Your Controversial Opinions on DT

[DarkLord_Lalinc]

For me, ADToE ends with Breaking All Illusions. I don't acknowledge Beneath the Surface. Do not enjoy it at all.


I do not listen to Our New World. Totally not what I'm looking for in a DT song.

Dear God.

[cramx3]

If a few more people voice their displeasure for ONW, then it will be more controversial to like it. 

 

I do think that should have ended the album though. 

My biggest complaint with TA is that it ends on a dud.  Not just TA (song) but the grouping of the last few tracks is my least favorite on the album.  All of them are in the bottom half with Whispers being my least favorite on the album. 

[erwinrafael]

Yeah, but the live shows have shown that TA (the song) was indeed written as some sort of encore. It works effectively as such. JP has said that when they wrote the album, they were really thinking of it as a staged show, which is why the album length is the way it is and why there are songs that are tailor-made for a live production (overture, Road to Revolution, Entracte, TA).

[Destiny Of Chaos]

If a few more people voice their displeasure for ONW, then it will be more controversial to like it. 

 

I do think that should have ended the album though. 

My biggest complaint with TA is that it ends on a dud.  Not just TA (song) but the grouping of the last few tracks is my least favorite on the album.  All of them are in the bottom half with Whispers being my least favorite on the album.

I agree... I rarely listen to the last few tracks. After The Walking Shadow, I lose interest... especially when Nafaryus begins to cry (laugh?).  Whispers on the Wind is the exception. I love that lil song.

[KevShmev]

For me, ADToE ends with Breaking All Illusions. I don't acknowledge Beneath the Surface. Do not enjoy it at all.


I do not listen to Our New World. Totally not what I'm looking for in a DT song.

Dear God.

Amen.

There are other songs I love more on TA, but Our New World is one of the most bad ass straight forward songs they have done to date.  It rocks and is catchy as heck.  And with it being a rare example of them doing a "riff rock" song, where the keyboards are almost nowhere to be found, it is easily a song that could appeal to non-DT fans.

[Dream Team]

For me, ADToE ends with Breaking All Illusions. I don't acknowledge Beneath the Surface. Do not enjoy it at all.


I do not listen to Our New World. Totally not what I'm looking for in a DT song.

Dear God.

Amen.

There are other songs I love more on TA, but Our New World is one of the most bad ass straight forward songs they have done to date.  It rocks and is catchy as heck.  And with it being a rare example of them doing a "riff rock" song, where the keyboards are almost nowhere to be found, it is easily a song that could appeal to non-DT fans.

Yeah, it's actually a little frustrating for me because I wanted more of it. It's nice and concise, but maybe needed a pre-chorus part (transition to chorus is a little abrupt) or a 3rd verse. Nit-picky I know.

[erwinrafael]

For me, ADToE ends with Breaking All Illusions. I don't acknowledge Beneath the Surface. Do not enjoy it at all.


I do not listen to Our New World. Totally not what I'm looking for in a DT song.

Dear God.

Amen.

There are other songs I love more on TA, but Our New World is one of the most bad ass straight forward songs they have done to date.  It rocks and is catchy as heck.  And with it being a rare example of them doing a "riff rock" song, where the keyboards are almost nowhere to be found, it is easily a song that could appeal to non-DT fans.

Yeah, it's actually a little frustrating for me because I wanted more of it. It's nice and concise, but maybe needed a pre-chorus part (transition to chorus is a little abrupt) or a 3rd verse. Nit-picky I know.

I think it is deliberately short because it is already preceded by 2 hours of music. JP must be thinking listener's / audience fatigue.

[Enigmachine]

I think many songs on TA overall (especially Act II considering the 30 mins of room) could've been improved by extending them.

[erwinrafael]

It could improve on an individual song perspective, but overall listening experience would be worse. I think much of the more negative reaction to Disc 2 is listener fatigue, and that would only worsen if the songs are extended.

[BlobVanDam]

If a few more people voice their displeasure for ONW, then it will be more controversial to like it. 

The prog hipster needle is in constant flux.

[Enigmachine]

It could improve on an individual song perspective, but overall listening experience would be worse. I think much of the more negative reaction to Disc 2 is listener fatigue, and that would only worsen if the songs are extended.

Maybe so, but I would just be happy with more of TA.

[Prog Snob]

If a few more people voice their displeasure for ONW, then it will be more controversial to like it. 

The prog hipster needle is in constant flux.

If it stopped, then it wouldn't be progressive anymore, now would it? It would just become a dreadful monotony...like aor. 

[BlobVanDam]

Almost as much of a dreadful monotony as your posts on music you don't like.

[Prog Snob]

Almost as much of a dreadful monotony as your posts on music you don't like.

   Irony is a wonderful thing.

[BlobVanDam]

Yeah, says the guy suggesting that people who listen to music you don't like need cochlear implants. Prog Snob indeed.

[Prog Snob]

Yeah, get back to me when you stop suggesting that people who listen to music you don't like need cochlear implants. Prog Snob indeed.

Yes, because not liking DLR makes me a prog snob.    Silly boy.

[BlobVanDam]

Just a plain old music snob then. Better?

[Enigmachine]

Did I miss something?

[Prog Snob]

Just a plain old music snob then. Better?

I'll stipulate to that if you do. 

Did I miss something?

The airing of grievances. We're a bit late on the Festivus front. 

[TheOutlawXanadu]

I always thought of progressive rock as being rock music with long songs, non-standard song structures, and a little bit of strangeness. I don't think a band necessarily has to change with every album they release, or anything like that, to be considered progressive. In other words, I think of a more concrete style than I do a philosophical approach to songwriting and evolution, if that makes sense.

[Prog Snob]

I always thought of progressive rock as being rock music with long songs, non-standard song structures, and a little bit of strangeness. I don't think a band necessarily has to change with every album they release, or anything like that, to be considered progressive. In other words, I think of a more concrete style than I do a philosophical approach to songwriting and evolution, if that makes sense.

Trying to define what progressive rock is and should be is an exercise in futility. I think there are different characteristics that one could define as being progressive, but at the same time, I don't think it should be limited to a specific definition. I mentioned that a band not changing from one album to the next starts to become stale and shouldn't be labeled progressive, but I feel like I was a bit capricious saying that and didn't explain myself thoroughly. I was thinking of a band like AC/DC who put out the same album constantly. Granted there are no prog bands like that which I know of. Imagine Dream Theater always made albums that sounded just like Images and Words. As godlike as that album is, it would start to get monotonous after a while.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

I always thought of progressive rock as being rock music with long songs, non-standard song structures, and a little bit of strangeness. I don't think a band necessarily has to change with every album they release, or anything like that, to be considered progressive. In other words, I think of a more concrete style than I do a philosophical approach to songwriting and evolution, if that makes sense.

Trying to define what progressive rock is and should be is an exercise in futility. I think there are different characteristics that one could define as being progressive, but at the same time, I don't think it should be limited to a specific definition. I mentioned that a band not changing from one album to the next starts to become stale and shouldn't be labeled progressive, but I feel like I was a bit capricious saying that and didn't explain myself thoroughly. I was thinking of a band like AC/DC who put out the same album constantly. Granted there are no prog bands like that which I know of. Imagine Dream Theater always made albums that sounded just like Images and Words. As godlike as that album is, it would start to get monotonous after a while.

Yup, agreed, although I can think of a few bands that still manage to make amazing music despite not changing ever. Amorphis are one of my favorite bands, and their style has been basically the same for a full decade now, but it doesn't matter to me because they kick so much ass. Sometimes it's nice to know what you're getting.

[bosk1]

I always thought of progressive rock as being rock music with long songs, non-standard song structures, and a little bit of strangeness. I don't think a band necessarily has to change with every album they release, or anything like that, to be considered progressive. In other words, I think of a more concrete style than I do a philosophical approach to songwriting and evolution, if that makes sense.

And that would be the correct definition.  I had having to pedantically explain this to newbies every couple of years, but "progressive rock" as a music genre is not about change.  It is about a genre of music that is very loosely defined by the type of characteristics you describe above.  "Progressive" as merely an adjective to describe a certain type of music would imply change, but that isn't what we mean when we are discussing the genre of progressive rock (or progressive metal). 

Anyhow, now that the noobs have been corrected, back on topic...

[erwinrafael]

I always thought of progressive rock as being rock music with long songs, non-standard song structures, and a little bit of strangeness. I don't think a band necessarily has to change with every album they release, or anything like that, to be considered progressive. In other words, I think of a more concrete style than I do a philosophical approach to songwriting and evolution, if that makes sense.

And that would be the correct definition.  I had having to pedantically explain this to newbies every couple of years, but "progressive rock" as a music genre is not about change.  It is about a genre of music that is very loosely defined by the type of characteristics you describe above.  "Progressive" as merely an adjective to describe a certain type of music would imply change, but that isn't what we mean when we are discussing the genre of progressive rock (or progressive metal). 

Anyhow, now that the noobs have been corrected, back on topic...

I would have to contend with the"long song" though as a general characteristic of prog. I think long song is just one of the non-standard structures used in the genre.

So really for me, prog is just about non-standard structures. That's it. The strangeness factor is a product of the non-standardness.

[Implode]

I agree with the past 3 posts. Saying progressive rock is about the music progressing is like saying hard rock is only rock that's hard to play.

(Also it peeves me when people try to distinguish a difference between progressive rock and prog. I'm pretty sure that's just a made up thing.)

[bosk1]

(Also it peeves me when people try to distinguish a difference between progressive rock and prog. I'm pretty sure that's just a made up thing.)

It is.  But I think what people are trying to say is that "prog" refers to the genre, while "progressive rock" means "rock music" (n.) that is "progressive" (adj., meaning changing or evolving) in nature.  I'm fine with the distinction because I think it is correct, and if that's how people want to make sense of the two different things, that's fine.  But it is usually understood (or least should be) that the term "progressive rock" usually refers to the genre, and that "prog" is just a shorthand version of that.

[Implode]

I suppose that's fair.

I really do wish that genres were clear cut and specific, but really...they aren't and neither are the songs categorized by them. They work more as descriptors than clean-cut boxes you can drop songs or artists into.

That's probably the most important thing about music I've learned over the past 10 years.

[BlobVanDam]

This is where genre classifications and definitions become trivial to me. I couldn't care less about whether an album is progressive or not, or the prog vs progressive argument. I can't say that the progressiveness of TA crossed my mind or was a factor while judging whether I liked it or not.

[King Postwhore]

This is where genre classifications and definitions become trivial to me. I couldn't care less about whether an album is progressive or not, or the prog vs progressive argument. I can't say that the progressiveness of TA crossed my mind or was a factor while judging whether I liked it or not.

Just like a cyborg or a robot.



*Throw poo*


I kid, I kid!

[bosk1]

This is where genre classifications and definitions become trivial to me. I couldn't care less about whether an album is progressive or not, or the prog vs progressive argument. I can't say that the progressiveness of TA crossed my mind or was a factor while judging whether I liked it or not.

For the most part, same here.  But it becomes relevant when people try to argue, "Dream Theater aren't 'progressive metal' because they haven't changed their sound!" 

[King Postwhore]

You say Tomato, I say Tomato...........

[hefdaddy42]

I agree with everything that bosky said.

[Prog Snob]

I always thought of progressive rock as being rock music with long songs, non-standard song structures, and a little bit of strangeness. I don't think a band necessarily has to change with every album they release, or anything like that, to be considered progressive. In other words, I think of a more concrete style than I do a philosophical approach to songwriting and evolution, if that makes sense.

And that would be the correct definition.  I had having to pedantically explain this to newbies every couple of years, but "progressive rock" as a music genre is not about change.  It is about a genre of music that is very loosely defined by the type of characteristics you describe above.  "Progressive" as merely an adjective to describe a certain type of music would imply change, but that isn't what we mean when we are discussing the genre of progressive rock (or progressive metal). 

Anyhow, now that the noobs have been corrected, back on topic...

I would have to contend with the"long song" though as a general characteristic of prog. I think long song is just one of the non-standard structures used in the genre.

So really for me, prog is just about non-standard structures. That's it. The strangeness factor is a product of the non-standardness.

Agreed. Long songs are not a necessary characteristic of progressive rock. There are prog songs that are short, and there are non-prog bands that have long songs. That's one of the mistakes people make when defining prog.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

For the most part, same here.  But it becomes relevant when people try to argue, "Dream Theater aren't 'progressive metal' because they haven't changed their sound!"

And when those people light up their "But, they aren't progressive!!" torch and start this same tired argument, you know what you tell them?

"No u."

[TAC]

For the most part, same here.  But it becomes relevant when people try to argue, "Dream Theater aren't 'progressive metal' because they haven't changed their sound!"

And when those people light up their "But, they aren't progressive!!" torch and start this same tired argument, you know what you tell them?

"No u."

Wow. Now that's progressive!