determine if it stands the test of time. And turn into a good or bad cheese.

[TheGreatPretender]

It's a linguistic technicality, but you're right, "pool" can mean the same thing as "puddle," and I'm almost positive that's how Kevin meant it (not a literal swimming pool, though that is an interesting parallel with the Conan sample that I'd never thought of before). Still, the image of him bleeding enough to cause what could be properly called a "pool" is certainly a morose one. I can see someone objecting to it if they have an issue with the use of descriptions of physical harm to symbolize emotional harm, which some people do find melodramatic and therefore dislike (and that seems to be your objection to it). However, personally, I think such images are often fitting and powerful. And I think Kevin's "pool in the shape of a heart" is one such image.

Yeah, you pretty much summer it up in a nutshell there. It's not the worst, not the most angsty or the most corny heartbreak lyric in the world. But the last time I heard it, it definitely made me cringe. I'd rather take "Mother Mary, quite contrary" any day.

[rumborak]

Been a while since some controversial opinion, but here it goes: I find it kinda bizarre that a band like Dream Theater has "sound problems" up the wazoo. Like, LALP has shoddy sound, and DT12 is brickwalled beyond recognition with a drum sound from an Alesis drum machine. All that in a band where almost all members are considered "top of the crop".
To drive the point home even further, look at someone like Steven Wilson, who is just one guy, but his albums are aural orgasms. On the other hand Dream Theater has 5 guys, and they can't get good sound. Or don't notice how their visual art has been put together haphazardly (the unicyclist, the first version of the DT12 cover...)

Are DT on autopilot?

[King Postwhore]

when it comes to DT12, I think they fell into that "Modern Sound" trap that the older bands fall into like Rush.  Us old farts like sparseness and music, not in your face.

[?]

Been a while since some controversial opinion, but here it goes: I find it kinda bizarre that a band like Dream Theater has "sound problems" up the wazoo. Like, LALP has shoddy sound, and DT12 is brickwalled beyond recognition with a drum sound from an Alesis drum machine. All that in a band where almost all members are considered "top of the crop".
To drive the point home even further, look at someone like Steven Wilson, who is just one guy, but his albums are aural orgasms. On the other hand Dream Theater has 5 guys, and they can't get good sound. Or don't notice how their visual art has been put together haphazardly (the unicyclist, the first version of the DT12 cover...)

Are DT on autopilot?

Totally agreed. You'd think that a band that has been around for almost 30 years would make good-sounding albums that don't have hastily made artwork. I wouldn't say DT are on autopilot, but it seems that they aren't putting enough effort into some important areas. I think if they wrote all the material before going into the studio, they could focus more on the sound aspect during the recording. They could also pick a more inspired artist like Travis Smith to create the artwork for the next album.

[robwebster]

Been a while since some controversial opinion, but here it goes: I find it kinda bizarre that a band like Dream Theater has "sound problems" up the wazoo. Like, LALP has shoddy sound, and DT12 is brickwalled beyond recognition with a drum sound from an Alesis drum machine. All that in a band where almost all members are considered "top of the crop".
To drive the point home even further, look at someone like Steven Wilson, who is just one guy, but his albums are aural orgasms. On the other hand Dream Theater has 5 guys, and they can't get good sound. Or don't notice how their visual art has been put together haphazardly (the unicyclist, the first version of the DT12 cover...)

Are DT on autopilot?

They've never had amazing sound - certainly not as long as they've been self-producing (cos I know people quite like FII). I suspect Steven Wilson's albums sound like aural orgasms and are streets ahead of DT's because he's a Grammy-winning music producer who became that good by mixing and mastering pretty much every album he's appeared on since On the Sunday of Life.

You're like one of those pushy parents! "Your friend Steven's doing really well, he came first place in hurdles at sports day, why didn't you come first place in hurdles? Do you have lazy legs, is that it?"

[Invisible]

@Rodni Demental:
Personally, I think with both of the lines you've named ("I'll never be open again" and "The darkness turned to pain and never went away"), the word "never" is not meant to be the evaluation of an objective observer, but a description of the feeling. Said using more words, I think Kevin means that he feels like he'll never be open again. Same with John meaning that it feels like the pain will never go away. Myself, I think it's a particularly emotionally powerful hyperbole.

Fair point. Because the other line I have gripe with is "Never come near me again". Sounds really resentful, and even if it's just an expression to symbolise the way the writer felt at that moment, I feel that the residual effect of this sort of statement lingers and ultimately looses it's effect over time because it's a static, unresolved feeling and even as a listener, you won't be stuck on that note forever. I guess the paradox in our difference of opinion is that I am an objective observer whether the writer wanted that or not, but I'm also feeling out the song as I experience it. So perhaps I should appreciate what song is meant to evoke, but I can't really help what that will be on a personal level and I guess that naturally changes over time, at the end of the day, any song won't feel the same way it did the first time you heard it, so I suppose the way it makes you feel after many listens will determine if it stands the test of time. And turn into a good or bad cheese.

You are fooling yourself if you think there's such a thing as objectivity when it comes to music.

"I'll never be open again" might be quite an emotional line, it might be powerful. But not necessarily to everyone. I think the line is cheesy because it sounds like emotional hypocrisy to me as opposed to the sincerity that it's supposed to represent. I don't think anyone could ever say that line with sincerity.

How is that line not sincere? It's a feeling, not a scientific analysis!! Yes, of course the world didn't end, but sometimes you can feel like that, even if it isn't true. If they emotions were rational they wouldn't be called emotions. The song brings the feeling of despair and it does a great job all the way through. I can picture a guy in a small apartment, dishes not washed, everything a mess, a piano on the side, staring numb at a TV and channel surfing at 3 a.m. From the outsider perspective you know "I'll never be open again" it's probably not true, but this is not a song from the outside, and, unlike a lot of Dream Theater songs, it's not a full story, like a movie, it's more a photograph. A photograph of a particular moment, and like every picture, it only shows you a fraction of the truth, but in that particular moment that fraction is all that matters, all your world. It's called obsession, which is one of the main themes of the song.
And it's not meant to be a song for all occasions, in fact no song is, it represents a particular moment in a person's life, but just a moment. Of course it passes, but that's not the point of the song. There's also a thing called "dramatic effect", which a lot of writers use, but this isn't a case for SDV, in fact, it's a very sincere song all the way through, just because you can't relate to it it doesn't make it fake.

Been a while since some controversial opinion, but here it goes: I find it kinda bizarre that a band like Dream Theater has "sound problems" up the wazoo. Like, LALP has shoddy sound, and DT12 is brickwalled beyond recognition with a drum sound from an Alesis drum machine. All that in a band where almost all members are considered "top of the crop".
To drive the point home even further, look at someone like Steven Wilson, who is just one guy, but his albums are aural orgasms. On the other hand Dream Theater has 5 guys, and they can't get good sound. Or don't notice how their visual art has been put together haphazardly (the unicyclist, the first version of the DT12 cover...)

Are DT on autopilot?

They've never had amazing sound - certainly not as long as they've been self-producing (cos I know people quite like FII). I suspect Steven Wilson's albums sound like aural orgasms and are streets ahead of DT's because he's a Grammy-winning music producer who became that good by mixing and mastering pretty much every album he's appeared on since On the Sunday of Life.

You're like one of those pushy parents! "Your friend Steven's doing really well, he came first place in hurdles at sports day, why didn't you come first place in hurdles? Do you have lazy legs, is that it?"

I agree, they never had a great sound to begin with. Even Awake and FII, the only two I like in terms of production, aren't perfect. I always thought the self production was a bad idea in that aspect.

[?]

They've never had amazing sound - certainly not as long as they've been self-producing (cos I know people quite like FII). I suspect Steven Wilson's albums sound like aural orgasms and are streets ahead of DT's because he's a Grammy-winning music producer who became that good by mixing and mastering pretty much every album he's appeared on since On the Sunday of Life.

SW may not be the best example for the reasons you mentioned, but I think a fair comparison could be made between DT and OSI: Kevin Moore, Jim Matheos and Gavin Harrison record their parts at their own home studios and only the mixing is done by an actual engineer, yet Blood and Fire Make Thunder sound better than any DT album in the last decade. If some bands can make sonically great albums at home, why can't DT get a good sound in an actual studio? I find FII and Six Degrees pretty well-produced and I'd be happy if the next album sounded as good as those two.

[robwebster]

Kevin Moore is a marginally fairer comparison... but not much. KevMo's not been nominated for awards, but you're still comparing a band of musician/songwriters to a passionate producer/engineer with a good fifteen albums' experience under his belt. Music engineer in better-at-mixing-than-guitarist shocker!

It's not the conclusion that one's better than the other that's wrong - I agree, SW and KevMo release better-sounding albums - but the contention that they're getting lazier because they're continuing to not excel at something they've never really excelled at is a really spurious argument. And yet, somehow, not the most inane in that post - I disregarded the cover art thing as it didn't really bear discussion, but if we're on the subject, Octavarium's far and away the most effort they've ever put into any album booklet and they had to fix that one up after its original reveal, too. It's fine to have a pet theory, but the attempts to produce evidence for it are really not doing it much credit.

[hefdaddy42]

I've certainly felt that DT has had their share of "cheesy" lyrics, but SDV was never, ever under consideration for that label.

[Madman Shepherd]

I think all this discussion about Dt not having good sound is WAYYYY overblown.  Granted, I am not an audiophile but considering I own nearly 2000 CDs, including everything from 60s rock, to 80s rap, to classical and pop, underground metal and grunge,  I think I have an above average knowledge of great sound versus bad sound.  Dream Theater at a bare minimum has very good sound.  The only one that can be considered bad is WDADU.

[nikatapi]

I think all this discussion about Dt not having good sound is WAYYYY overblown.  Granted, I am not an audiophile but considering I own nearly 2000 CDs, including everything from 60s rock, to 80s rap, to classical and pop, underground metal and grunge,  I think I have an above average knowledge of great sound versus bad sound. Dream Theater at a bare minimum has very good sound.  The only one that can be considered bad is WDADU.

The last two albums cannot be considered "very good" sounding, in my opinion. There are many flaws, and it's a pity since they seem to spend a lot of money on making an album.

[rumborak]

Kevin Moore is a marginally fairer comparison... but not much. KevMo's not been nominated for awards, but you're still comparing a band of musician/songwriters to a passionate producer/engineer with a good fifteen albums' experience under his belt. Music engineer in better-at-mixing-than-guitarist shocker!

Rob, sometime I find you're going a bit overboard with defending DT. In my opinion, there is absolutely no excuse for DT for releasing bad-sounding albums (and DT12 and LALP really count as such). Because, mixing and producing is not something they have to do. If this was an argument about "JP's playing is sloppy" that would be a moot discussion because there would be nothing anybody can do about it. JP is the guitarist of the band and he has to record the takes for the album, so if his playing wasn't up to snuff, that would be the extent of it.
However, DT doesn't need to mix and produce their albums. In fact, as we all know, they didn't use to, with much better results. It's a bit like MP deciding at some point to do backing vocals live, where the result was pretty shoddy for a loong time and marred many a live recording.
My overall point is, be it laziness or hubris, a band of 5 top musicians really has no excuse to produce sub-standard work. And sub-standard it is.

[KevShmev]

I'm with rumborak here.  Like he said, there is no excuse for how mediocre some of their albums sound from a production/mixing standpoint over the last 15 years.  No, most aren't gonna have stuff that sounds as awesome as Steven Wilson's albums always do, but still, they should be able to do better.

[robwebster]

Kevin Moore is a marginally fairer comparison... but not much. KevMo's not been nominated for awards, but you're still comparing a band of musician/songwriters to a passionate producer/engineer with a good fifteen albums' experience under his belt. Music engineer in better-at-mixing-than-guitarist shocker!

Rob, sometime I find you're going a bit overboard with defending DT.

By... agreeing that they do sound worse than the examples you put forward, and calling out wild exaggerations? Yeah, I'm a real hyperactive fanboy.

SW isn't industry standard. He's award-winning internationally-recognised exceptional. If you're pulling out SW as an example to demonstrate that DT are sub-standard, you're not just setting your standard high, you're setting it delusionally high. DT's sound is about average - neither impressive nor appalling. Workmanlike... but it's always been workmanlike. The conclusion that they've stopped trying really doesn't fit the facts - they're putting forth about as much effort as they always have in that department.

[ReaPsTA]

Can we back of the SW love just a little bit?  His mixes have flaws.  The Incident sounds like garbage.

EDIT - Just made the mistake of listening to The Incident's title track again.  Why are all the instruments very wet, with a low of their low end scooped out, and Wilson's vocals have seemingly no reverb and a lot of their bass frequencies let in?

I like SW's mixing.  FOABP is one of the best sounding albums I've ever heard.  But he's no engineering hero.

[robwebster]

I agree, and I'd add that Fear of a Blank Planet is so dynamic that it's a bit of a chore to listen to in any real life situation - in a car, at night, anything aside from lab conditions - but I suspect it's not The Incident that A Dramatic Turn of Events and DTXII are being compared to. Fair enough, though: Steven Wilson, on a good day, is absolutely stupendous at his job, and like-for-like, The Raven that Refused to Sing sounds thoroughly beautiful, whereas Dream Theater's latest album just sounds fine.

Of course, you could argue that The Incident is far closer to Dream Theater's style of music than TRTRTS is, so it might be a fairer comparison. Actually, DT sort of beat Porcupine Tree to The Incident with Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence - a thematic and continuous title-disc, to be consumed as one piece but indexed separately should you choose to listen to the songs individually, packaged alongside an anthology of unrelated songs that are still part of the album.

[ReaPsTA]

And why are the guitars in The Incident so loud?

DT's albums have a lot of problems with their sound quality.  I think DT12's sound is underrated, but I get it.

But when you talk about SW like some kind of genius, it shows you guys have your own biases too.

It bothers me so much because I guess I'm just surprised you guys can't hear this stuff.  It's really obvious.

[rumborak]

SW isn't industry standard. He's award-winning internationally-recognised exceptional.

And believe it or not, Dream Theater rakes in a *ton* of money, enough money to apparently rent a professional studio in New York (of all places) for months. And more than enough money to hire a top-notch producer that would get them a good sound.

So, if you don't like the conclusion that they're on autopilot, the only two remaining conclusions to me are 1) they don't hear it or 2) they don't care (in the sense of "yeah, we know it's shoddy sound, but that's what sells these days")

[Sycsa]

I can easily lean towards the latter option, although not exactly the way you phrased it, but something along the lines of "let's sound trendy, modern...proactive...paradigm!"

[robwebster]

SW isn't industry standard. He's award-winning internationally-recognised exceptional.

And believe it or not, Dream Theater rakes in a *ton* of money, enough money to apparently rent a professional studio in New York (of all places) for months. And more than enough money to hire a top-notch producer that would get them a good sound.

So, if you don't like the conclusion that they're on autopilot, the only two remaining conclusions to me are 1) they don't hear it or 2) they don't care (in the sense of "yeah, we know it's shoddy sound, but that's what sells these days")

We're looking at some fairer conclusions, here. I'd say it's a little from column B, but mostly column A. If they were chasing trends they wouldn't be writing progressive metal, that doesn't really have a ring of truth to it, though I'm sure there is an element of "Loud is striking, metal is loud" - but when you're close to something, you lose perspective, and they're just not as adept at standing apart, seeing the bigger picture and finding that sweet spot as an artist like Steven Wilson is.

Or in other words, they're not as good at mixing because they're... not as good at mixing! They can do it decently well to an industry standard, but we've never had a DT album where everything sounds pristine and clear and gorgeous. I think you're massively overestimating how easy it is to make an album sound like The Raven that Refused to Sing, though.

NB: Throwing money at a problem doesn't make it go away. Companies spend billions of pounds/dollars/euros/rupees on advertising campaigns that completely bomb, and members of the public can make a viral hit with a webcam and an internet connection. It's as much an art as a science, and an artist won't make better art the more you pay them. As ReaPsTA says, Steven Wilson has had some real off-days.

[KevShmev]

Perhaps, but for them, at this stage of their careers, to release an album as muddy-sounding as ADTOE is a major WTF; same with Rush's Clockwork Angels.  I love both of those records, but both should sound so much better.  I blame Roadrunner.