Check up on the ADToE/I&W-Conspiracy

[?]

I definitely hear the similarities, but I don't mind because the melodies, tempos, etc. are different and the songs don't feel like forced rehashes.

[RoeDent]

I definitely hear the similarities, but I don't mind because the melodies, tempos, etc. are different and the songs don't feel like forced rehashes.

This. It wasn't until people on DTF pointed it out that I even noticed the similarities.

[hefdaddy42]

Lost Not Forgotten is a blatantly inferior version of Under a Glass Moon.

Aside from this (which is certainly subconscious and accidental at best), most of the comparison is forced BS. OTBOA does give off a PMU vibe with its structure, but the songs themselves sound nothing alike. Beyond that, someone was just making up similarities to fit with this silly theory they had.

This exactly.

[Randaran]

Eh, I heard the Metropolis/Outcry similarity the first time I listened to ADTOE. I guess it was the riff in Outcry's chorus that reminded me of Metropolis. Namely some rythymic similarities, though this is minor enough that coincidence is the most likely explanation.

This thread got me thinking: Dream Theater does not experiment with structure to nearly the degree of, let's say, Opeth. Most Dream Theater songs can be summed up by Intro > Verse A > Chorus > Verse B > Chorus > Insrumental Section/Bridge > Chorus > Outro. Though in some cases, this is oversimplification. Most variation tends to lie in the instrumental sections, which rarely repeat structures. Coincidently, the one album that breaks from this trend the most is IAW. Compare this to any song on Deliverance or Ghost Reveries (or the rest of Opeth's catalogue), of which nearly all follow unique, complicated structures.

[TheGreatPretender]

Eh, I heard the Metropolis/Outcry similarity the first time I listened to ADTOE. I guess it was the riff in Outcry's chorus that reminded me of Metropolis. Namely some rythymic similarities, though this is minor enough that coincidence is the most likely explanation.

This thread got me thinking: Dream Theater does not experiment with structure to nearly the degree of, let's say, Opeth. Most Dream Theater songs can be summed up by Intro > Verse A > Chorus > Verse B > Chorus > Insrumental Section/Bridge > Chorus > Outro. Though in some cases, this is oversimplification. Most variation tends to lie in the instrumental sections, which rarely repeat structures. Coincidently, the one album that breaks from this trend the most is IAW. Compare this to any song on Deliverance or Ghost Reveries (or the rest of Opeth's catalogue), of which nearly all follow unique, complicated structures.

I do think there is something to be said for this formula though. It does work for a number of reasons. I mean, yeah, I agree that I think DT should play around with the way they arrange different sections of their songs. Something like that would certainly be refreshing. But it is always gratifying to hear that (presumably) beautiful chorus after that long epic instrumental section. Given the way DT's music changes within any given song, and the kinds of crazy instrumental sections they have, sometimes it's almost needed as a reminder of just which song it is you're listening to. 

Interestingly enough, Scarred really seems like the Anti-Metropolis, if you look at it's structure. Where Metropolis has no repeating vocal patterns whatsoever, Scarred has not one, not two, but three different Choruses, all of which repeat at various points!

[Invisible]

I think some strucutural similarities are obvious, others forced and others are a mix bag.

Obvious: LNF and UaGM. I can't believe people deny it, it doesn't mean they are the same song as the melodies and tempos and everything is different, but it was clearly written off UaGM chart. Slide up and down guitar intro, drums and bass kick in setting the next section, guitar joins in, wacky speed section, then the verse... everything smells UaGM, even the solo. I don't think they are even trying to be subtle.

Mix bag:
Outcry - Metropolis, BAI and LTL, OTBOA and PMU. They share some trademark sections, like they started with the same framework in mind, but then it seems to have evolved into different arrangements with call backs here and there.
Like some pointed out, Outcry having a chorus makes a big difference when compared to Metropolis, but they have their fair share of similarities.
Breaking All Illusions and Learning To Live is more or less the same case. The way BAI flow between sections calls back to LTL, and the instrumental section, minus the F# moment has obvious similarities. The same thing can be said for OTBOA and PMU, some sections that say "Hi there, I&W!" but nothing more.

Everything else, including FFH and WFS, is completely forced. Far From Heaven, aside from being the piano + vocal song of the album that is reprised in  the next song, has absolutely nothing to do with Wait For Sleep. Rudess style is different from Moore, and it becomes clearer here than ever.
Comparing any other song from I&W to any other song off ADTOE is, in fact, complete BS.

So, all in all, there is one back to back structure-built song, three songs that seemed to start off with their counterpart chart but clearly evolved different in the writing process and the rest are just different songs with no similarities in chart, melodies or whatever you want to force it into. People who say it's a rip off or "desperately trying to secretly rewrite their past"( ) is just as wrong as people who say "It's got nothing to do with I&W". The new album did what it what supposed to do: give a small shout out to I&W while being a brand new album. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Rodni Demental]

People who say it's a rip off or "desperately trying to secretly rewrite their past"( ) is just as wrong as people who say "It's got nothing to do with I&W". The new album did what it what supposed to do: give a small shout out to I&W while being a brand new album. Nothing more, nothing less.

I wasn't gonna bother posting in here at first but I just wanted to emphasis your post here, because I think what you said is a very reasonable, fair and balanced point of view to have regarding this 'conspiracy'. And I can't help myself.

Honestly I couldn't agree more. I'm also really surprised by the amount of denial on here regarding the concept. And I don't think it was ever about making the songs 'sound' like their counterparts, but simply used some structures as a blueprint and built on them as a creative mechanism. I could go into extreme detail as to why I 100% completely believe this, but I honestly thought it spoke for itself and that most people can see/hear this. Yes, structural similarities occur all the time by accident. But not like this, the ADTOE songs make extra effort to correlate and parallel their structure down to the smallest few second interludes in some cases. While others fill a similar role, but go off in their own direction.

It's not a ripoff of themselves, that's absurd. But it certainly has very deliberate similarities to I&W. And I think in some cases you can filter your perspective through negative viewpoint which is personally why I don't think the band has been willing to discuss this concept yet. It is a very typical DT nuggetz thing to do. Why so much trouble believing?

[Jaq]

I remain amused that the conspiracy theory said that Build Me Up, Break Me Down's structural inspiration was...Surrounded. 

Beyond that, while there are the occasional bits that remind me of I&W songs, I never thought the band explicitly wrote songs based on the structure of I&W, and still don't to this day.

[erwinrafael]

I think some strucutural similarities are obvious, others forced and others are a mix bag.

Obvious: LNF and UaGM. I can't believe people deny it, it doesn't mean they are the same song as the melodies and tempos and everything is different, but it was clearly written off UaGM chart. Slide up and down guitar intro, drums and bass kick in setting the next section, guitar joins in, wacky speed section, then the verse... everything smells UaGM, even the solo. I don't think they are even trying to be subtle.

I remember this post I made earlier this year. The structural similarities are down to the small details. I did not read any DTF posts before I noticed the similarities. The idea popped into my head when I heard the snare drum pattern in the chorus and the slow, stop-and-go, odd time signature intro to the instrumentals.

They actually do not really sound alike. What they share is the same structure. I would try to put in the times in UAGM and LNF when each part kicks in although my time is not accurate because I only used Media Player to time this a few minutes ago.

Piano intro (LNF only) 0:10
Majestic slow intro  UAGM 0:00 LNF 0:42
Majestic slow intro, full band kicks in, kick drum and bass syncing with an underlying groove UAGM 0:27 LNF 0:42
Intro now done as a heavy riff, kick drum and bass groove continues UAGM 0:53 LNF 01:42
Fast section, band shows off (hehehe) UAGM 1:06 LNF 1:53
Stanza riff, 2 measures UAGM 1:19 LNF 2:31
First stanza, heavy rhythm UAGM 1:29 LNF 2:47
Second stanza, heavy rhythm, more "uplifting" sound compared to first verse UAGM 1:44 LNF  3:16
Chorus with drum pattern of a full line with snare on the downbeat alternating with a line with snare on the upbeat UAGM 2:08 LNF 3:46
Stanza riff, with play on irregular beats UAGM 2:35 LNF 4:27
Third stanza, not much riffing, light guitar work compared to first two stanzas UAGM 2:52 LNF 4:44
Fourth stanza, continue light guitar background UAGM 3:18 LNF 5:21
Chorus UAGM 3:31 LNF 5:40
Shredding/heavy riffing going to instrumental section UAGM 03:56  LNF 6:17
Slow playing with odd time signatures UAGM 3:59 LNF 6:22
Continue previous, drum establishes a regular underlying beat UAGM 4:17 LNF 6:33
Full band plays rhythm established in previous section UAGM 4:27 LNF 6:46
Guitar solo (UAGM has 4 sections, LNF has 3 sections) UAGM 4:37 LNF 7:10
Transition to keyboard solo, drum sets a new regular groove UAGM 5:30 LNF 8:07
Keyboard solo kicks in, drum continues groove set in previous section UAGM 5:47 LNF 8:23
Keyboard solo continues, drum changes pattern UAGM 5:59 LNF 8:37
Instrumental section closes with unison led by drum UAGM 6:10 LNF 8:52
Chorus UAGM 6:22 LNF 9:06
Intro riff as outro, full band UAGM 6:48 LND 9:46
End with drum-led unison

[Setlist Scotty]

You can beat it over my head all you want, but comparing Outcry to Metropolis, aside from being longer songs, with an excellent showcase of musicianship and sitting near the middle of the album, I see no similarities, so I wouldn't say there's 4 songs to compare there.

And like it was mentioned, even OTBOA doesn't clearly correspond to PMU structure wise. There are some vague similarities, but I can say the same thing about PMU, OTBOA as well as A Rite of Passage and As I Am.

To begin with, I won't argue
1) there may be songs in DT's catalog on various albums that share very similar or maybe even exactly the same structure as another song on another album; whether or not those cases are intentional or not is debatable. But we're talking about several songs on one album corresponding to several songs on another album, which is a whole different story.
2) I don't think anyone is saying that all the songs match 100% - I'm not, but it's clearly obvious they took the charts from songs on IaW and used them as a basis for the songs on ADToE. Yeah, there's some changes, but by and large they correspond. Personally, I don't believe the BMUBMD-Surrounded connection, nor the TtT-BitS connection; and in the case of WFS-FFH, they both simply are both short piano/vocal pieces that set up the following song. (Yeah, the same thing could be said for Vacant, except for the fact that SOC is structurally nothing like LtL, nor does anything else on ToT compare structurally to IaW - so it's a moot point.)

Since you swear up and down that Metropolis and Outcry don't correspond with some differences, let's look at a comparison. To be honest, I don't have the time to write everything out myself (and it's 3am, so I need to get to bed!) but here's a chart I found on another forum that should suffice, which does acknowledge differences, but also shows all the similarities, which again, are too many to simply write off as coincidence.

INTRO 1A: 0:00 / 0:00
In both songs the intro starts off with some type of keys with drum embellishments underneath. In Met this is the kick drum and in OC this is a type of synth drum. Met also has that delayed guitar thing happening.

INTRO 1B: 0:40 / 0:45
This is the second part of the intro where the full band kicks in with a heavy feel. In Met this is the guitar playing the keyboard melody with embellishment. In OC the guitar kind of follows the melody but strays a bit.

TRANSITION: 1:18 / 1:30
At this point the full band intro section rests prior to introducing the one of the Verse guitar riffs.

PRE-VERSE RIFF: 1:23 / 1:36
A heavy guitar riff starts off this section. I actually think they kind of sound the same in both Met and OC.

PRE-VERSE RIFF w/keys: 1:32 / 1:47
Keys enter over top the guitar riff.

VERSE RIFF 1A: 1:42 / 1:58
Here the riff changes to a more chug-chug feel in both songs. Keys are also layered with this riff.

VERSE RIFF 1A w/vocals: 1:51 / 2:10
Vocals enters over music

VERSE RIFF 1B w/vocals: 2:13 / 2:33
At this point the music/riff changes and the vocal melody changes. I think of this part as the 2nd half of the verse in both songs.

TRANSITION: 2:28 / 3:10
At this point the Verse riff winds down to a rest to transition to the next much more mellow verse section.

VERSE 2A w/vocals: 2:37 / 3:10
In this section the music is much mellower. In Met it’s clean guitar chords, keys, and drum embellishments while in OC its just keys . At the end of this section the music builds to move into the next section.

VERSE 2B or CHORUS: 3:08 / 3:30
The full band kicks back in with heavy guitars. The interesting thing about this section is in Met it feels like the 2nd part of the verse but in OC they changed up the melody to make it sound like more of a true chorus. Also, in OC this is a reprise of the guitar riff in Intro 1B. This is probably the most notable variation of all the sections with vocals.

REPRISE PRE-VERSE RIFF: 3:26 / 3:52
The same heavy guitar riff that is introduced in the Pre-Verse section prior is now introduced again.

REPRISE PRE-VERSE RIFF w/vocals: 3:36 / 4:03
Vocals enter over this riff.

REPRISE VERSE RIFF 1B w/vocals: 3:59 / 4:26
Here again the music changes to a reprise of verse riff 1B.

TRANSITION: 4:13 / 4:44
At this point the guitar riff rests briefly and the song is transitioning from the vocal section to the start of the instrumental section. In Met this transition is a bit more apparent because there is that 1-2 1-2 section at 4:17. In OC the drum beat stays more steady into the instrumental section.

INSTRUMENTAL SECTION 4:19 / 4:53
Here is where the chart doesn’t match up so well. The instrumental sections of each song seem to be there own free flowing beast but do share a lot of the same elements along the way. Both have some unison parts (which every DT song seems to have), a guitar run, a a bass solo part. Also, both have parts that sound very jazzy/fusion. I can’t say the charts match on a more specific level but does feel like there are connections here.

OUTRO TO INSTRUMENTAL SECTION: 7:23 / 7:54
At this point in the instrumental section the music changes to a distinct guitar riffing that works its way up the fret-board culminating in a unison section and a sustained high guitar note.

COOL DOWN PROGRESSION: 8:04 / 8:44
Now we are legitimately out of the instrumental section back into something that resembles a chord progression of a more mellow nature. In Met this is the clean arpeggiated chords and in OC its the piano section.

COOL DOWN PROGRESSION w/vocals: 8:16 / 9:07
Vocals enter

REPRISE VERSE 2B or CHORUS: 8:28 / 9:29
The full band kicks back in with full heavy guitars. This section is a reprise of the music from earlier in the song where it sounds more verse like in Met but chorus like in OC.

MELODY CHANGE: 8:45 / 10:16
I don’t know really what to label this section as? At this point the chord progression changes and vocal melody changes into a kind of part 2 of the ending verse/chorus. It sounds more upbeat in both songs.

ENDING CHORD 9:10 / 10:49
Both songs end on a final chord right after the vocals without any real outro section.

And regarding Another Day, which you said has no corresponding song, This is the Life would like to have a word with you! 

Intro clean/acoustic guitar 2x

Full band + thematic guitar solo 1x

*Cool down*

Verse 1: Piano + vocals

Verse 1: Piano + vocals + guitar volume swells

Chorus: drums slowly build up

Thematic solo again, “quieter” (played by the Sax on “Another Day”, cleaner guitar + keys on “This is the Life”)

Verse 2: (harmonically/melodically similar to verse 1, but over a groove throughout)

Chorus

Bridge (climb)

Guitar solo (not exactly the “Theme”, but derived from it)

Chorus (this time played at its “strongest”)

Instrumental ending on the theme (once again with the guitar in place of Saxophone)

[TheGreatPretender]

Geez man....

Well, I don't know what to say to that. I guess you're right. But still, Outcry doesn't remind me of Metropolis in any way, like I said, aside from being an excellent showcase of musicianship. Mechanically, they might be structured similarly, or even the same on an instrumental level, apparently, but where I can make some stylistic comparisons between Wait for Sleep and Far From Heaven, the short, chorus-less piano ballads going into Learning to Live and Breaking all Illusions the epics which both reprise a basic theme from the ballads that preceed them. This is something that has only been done one other time by DT, with Vacant and SOC, in which case, the latter had the distinction of being instrumental. But aside from that, that kind of a thing is obviously intentional on behalf of DT, and that's fine. But I can't make the same analogous comparison between Metropolis and Outcry. I honestly don't believe that when they were writing Outcry, they were intentionally setting out to try and make the new Metropolis.

[Prog Snob]

That's a great breakdown Scotty.

It's hard to ignore the similarities to I & W that are all over ADTOE. I guess we can look at this in a positive light and be glad they didn't try to mirror FII? 

[BlobVanDam]

That's a great breakdown Scotty.

It's hard to ignore the similarities to I & W that are all over ADTOE. I guess we can look at this in a positive light and be glad they didn't try to mirror FII? 

I wouldn't mind if they did. FII shits all over ADTOE any day.

[Prog Snob]

That's a great breakdown Scotty.

It's hard to ignore the similarities to I & W that are all over ADTOE. I guess we can look at this in a positive light and be glad they didn't try to mirror FII? 

I wouldn't mind if they did. FII shits all over ADTOE any day.

Clearly you need a nap.   

[BlobVanDam]

Looking at your local time, I think it's you in need of the nap.

[Prog Snob]

Looking at your local time, I think it's you in need of the nap.

I already took one. Now I'm just waiting for my shift to end. 

[BlobVanDam]

Then you must have been dreaming or something.

[puppyonacid]

I'm a bit surprised at the attitude of some here.

I don't see this as a "stupid" topic. I think the obvious songs are very obvious. OTBOA and LNF are very obviously structured like their I&W counterparts. OTBOA does NOT sound like PMU. I can't believe anybody seriously thinks that anybody is suggesting it does. But the structures of the two songs are identical. It's so so obvious. Even more so with LNF and UAGM. I don't understand why anyone would say it's a coincidence when it's so obviously deliberate - or even suggest that it's not there.

I would speculate that they did it as an experiment or a way to draw inspiration - it's a just another tool - let's write a song with the same structure as such and such a song and see what comes out. Why not? I'm with JD in that I actually think it's quite clever and not a bad thing at all.

[Prog Snob]

Then you must have been dreaming or something.

I don't see boobs, so clearly I'm awake.   

[Outcrier]

I'm a bit surprised at the attitude of some here.

I don't see this as a "stupid" topic. I think the obvious songs are very obvious. OTBOA and LNF are very obviously structured like their I&W counterparts. OTBOA does NOT sound like PMU. I can't believe anybody seriously thinks that anybody is suggesting it does. But the structures of the two songs are identical. It's so so obvious.

That's obvious

[mikeyd23]

I'm a bit surprised at the attitude of some here.

I don't see this as a "stupid" topic. I think the obvious songs are very obvious. OTBOA and LNF are very obviously structured like their I&W counterparts. OTBOA does NOT sound like PMU. I can't believe anybody seriously thinks that anybody is suggesting it does. But the structures of the two songs are identical. It's so so obvious. Even more so with LNF and UAGM. I don't understand why anyone would say it's a coincidence when it's so obviously deliberate - or even suggest that it's not there.

I would speculate that they did it as an experiment or a way to draw inspiration - it's a just another tool - let's write a song with the same structure as such and such a song and see what comes out. Why not? I'm with JD in that I actually think it's quite clever and not a bad thing at all.

I would tend to agree with this. The songs have never sounded the same as their I&W counterparts, but some did seem to be structured in a similar manner.

The only one that really ever stuck out to me was LNF - UAGM.  I can see the similarity between OTBOA and PMU as well, but once again its merely structural and I never really took issue with it.

[Kwyjibo]

Whether or not it is a bad thing has nothing to do with whether or not there are actual similarities. I deny it because it's largely trying to find similarities where none exist to fit a theory. A lot of these supposedly similar structures have to be classified so vaguely to work that it loses any meaning. You could analyze many DT songs and they'd be every bit as similar, but people wanted to make this theory work.

I think LNF sounds a lot like UAGM musically, noticed it instantly, but I don't think it was any part of a grand plan to mimic IaW, because none of it would be conducive to better music anyway. Someone noticed one or two very surface level comparisons between IaW and ADTOE, then forced some square pegs into some round holes, and some people chose to latch onto it and perpetuate this idea that ADTOE had some grand plan behind it to copy elements of IaW. It's quite silly imo, and I can't believe anyone still believes it after all this time.

So much this!

And what I would like to know, for all those lists that list all the similarities, has someone bothered to count the differences and see if they not heavily outweigh the similarities?

[Ben_Jamin]

The only thing that bothers me is LNF having the same guitar solo intro as UAGM, he also does it on BTFW in Space Dye Vest.

[Madman Shepherd]

I still can't even fathom how some people must think the writing process for ADTOE was so mechanical that they pulled charts and forced themselves to follow the structure. 

Do you honestly think someone may have sat there and suggested they switch something around and John Myung got in their face and said, "I told you, its not like that on I&W fucker!!!  Why are you trying to mess with this proven formula?!  Do you want this band to fail?!?!"

 

[Zook]

I still can't even fathom how some people must think the writing process for ADTOE was so mechanical that they pulled charts and forced themselves to follow the structure. 

Do you honestly think someone may have sat there and suggested they switch something around and John Myung got in their face and said, "I told you, its not like that on I&W fucker!!!  Why are you trying to mess with this proven formula?!  Do you want this band to fail?!?!"

 

Can you offer another reason how LNF has the same EXACT structure as UAGM? Never mind that it's longer, but LNF is identical in every way structurally. Not to mention similar riffs and sections, but that's already been layed out above.

[jammindude]

I still can't even fathom how some people must think the writing process for ADTOE was so mechanical that they pulled charts and forced themselves to follow the structure. 

Do you honestly think someone may have sat there and suggested they switch something around and John Myung got in their face and said, "I told you, its not like that on I&W fucker!!!  Why are you trying to mess with this proven formula?!  Do you want this band to fail?!?!"

 

I never said any such thing.   I don't think it was "so mechanical" as you put it.    They simply put their own album in "inspiration corner".... it's an homage, and it's a very good one.    I actually think it was a brilliant idea in some ways.

The Kinks took their own song "All Day and All of the Night" and completely reworked the exact same song into 1980's "Destroyer" which is a brilliant song in its own right.   There's nothing "fail" about borrowing from yourself if it's done well...and I think this was.

[Madman Shepherd]

I still can't even fathom how some people must think the writing process for ADTOE was so mechanical that they pulled charts and forced themselves to follow the structure. 

Do you honestly think someone may have sat there and suggested they switch something around and John Myung got in their face and said, "I told you, its not like that on I&W fucker!!!  Why are you trying to mess with this proven formula?!  Do you want this band to fail?!?!"

 

Can you offer another reason how LNF has the same EXACT structure as UAGM? Never mind that it's longer, but LNF is identical in every way structurally. Not to mention similar riffs and sections, but that's already been layed out above.

Because some bands have similar structures to a number of their songs, i.e. verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus, and DT is a little more complex and is likely to be repeated in some fashion.  As I already admitted, LNF and UAGM do have a very similar feel and a few of the same tricks although it is NOT the exact same structure.  The very beginning of the songs proves that it is not.  Other than the comparison of those two songs, the other pairings get progressively more ridiculous to just plain absurd. 

So how exactly do we think the band went about doing this?  Did they sit down and say they needed to have at least 4 songs that were carbon copies of I&W *structurally* or what?  JP forced JR to make charts of these songs so they could compare them while they were writing/copying the music for ADTOE?

[puppyonacid]

How do you explain the fact that LNF is structurally more or less identical to UAGM?

And I'm sorry if this sounds a bit confrontational or whatever, but it is a fact. It's no coincidence.

Take average pop band A. They write a song:

Verse, Chorus, Verse, Chrous, Middle 8, Solo, Chorus, Chorus, Fade out.

They then write a follow up:

Verse, Chorus, Verse, Chrous, Middle 8, Solo, Chorus, Chorus, Fade out.

That could obviously be a method, a formula, a coincidence etc. However, in Dream Theater's case with a comparatively complex song like UAGM and LNF I'm sorry, but it just can't be a coincidence. The feel is there as well. From the octave/harmony guitar intro, to the bass guitar, bass drum motif underneath, to the heavy/more mellow sections that appear in the same place, to the stabs before the guitar solo that get more complex, to the feel of the solo, to the fact that the following keyboard solo is over an entirely new section with the same feel as UAGM....and these are just from what I remember. You just cannot put that down to coincidence or shoe horning in crack pot theories.

From a rational point of view, the evidence is way too strong.

I remember MP running a competition before BC&SL came out. He posted the chart for SoC and gave people the chance to write a song based on the charts. There's nothing to say that DT or JP even took a couple of song structures and said "lets see what we come up with by matching this structure" in the same way as MPs competition. Or, he could have come up with a riff that sounded like something from UAGM and it kicked on from there. They've never said (as far as I know) so at the mo it is just speculation. The point is, the structures are so evidently and obviously the same that that is not speculation. It's stone wall fact.

[erwinrafael]

I still can't even fathom how some people must think the writing process for ADTOE was so mechanical that they pulled charts and forced themselves to follow the structure. 

Do you honestly think someone may have sat there and suggested they switch something around and John Myung got in their face and said, "I told you, its not like that on I&W fucker!!!  Why are you trying to mess with this proven formula?!  Do you want this band to fail?!?!"

 

Can you offer another reason how LNF has the same EXACT structure as UAGM? Never mind that it's longer, but LNF is identical in every way structurally. Not to mention similar riffs and sections, but that's already been layed out above.

Because some bands have similar structures to a number of their songs, i.e. verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus, and DT is a little more complex and is likely to be repeated in some fashion.  As I already admitted, LNF and UAGM do have a very similar feel and a few of the same tricks although it is NOT the exact same structure.  The very beginning of the songs proves that it is not.  Other than the comparison of those two songs, the other pairings get progressively more ridiculous to just plain absurd. 

So how exactly do we think the band went about doing this?  Did they sit down and say they needed to have at least 4 songs that were carbon copies of I&W *structurally* or what?  JP forced JR to make charts of these songs so they could compare them while they were writing/copying the music for ADTOE?

The problem is that you are approaching this subject with already an eye on mocking people who explain that there are structural similarities that are not just plain verse chorus verse, especially the case of LNF and UAGM. As can be seen in the chart I have shown above, they are similar down to when an instrument would come in, when the snare would hit in a downbeat and when it would not (LNF and UAGM are the only DT songs that I know where the snare hits alternate downbeat and upbeat in the lines in the chorus), the sequencing of the instrumentals of the change in the riffs, the change in the instrument that will take the lead, the change in the drum patterns, when they would go slow, when they would go fast. The structural similarities go to the small details, and, in my experience, it's easier to create a melody or a riff that sounds like something you have done before than to create a song that is structurally similar to the detail that LNF is similar to UAGM. I can imagine DT making this as a clever homage to their old classics, the dramatic turn of events is a return to the roots and see if they can make something more contemporary sounding out of the old. I can imagine them doing this rationally, and not mockingly like what you are doing.

[Jaq]

The problem I have with the "it's the exact same structure" people is that, if you ask me, there are sections of the songs where they honestly force the comparison. I mean, some of the descriptions could be describing half a dozen different DT songs, and someone else listening to the song could listen to it and not get "okay, that 30 seconds sounds like 30 seconds of UAGM." And when people point this out, they're accused of mocking people or being willfully blind. I can believe that DT sat down and tried to evoke the mood of I&W as a way to get to the basics of who DT was, but I really doubt they charted a bunch of songs and then wrote new ones over it.

There are some songs on ADTOE that remind me of I&W, but the people who chart it out and say "see, exact same part at the exact same part!" are really, a lot of the times, forcing comparisons, or being vague about what happens to make certain the latter song matches the structures of the former. And I am pretty sure I can't convince them they're doing it, since they've been at it for years.

[TheGreatPretender]

The problem is that you are approaching this subject with already an eye on mocking people who explain that there are structural similarities that are not just plain verse chorus verse, especially the case of LNF and UAGM.

Well, this might not be your fault, but I think a part of the reason why these people/theories are mocked was because one too many people actually tried to force the I&W format on the entire album, and not even in a song by song basis, but track by track, in order. I've heard statements like, "BMUBMD is like the Another Day of the album and LNF is like Take the Time" etc. It's these kinds of crackpots that basically discredited the whole theory and made a mockery of it. But in their minds, one is completely analogous to the other... Although I guess their brain just magically erased Beneath The Surface from existence for that to be true.

[Bertielee]

The problem is that you are approaching this subject with already an eye on mocking people who explain that there are structural similarities that are not just plain verse chorus verse, especially the case of LNF and UAGM.

The problem is that you bring something to the surface that's already been said multiple times to no avail. Nobody wants to be convinced one way or another. Plus, if I remember it well, the first time it was alluded to, it didn't end well for at least one person - coughcough Thiago Campos coughcough.
Geez, I even cannot fathom why after 5(?) years, it is still discussed. Given the controversial topic, nothing good can come from it.

B.Lee

[bosk1]

...if I remember it well, the first time it was alluded to, it didn't end well for at least one person - coughcough Thiago Campos coughcough.

To be clear (and it was made CRYSTAL clear at the time), the reason Thiago was banned was because (1) he was being a jerk about it, and (2) he was posting all kinds of details about the songs and creating misimpressions of the album before the album had been released.  I warned him about both, and he persisted. 

People are free to discuss, provided they do not cross the line and be jerks about it.  People in this thread have crossed the line, and I have thought stepping in and locking the thread, and I will do so if it continues.  But most of the people who are posting have been respectful, so I have let it continue.  People are free to take whatever position they want on the issue, again, provided they are not jerks about it.

[Setlist Scotty]

So how exactly do we think the band went about doing this?  Did they sit down and say they needed to have at least 4 songs that were carbon copies of I&W *structurally* or what?  JP forced JR to make charts of these songs so they could compare them while they were writing/copying the music for ADTOE?

By such posts as this, you're trying to make such a hypothesis look ridiculous. However, a more likely scenario was one of JP suggesting that with such a major shake up in the lineup, "let's go back to our roots. Since IaW was the album that launched our careers and to this day remains our most popular album, how about trying to recreate the magic of that album? To help get us in the right vibe, we could start off using the structures of several of the songs as templates to base new songs off of, and make changes to them when and where it feels like the right thing to do. In a way, it would be kind of like that songwriting contest we had for SoC in 2003."

And no, JP wouldn't need JR to make charts of those songs because they already exist! Each time they write a song, they write out a chart showing each section, typically giving them descriptive names like "Muse (Em)" or "Meshuggah riff X 2". I'm sure they still have pictures of those charts that they could refer to.
 
 

I think a part of the reason why these people/theories are mocked was because one too many people actually tried to force the I&W format on the entire album, and not even in a song by song basis, but track by track, in order. I've heard statements like, "BMUBMD is like the Another Day of the album and LNF is like Take the Time" etc. It's these kinds of crackpots that basically discredited the whole theory and made a mockery of it.

Good point - I agree.
 
 

I even cannot fathom why after 5(?) years, it is still discussed. Given the controversial topic, nothing good can come from it.

Well, I'd say it's being discussed 3 years later because someone started a new thread about it.   

[bosk1]

And no, JP wouldn't need JR to make charts of those songs because they already exist! Each time they write a song, they write out a chart showing each section, typically giving them descriptive names like "Muse (Em)" or "Meshuggah riff X 2". I'm sure they still have pictures of those charts that they could refer to.

I'm not sure they would even need to refer to old charts, or pictures of charts, or whatever.  Don't forget, it has been said many times that JP has a freakish, almost "photographic" memory for music.  It would not surprise me if the structures of those songs are ingrained in his subconscious.  And if he was leading the construction of some of those songs, like ATBOA or LNF, it makes more sense to me that those songs would have grown organically from him following the basic patterns and "feel" of PMU and UAGM, and playing parts with similar feels to them and having the rest of the band follow along, rather than strictly following charts.  That would also better explain, in my mind, why some plenty of sections in those songs may have a similar feel, but not be similar from any objective musical structural standpoint, and it would also explain the many differences (since not strictly following a chart).