I'm not sure what that means; "demands" made? A "certain good will"? I see a LOT of people giving this album it's fair due, I see a lot of people putting in the time with it. The only thing I don't see is any unanimity of opinion, and I'm not sure why that's such a bad thing? I'm not making YOU listen to things, and you're not making ME listen to things, so what's the harm if people find their own level for their water?
I listened to this a number of times. I'm better for having heard it. I will likely go see the band when they tour (I wasn't going to be able to make it before it got rescheduled, nothing to do with the music). But I'm not likely to reach for this much more in the future, other than curiosity listens; what I look for, what I connect with in music isn't really here as much as it is in other, previous releases. Why is that somehow a lack of good will?
For example: systematically complaining about how Dream Theater has become repetitive and stagnant, but not having any complaints about it in the recent work of artists like Neal Morse (which is anything but innovative).
I didn't invent this example, but I keep watching around here. I can give the names, but I certainly won't.
For me it is a very clear example of being more lenient with certain artists/works and more rigorous with others.
I believe we all act that way, to a greater or lesser degree.
For example, I'm quite condescending to Iron Maiden...but I only realized this more than 25 years after I started listening to the band
I liked and defended Senjutsu, but being honest with myself I agree with a pretty considerable portion of the criticisms made.... Being a little more rational I recognize a number of problems on the record, which would be problems that I would possibly give more relevance if the band were not called Iron Maiden.
This is another beautiful example of critical appraisal being clouded by something more passionate.
But that's you.
For me, I think you're mistaking the intent behind what's written. There's no "pass". There's no "leniency". The intellectual ALWAYS follows the emotional, the visceral. ALWAYS. I never, ever, listen to a piece of music and "decide" I like it based on logic, reason, and intellect. What I do is listen, once, twice, however many times, and I either like it or I don't. THEN, and only then, will I sometimes go back and reconstruct why I like what I like.
Sometimes it makes no rational, intellectual sense. I don't know if the new Neal Morse Band is "more innovative" than the new Dream Theater or not, but that's not the reason I listen to either of them. The NMB is my album of the year so far, and it's for one reason: I get fantastic joy and energy from listening to it. I put on "Bird On A Wire" and my heart races. I listen to "The Way It Had To Be" and I get a visceral connection (since that's ME!). I can go back and put in what it is that I like, based on other, past pieces of music I like, but that's false in the sense that it's not the cause.
And without digging too deep, it depends on one's subjective take on what's "innovative" or not. I don't need every song to be Good Vibrations (sonically innovative for the time) or A Day In The Life (technically innovative for the time) or Eruption (instrumentally innovative for the time). But the songs DO need to provide something - ANYTHING - that I may not get from another song either by that artist or another artist. A riff, a rhythm, a melody. That might not mean that it's industry-wide cutting edge, but it might mean - like Senjutsu - that it has something that sits nicely alongside the rest of the catalogue.