So I realized why DT's last 3 big epics have suffered in a way ACOS/8VM don't.

[brash47]

I love coming from a classical music background. After years of classical piano training, I started listening to Zep, Rush, and Yes. After that, I got into Iron Maiden and many other bands before picking up a little free CD in a music store back in '89 called When Dream and Day Unite.

After having played classical music for so many years, it's easy to understand the separation of DT's music. You have an idea, the idea flows, then changes. The tempo changes with the idea. Each idea has a unique sound and feeling to it. To keep a pure flow of the same thing over and over again is not how music, particularly a piece well over 20 minutes is done. If you do that for that amount of time, the sound becomes bland, starts to blur, and you will actually lose interest after you have heard it a couple of times because there is no distinction. If you really enjoy a 25 minute long song that is the same thing for 25 minutes, for God's sake, please visit your local techno club and start dancing.

I've said this to many people, but will say it here. DT writes their music first of all for their own personal pleasure to see what it is they can create at that moment. During creativity, the flow changes, yet it is still flowing, you may not understand why, but that's not the band's concern. They finish the product, put it out there for you to enjoy and to see if you enjoy listening to it as much as they enjoy playing it for you. There is the connection.

You can complain all you want about how this doesn't sound right, or I didn't like how the break comes, or I don't like the lyrics or anything anyone could possibly complain about. In the end, they present it, you decide if you like it or not. Bitching about it doesn't do a damn thing in how the band writes their songs. They are a group of people who are constantly changing. Their writing styles will show that change.

Personally, I love the breaks, because I understand them. Take a few minutes of your day and actually listen to some classical music...Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin....to name a few. Come back and complain how you didn't like how Beethoven ruins the flow of Piano Sonata No. 14. There are definate breaks and tempo changes there....fantastic changes.

Today's prog metal/rock is the latest form of classical style writing. It has movements and each piece has life. If you don't like the breaks or changes, so be it, but to me, these are modern classics and I personally enjoy each and every one of them....rant over.

brash

[bl5150]

That's a brash statement

Welcome 

FTR I tend to agree re the breaks and to me it's more about whether the individual parts catch my ear more than if they "flow" into each other and for me IT does that better than just about any other epic they've done.

[Podaar]

Welcome brash47. Welcome to banging your head against the wall. You'll either develop a super thick forehead or an aversion to walls. But, it can be fun too. For the record, I stand with your opinion since I also was weened on classical music. I've mentioned it on several occasions several years ago and was promptly abused or ignored.

inb4 someone calls brash47 a condescending &*%$#(.

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

I love coming from a classical music background. After years of classical piano training, I started listening to Zep, Rush, and Yes. After that, I got into Iron Maiden and many other bands before picking up a little free CD in a music store back in '89 called When Dream and Day Unite.

After having played classical music for so many years, it's easy to understand the separation of DT's music. You have an idea, the idea flows, then changes. The tempo changes with the idea. Each idea has a unique sound and feeling to it. To keep a pure flow of the same thing over and over again is not how music, particularly a piece well over 20 minutes is done. If you do that for that amount of time, the sound becomes bland, starts to blur, and you will actually lose interest after you have heard it a couple of times because there is no distinction. If you really enjoy a 25 minute long song that is the same thing for 25 minutes, for God's sake, please visit your local techno club and start dancing.

I've said this to many people, but will say it here. DT writes their music first of all for their own personal pleasure to see what it is they can create at that moment. During creativity, the flow changes, yet it is still flowing, you may not understand why, but that's not the band's concern. They finish the product, put it out there for you to enjoy and to see if you enjoy listening to it as much as they enjoy playing it for you. There is the connection.

You can complain all you want about how this doesn't sound right, or I didn't like how the break comes, or I don't like the lyrics or anything anyone could possibly complain about. In the end, they present it, you decide if you like it or not. Bitching about it doesn't do a damn thing in how the band writes their songs. They are a group of people who are constantly changing. Their writing styles will show that change.

Personally, I love the breaks, because I understand them. Take a few minutes of your day and actually listen to some classical music...Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin....to name a few. Come back and complain how you didn't like how Beethoven ruins the flow of Piano Sonata No. 14. There are definate breaks and tempo changes there....fantastic changes.

Today's prog metal/rock is the latest form of classical style writing. It has movements and each piece has life. If you don't like the breaks or changes, so be it, but to me, these are modern classics and I personally enjoy each and every one of them....rant over.

brash

I don't think any of us are under the illusion that when we complain about certain things, that DT is going to say, "Whoa, Shadow Ninja doesn't like this, we better change it". But that does not preclude us from discussing things. This is a discussion board after all. It would be pretty boring if we all just sat around saying, "Yeah, I like that song" "Me too" "High five, bro". Who would actually enjoy that?

[TheGreatPretender]

I don't think any of us are under the illusion that when we complain about certain things, that DT is going to say, "Whoa, Shadow Ninja doesn't like this, we better change it". But that does not preclude us from discussing things. This is a discussion board after all. It would be pretty boring if we all just sat around saying, "Yeah, I like that song" "Me too" "High five, bro". Who would actually enjoy that?

This. But it really feels sometimes like that's exactly what people want. They want to state their opinion, and then have that opinion validated by other people who agree with them, and nothing more. And when someone who disagrees comes along, it's suddenly, "Well, if you don't like my opinion, don't read the thread then." 

[ZirconBlue]

Personally, I love the breaks, because I understand them.

Implying that those that don't like them don't understand them. 

[robwebster]

After having played classical music for so many years, it's easy to understand the separation of DT's music. You have an idea, the idea flows, then changes. The tempo changes with the idea. Each idea has a unique sound and feeling to it. To keep a pure flow of the same thing over and over again is not how music, particularly a piece well over 20 minutes is done. If you do that for that amount of time, the sound becomes bland, starts to blur, and you will actually lose interest after you have heard it a couple of times because there is no distinction. If you really enjoy a 25 minute long song that is the same thing for 25 minutes, for God's sake, please visit your local techno club and start dancing.

I'm with ZirconBlue inasmuch as I don't like the idea that people who don't like the longer songs aren't learned enough to understand them - but it's a blemish on what's otherwise a very good post. The quoted, particularly, is a wonderful, blissful paragraph.

Three minute songs often have perfect flow, but of course they do - they stop after three minutes! A good twenty minute song isn't aiming to do something you could accomplish in a three-minuter, it's aiming to do things you might not be able to even if you put seven back-to-back. I think brevity is wit, and I think with the latest album Dream Theater have added some fantastic and much-needed short songs to their catalogues that are stronger for being concise and precise - DT12 is an album you could set your watch to - but I think a well-crafted symphony of set-ups and payoffs and callbacks, bristling with ideas that tell a long-form story can be more rewarding than any number of short songs matched minute-for-minute. It's just that shorter ones are more often good, because the long ones are harder to get right. They need to work harder to justify that timeslot.

[James Sucellus]

I love DT's epics, and find all of them hugely enjoyable apart from ITPOE , but I wouldn't count any as among their absolute best top ten or so compositions, and none are on the level of songs like Karn Evil 9, Tarkus, Supper's Ready, Close to the Edge, etc. DT's epics are all at least slightly flawed in their own way, and can't match to the perfection of some of their other, shorter  recordings.

Yes, I prefer the 'simpler' Surrounded to Octavarium. It has more impact. I find it hard to view SDOIT as one long song, and see it more as a superlative concept album comprised of shorter songs.

[theseoafs]

I've said this to many people, but will say it here. DT writes their music first of all for their own personal pleasure to see what it is they can create at that moment.

This isn't quite true.  The band is incredibly cognizant of what kind of fans they have, and what they're expecting.  DT have a sound that they're not going to betray.  This has been evoked many times in many interviews with the band's members.

[brash47]

First,
I didn't mean to imply people do not understand the breaks, sorry it came out that way. I was just stating my personal opinion. I think my main point was that I love music, all music, I find redeeming qualities in pretty much anything that catches my attention long enough for me to listen to it for a period of time.

DT has changed their sound over the years as will any group that lasts over time and any group that has had as many member changes as this band has. I here constants in Petrucci's playing, I hear constants in Myung's playing. If you listen to older Rudess material before DT, you still here his inherent style. There are core basics that all great musicians like these guys have. When you mix those sounds, and keep changing members, there will always be change.

For the statement where the above poster said DT definately takes into account what their audience listens to, of course that is true, but you have to look deeper into what a musician is. The musician writes and plays for themselves before anyone is ever cognizant of what they are doing. Don't for a second think that a musician and writer first thinks....WOW, the crowd will think this is the shit! My fans will definately approve! The musician has to personally approve of what they have created. When that happens, then they put it out for us to listen to. There in lies my statement, they write to their own personal pleasure first, then enjoying it, release it to us. If they didn't personally like what they wrote, they wouldn't dare record or release.

Even sold out pop musicians do that. They may have betrayed themselves along the way, but they still enjoy what they have released. If they didn't take enjoyment out of it, they would end up like George Michael, Prince and those like him....fighting the record company, not writing anymore.

brash

[Dublagent66]

I think you guys missed the point.  I wouldn't say it's necessarily about genre change persay.  It's more about the transition as it relates to the content of the song.  The classical type stuff is fine and worked great in SDOIT Overture because it set the template for what the entire song was doing.  At the same time, using guitars, bass and drums.  IT just slaps ambient keys into the middle of the song out of nowhere and it doesn't sound anything like the rest of the song.  I also think TCOT suffers from this as well but not as much.  In fact, I have no idea what IT is trying to do in it's entirety.  Each section of the song reminds me of something I've already heard before.  It sounds like a 22 min collection of cut & paste.  Reminds me more of a Schmedley Wilcox than an epic album closer.

So you have read through this whole thread and despite all the explanations, you still think there is no coherence in IT? Still no purpose for the ambient and classical section?

So, just because others have certain opinions about music, I'm supposed to change my mind?  Really?  I never said anyone had to agree with me.  I stated my opinion about the song and how it compares to other lengthy DT songs.  That's it.  You either agree with it or you don't.

[Orbert]

It's not about changing your mind.  You're saying you "have no idea what IT is trying to do in it's entirety" when there has been quite a lot of discussion about exactly that.

You may not agree, but if you've read all the discussion about what Illumination Theory is about and still claim to have no idea what it's about, then you're just not paying attention.

[Dublagent66]

Well, any amount of discussion regarding what the song is about is all subjective anyway.  Lyrically, the message can be interpreted many different ways.  I'm talking about the arrangement of the song musically, which is the main reason why I listen.

If lyrics speak to me on a personal level then great, but they don't make the song.  The music does.  As I said before, sections are patched together with familiar musical passages from previous material and even worse, they don't flow well.  IT doesn't score any originality points with me at all.  That's why I'm not sure what the song is trying to accomplish.

Take for example, Breaking All Illusions from the previous album.  I've heard some say that the lyrics aren't that great.  So what?  I don't let lyrics ruin a song.  James still does a great job singing and the music is absolutely brilliant.  That's what matters the most, to me anyway.  Whatever IT is doing, it's not doing much for me.

[robwebster]

sections are patched together with familiar musical passages from previous material

Are they?

[KevShmev]

Yeah, I'd love to hear that assertion unpacked a little more.

[Orbert]

Well, any amount of discussion regarding what the song is about is all subjective anyway.  Lyrically, the message can be interpreted many different ways.  I'm talking about the arrangement of the song musically, which is the main reason why I listen.

If lyrics speak to me on a personal level then great, but they don't make the song.  The music does.  As I said before, sections are patched together with familiar musical passages from previous material and even worse, they don't flow well.  IT doesn't score any originality points with me at all.  That's why I'm not sure what the song is trying to accomplish.

Take for example, Breaking All Illusions from the previous album.  I've heard some say that the lyrics aren't that great.  So what?  I don't let lyrics ruin a song.  James still does a great job singing and the music is absolutely brilliant.  That's what matters the most, to me anyway.  Whatever IT is doing, it's not doing much for me.

That makes sense, and I agree with you for the most part.  Prior to this discussion, I was in the same position as you.  I didn't understand musically what "Illumination Theory" was trying to do, and it felt very disjointed, literally a bunch of stuff thrown together.  Musically, I still feel that that's what it is.  I hadn't really dug into the lyrics.

But it's also true that in general, the music and lyrics are meant to be taken together.  The music can add something to the lyrics, and the lyrics can be embellished by the music.  In this case, there has been discussion about what the lyrics are saying, and how that's represented in the music (and sound effects, and the sometimes jarring shifts, and the whole package).  I've gained a greater understanding for the piece because of the discussion of the lyrics, and with it a greater appreciation for the work as a whole.  I still don't really care for it, but that's where the subjectivity kicks in.  I can appreciate and admire something, but still not like it.  That's where I am with "Illumination Theory".  A hell of a work, but it just doesn't thrill me.

Anyway, my main issue was with your statement that you don't understand what the piece is trying to do "in it's entirety" but now you're saying that you're not really considering the entirety after all, just the music.  So we're back to my statement that you really do have to consider both the music and lyrics, or you're really not going to get the piece in its entirety.