This thread was inspired by some of the commentary by rumbo and TAC, starting with this post:
I think DT's biggest problem is/was that they painted themselves into a corner. A lot of fans seem to almost have a Pavlovian response to an F#. Look at the YouTube videos where seriously the top comment is ""lol I forwarded to [F#] to see whether he could hit it". If James hits it it was a good concert, if he didn't it wasn't. Seeing this every concert, DT realized that unless their vocals are soaring high and the solos are blistering, people aren't coming. So, each album they pander to the masses and add those. And each year, James struggles more and more.
By choice or necessity, I feel DT missed the chance to mature like other bands of their kin did.
>>>I thought I'd continue it here. Reposting TAC and Rumbo's exchange, followed by my own comments:
That's an interesting thought. Who exactly are bands of their kin?
The obvious data point would be Rush. They had the same choice of sticking with high-pitched, anthemic rock, or go somewhere else. They went, with much consternation, the 80s pop route for a while. In the end they came out bigger than before.
Or take Opeth. They too clearly could have pandered to the existing fan base and continue their death metal, but they decided to reinvent themselves.
Steven Wilson. Easily could have ridden the Porcupine Tree gravy train, but went entirely different afterwards.
I just have a hard time finding a true peer of Dream Theater. To me, the only time they artistically plateaued was the SC/BC&SL era.
I also think that they could've really upped their game technically with MM, but have failed to do so.
I also found Rumbo's statement interesting. It's a big problem a lot of bands from the 80s and early 90s have. On one hand, those bands want to go different directions. But depending on the tenor of the fanbase, label wishes, and the general musical tastes of those fans of the particular genre, it usually goes too far one way, and then a rebound happens, and then there's a lot of...I guess you could stay retreading?
For me, I watched DT mature and advance through Falling Into Infinity. I felt they had started to mature as songwriters, and with some help from folks that were established songwriters, gain the knowledge to write for the song, as opposed to writing to "wow" people. I'm not saying DT always did the latter, but I do think their idea of songwriting was to give themselves an identity, sometimes at the expense of the song. Falling into Infinity changed that a bit. They finally had an album where changes were made to better THE SONG, and play to the melody, and still be this progressive giant.
And what happened? A lot of people shit on them for it, unfairly.
So what did they do? They "rebounded" by doubling down on that old identity, starting with arguably the fan favorite tune, "Metropolis" and patterned the band after that (and obviously, the record). SFAM was good, for sure, and a lot of good stand alone tunes too, so it's not like they abandoned what they learned. But they also to a degree, regressed back to who they were previously, and sort of stuck in that niche moving forward.
Fans usually have a heightened opinion of the impact of their own opinions (I've been guilty of it for sure), but in this case, the negative vibes from the fans, and MP's bitching about the record, really pushed Dream Theater into a box from which it pushed at, but never really expanded again. It helped them financially, and secured a solid following, but taking the "success" out of the equation, it really did shoehorn them into something.
They tried again with The Astonishing...and you see from the reaction where that got them...
Most bands of this time period of the early 80s to early 90s follow that sort of pattern. Queensryche got a bit more leeway from fans, I think, but their situation is unique to them. And in the end, they ended up moving back into "the box" I referenced above as well.
So yeah, the maturity of a band is a tricky thing. It can only go so far, particularly for acts that are successful. And while that sounds weird, when music is a livelihood, and its being made not just for art, but for money, it sort of just happens that way. That's why I think you see a lot of bands expand their horizons here and there with various songs, instead of complete directional shifts. This way they can take risks, expand, mature with small pieces here and there, but the majority is in the same wheelhouse to keep momentum and success.
Just my .02. Fascinating topic, Rumbo.