Is Dream Theater generally a polarizing band?

[TheGreatPretender]

Why is that funny?

Well, I personally don't use terms like "better" or "worse" anymore, since it's obviously subjective, and to say, "this band is better" is just asinine. But that just means that if someone did say that, "U2 is better than DT," especially as a comparison to illustrate their dislike of DT, I would laugh at them, and tell them that U2 sucks.
Subjectively, and in a constructive setting, I would just say that U2 is one of my least favorite bands. They're good as songwriters, but pretty much any U2 cover that I hear, I enjoy a lot more than hearing the original being performed by the band.

[Architeuthis]

JLB is also a pretty polarizing vocalist. As fans we are used to his voice, but for a non-fan looking to dip their toes in the water, his voice is usually the deciding factor I see as to why some people don't like the band as a whole.

In my experience, those are usually the people that go to YouTube and watch some crappy audience cell phone recording to decide whether they like the vocals or not. 

[bosk1]

I don't know how to answer the question.  "Polarizing" is not the word I would use.  I have seen plenty of people who unequivocally love everything about DT without question.  I have seen plenty of people who hate everything about them.  And I have seen tons of opinions in between.  If that makes them "polarizing," then I guess so.  Some people love DT; some hate them; some are in between.  Why continue to ask questions with obvious answers?

[KevShmev]

Why is that funny?

Well, I personally don't use terms like "better" or "worse" anymore, since it's obviously subjective, and to say, "this band is better" is just asinine. But that just means that if someone did say that, "U2 is better than DT," especially as a comparison to illustrate their dislike of DT, I would laugh at them, and tell them that U2 sucks.
Subjectively, and in a constructive setting, I would just say that U2 is one of my least favorite bands. They're good as songwriters, but pretty much any U2 cover that I hear, I enjoy a lot more than hearing the original being performed by the band.

Okay, but writing the song is far important that someone's ability to play a song (allegedly) better than the person who wrote it.  Heck, I am not a fan of Bob Dylan, and every cover I hear of one of his songs is always better than his original, but Dylan is still the guy who wrote those songs, just like U2 wrote those songs that have been become classics.  Someone else plays them better?  With all due respect, BFD.  Writing great song is what makes you a legend 99 times out of 100. 

And I do rank Dream Theater ahead of U2 on my favorite bands list (DT is top 3, U2 is borderline top 10), but the idea that it is laughable to say that U2 is better than Dream Theater...now, that is laughable.

[TheGreatPretender]

Okay, but writing the song is far important that someone's ability to play a song (allegedly) better than the person who wrote it.  Heck, I am not a fan of Bob Dylan, and every cover I hear of one of his songs is always better than his original, but Dylan is still the guy who wrote those songs, just like U2 wrote those songs that have been become classics.  Someone else plays them better?  With all due respect, BFD.  Writing great song is what makes you a legend 99 times out of 100. 

And I do rank Dream Theater ahead of U2 on my favorite bands list (DT is top 3, U2 is borderline top 10), but the idea that it is laughable to say that U2 is better than Dream Theater...now, that is laughable.

What's far more important is also subjective. What makes for good songwriting in itself is subjective. Personally, I would argue that Dream Theater's songwriting is far superior and more interesting than what's considered to be more radio-friendly in the Western World, the pop song format, basically. And I don't just mean because they play fast and have complex song structures, but because they still marry that with pleasant melodies and great hooks. But you may argue the point because, like I said, it is subjective.

Either way, if you want to argue which is better, with a solid argument, even one that uses something like typical Western pop music standards as a criteria, that's one thing. Not particularly a conversation I'm looking to have, but at least it's an actual conversation. But the original post that prompted my emoticons, maybe it's just the way that list was formatted that made it seem laughable to me.
The member Pettor was listing reasons he heard for people not liking DT. To say, "this band is better than this band" as criteria for why you don't like that band, that sounds like a silly, immature argument. I mean, I think DT is better than... Say, Duran Duran... But I still like Duran Duran, at least some of their songs. Nobody is making me choose between which band I'm allowed to listen to. And if I hear a band I don't like, such as, say, Slayer, and someone asked me why, my argument certainly wouldn't be, "Because the bands I listen to are better." It just sounds silly to me, so I find it laughable.

[KevShmev]

To simplify it, someone saying, "Band A is better than Band B," is code for, "I like Band A more than Band B," and many don't want to explain why; they just want to say it like they really believe it and move on. 

[TheGreatPretender]

To simplify it, someone saying, "Band A is better than Band B," is code for, "I like Band A more than Band B," and many don't want to explain why; they just want to say it like they really believe it and move on.

But to state it as a reason for why they don't like Band B still sounds silly to me. Hence, I laugh.

[rumborak]

My take on this is that in the 90s they were polarizing for the right reasons, but these days for the wrong reasons. Back in the day people poopooed on the unrelenting display of technical prowess, both on instruments and vocally.
These days I think their choice of style ("greasy metal look" for lack of a better term) and the fact that the cracks are starting to appear in their performances, as well as that musically they somewhat stagnated, are maybe reasons why they are polarizing today.

[MoraWintersoul]

My take on this is that in the 90s they were polarizing for the right reasons, but these days for the wrong reasons. Back in the day people poopooed on the unrelenting display of technical prowess, both on instruments and vocally.
These days I think their choice of style ("greasy metal look" for lack of a better term) and the fact that the cracks are starting to appear in their performances, as well as that musically they somewhat stagnated, are maybe reasons why they are polarizing today.

See, I think you're wrong on all three counts because a) people barely know how they look like b) they're still perfect on a level most bands will never reach, save James on a bad night... those few mistakes JP made in the beginning of the tour were practically front page news here, that's how rare they are and c) if they hadn't stagnated (= not drastically changed their style), they would have lost some old fans for the new ones they would gain. Heck, see what happened to The Astonishing, a departure from their style as big as any.

[erwinrafael]

Dream Theater stagnated?

What band among DT'S generation release albums as fresh as D/T this far into their career?

[TheGreatPretender]

Dream Theater stagnated?

What band among DT'S generation release albums as fresh as D/T this far into their career?

It doesn't really matter anyway, because, assuming this whole conversation is about whether DT is polarizing among people who love them, and people who were never fans to begin with, I highly doubt the latter has heard nearly enough DT to be able to gauge whether they've stagnated or not, or whether the band members make any mistakes when they play live.

[rumborak]

Well, it definitely seems an unpopular opinion of mine here, but only TA counts as an actual departure from their usual style IMO. D/T is the best album they've done since 8V, but stylistically it could have been released right after, 13 years ago.

[Architeuthis]

With my experience introducing my friends to Dream Theater, some say they really like them and others don't get them at all. I've heard very few complaints if any about JLB, in fact most say he sounds really good.
The biggest complaints I've gotten are about the keyboards. Just last night my older brother said he thinks DT would have a bigger following if it wasn't for the keyboards. I've got that same complaint from a few of my friends. They do acknowledge the talent but they say the keys are the dividing factor that can be polarizing.
We had the new album playing last night, but nobody could really listen to it closely because it was a small gathering with alot of chatter.  I did hear a couple people say that the album sounds cool though. 

[TheGreatPretender]

With my experience introducing my friends to Dream Theater, some say they really like them and others don't get them at all. I've heard very few complaints if any about JLB, in fact most say he sounds really good.
The biggest complaints I've gotten are about the keyboards. Just last night my older brother said he thinks DT would have a bigger following if it wasn't for the keyboards. I've got that same complaint from a few of my friends. They do acknowledge the talent but they say the keys are the dividing factor that can be polarizing.
We had the new album playing last night, but nobody could really listen to it closely because it was a small gathering with alot of chatter.  I did hear a couple people say that the album sounds cool though.

Is it because these people are more Metal oriented, and find that the keyboards distract from the purity of the guitar?

[erwinrafael]

Well, it definitely seems an unpopular opinion of mine here, but only TA counts as an actual departure from their usual style IMO. D/T is the best album they've done since 8V, but stylistically it could have been released right after, 13 years ago.

Yeah, but which band with a three decade history doesn't sound today like their signature sound thirteen years ago?

[Architeuthis]

With my experience introducing my friends to Dream Theater, some say they really like them and others don't get them at all. I've heard very few complaints if any about JLB, in fact most say he sounds really good.
The biggest complaints I've gotten are about the keyboards. Just last night my older brother said he thinks DT would have a bigger following if it wasn't for the keyboards. I've got that same complaint from a few of my friends. They do acknowledge the talent but they say the keys are the dividing factor that can be polarizing.
We had the new album playing last night, but nobody could really listen to it closely because it was a small gathering with alot of chatter.  I did hear a couple people say that the album sounds cool though.

Is it because these people are more Metal oriented, and find that the keyboards distract from the purity of the guitar?

Yes, that's pretty much it.  So I find myself defending the keyboard player at times but I can also see where they're coming from with that argument.  I personally love the keys, but I realize why some don't.

[lovethedrake]

Piano, Keys, organ, moog.... all huge parts of Prog.   If someone doesn't like that aspect of DT I would be surprised if they are prog fans.

[TheGreatPretender]

Yes, that's pretty much it.  So I find myself defending the keyboard player at times but I can also see where they're coming from with that argument.  I personally love the keys, but I realize why some don't.

Makes sense. Though I'm not sure I agree with your brother's hypothesis. I think the keyboards in DT attract more people than they repel. Maybe not people with more Metal-oriented tastes, but as far as prog fans go, for example, I can't imagine DT would have as many fans like that, if they didn't have keyboards. Same with people who aren't prog OR metal fans, but maybe someone who just likes unique and unusual stuff, (though people like that could easily BECOME prog fans, I've heard DT being cited by many as their 'gateway band' to Prog music). I think for people like that, having softer, warmer, more piano-oriented songs makes the band more inviting for the uninitiated.

[rumborak]

Well, it definitely seems an unpopular opinion of mine here, but only TA counts as an actual departure from their usual style IMO. D/T is the best album they've done since 8V, but stylistically it could have been released right after, 13 years ago.

Yeah, but which band with a three decade history doesn't sound today like their signature sound thirteen years ago?

There's a lot of them. Genesis, Queen, Radiohead, Steven Wilson, David Bowie, Madonna etc etc.

[WildRanger]

The biggest complaints I've gotten are about the keyboards. Just last night my older brother said he thinks DT would have a bigger following if it wasn't for the keyboards. I've got that same complaint from a few of my friends. They do acknowledge the talent but they say the keys are the dividing factor that can be polarizing.

General sound of Rudess keys is a big reason why some metal fans would find Dream Theater music to be cheesy and poppy metal. Similar as with Nightwish.

[Dream Team]

You know what? Every band and genre is polaring. People both love and Metallica, love and hate Michael Jackson. I myself hate rap and Brittney-esque tramp pop so those are polarizing I guess because many people love them.

[SleeperAwake]

The biggest complaints I've gotten are about the keyboards. Just last night my older brother said he thinks DT would have a bigger following if it wasn't for the keyboards.

They're just too... orchestral.

[cramx3]

"I am Polarized!"

-JLB

 

and to answer the question, yes they are