Is DT truly "uninspired?"

[Enigmachine]

"With View they basically wrote the same song seven times"

Then proceeds to point out similarity of Transcending Time to a song in another album.

Yep, exactly.

What I'm noticing is that a lot of the people (and I'm not just referring to one instance here) who are very insistent on labelling an album as "uninspired" or "uncreative" appear to end up tying themselves in knots when arguing against condracting points. That's because at some point in the line, we have to concede that our judgement on creativity or inspiration is just as a result of how close a band is veering towards what we enjoy. I also find it amusingly ironic that RoeDent says "It's your fault for hating on The Astonishing, the boldest most inspired work DT has ever done, that DT have played it safe since." directly after my post... not knowing that the album is one of my absolute favourites and that I've consistently defended it. I'm not even sure if it was directed towards me, but it's still kinda funny.

Digging into some of the prior comments a bit further, I also find it funny how "DT have played it safe" has been contradicted by what was said earlier on about there being no ballads. Is veering off from what has been the expected pattern playing it safe? Hell, I wouldn't stop there either. The very percussive and rhythmically complex nature of this album seems to go beyond prior albums, even when you wouldn't normally expect it like in the verses, which have generally tended to hold the ground and provide a break from all that. Sure, the verses are still instrumental breaks of a sort, but the more minimalist backing in terms of guitar work is underlined by a more present rhythmic tension and harmonic support from Jordan. There's nothing here like Paralyzed, A Rite of Passage, Prophets of War or Build Me Up, Break Me Down that functions as a pretty much wholly straightforward, streamlined piece, just as much as there is no ballad.

This consistency of course doesn't mean that the album is monochrome, however. Each piece has its own mood as well as dynamic ebb and flow. The Alien is energetic and angular, Answering the Call is spacious and commanding, Invisible Monster is anxious and melancholy, Sleeping Giant is sweeping and theatrical, Transcending Time is pensive and nostalgic, Awaken the Master is regal and exotic, A View is triumphant and daunting. Plus, I find enough contrast within these tracks that I don't find a ballad necessary to balance the scales. Sure, The Alien is pretty full-on throughout arguably, but Invisible Monster has its gentle intro, the mid-section break that reprises that and the first verse (might have chugs, but they're purely textural and not as upfront in the mix). Sleeping Giant has its ambient intro and verses that are more reflective than driving, Transcending Time might be brisk but it has the fairly sparse first verse and a downbeat second one. Awaken the Master cuts out the chugs for most of its second verse and the epic of course has plenty of dynamics, including a pretty lengthy break. Hell, I haven't really calculated it because I haven't been looking at the timestamps while listening, but I'm reasonably sure that Rapture of the Deep would be a longer "ballad" than Out of Reach if it was its own song. I've kinda just scratched the surface in terms of dynamic nuance there.

Do I think a ballad could be good for pacing? Maybe, but I don't think it's essential here and I think it would clash with their intent.

I never really understood that criticism, to be honest.  At least how that translates into "lazy".   I've been practicing law for 25 years now; notwithstanding my time on here, I work a LOT of hours, and I'm putting a lot of effort in to reducing the risk profile of my company.  That I don't pour over obscure legal texts anymore doesn't make me "lazy".   Mike putting his energies to other skill sets besides paradiddles doesn't make him lazy.   It's a matter of taste, focus, and goals.

I agree here actually. I think his work on an album like LTE3 is very good and I don't really think him using similar beats makes him a lazy drummer. If a bag of tricks keeps working, I'm not going to knock him for using that. One can still produce interesting and engaging results with the tools that they already have, similarly like how I feel about the new DT album.

I've seen some say "people use the word 'uninspired' when they don't like the music anymore"
like you don't like metal or prog metal anymore.

I still highly enjoy DT's first 8 albums immensely. I still get some satisfaction from the best stuff off of SC, BC&SL, and ADTOE.
It's not like they completely changed musical directions over the last 10 years or so.
So shouldn't I still enjoy their last 4 albums as much as the rest, even though I don't?
Could an uninspired DT be most other band's best efforts?

Going back to this one because I feel this needs to be clarified. Not liking the newer music is different to still enjoying the older material. I've seen enough of your posts to know that this essentially know that this amounts to another box-ticking exercise. The band stylistically have different elements to what they had on the first 8 albums, even if it's not worlds away. I remember hearing that you don't like modern metal riffing for instance or even just the timbre of low 7 string notes being used for textural effect (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I remember this being something you disliked about The Astonishing). Perhaps think of it like an uncanny valley effect where the aesthetics are close enough for you to expect something substantively similar, but those differences in substance (that you wouldn't appreciate in isolation) are enough for something to feel "off".

This isn't a matter of DT losing inspiration or making worse music, they're just not appealing to you like they used to due to changes they made. As a wider point (and I feel like this should be emphasised): An artist can feel greatly inspired and energised by (as well as proud of) creating music that happens to not appeal / be interesting to you. There's no need to try and validate your own opinions by projecting them on the band's output as some albums being inherently less "inspired" than the others. It really is just preferance.

No, it is not. There's a million ways of addng variety that doesn't require you to write a pointless ballad for the sake of having a ballad - again, for the sake of having so-called variety. Where is the variety in between DT's ballads then? Far From Heaven and Out of Reach (to use two recent examples) could be the same song. Swap them from their respective albums an no-one would notice (I like one of those two, by the way). Furthermore, there's proof that DT's albums do not 'need' a ballad to have variety. DT12 doesn't have one, Systematic Chaos doesn't.

Furthermore, what 'album flow' do you mean? Put the 'ballad' (or slow/short song, whatever) before the final song? (Wait for Sleep, Anna Lee, Far From Heaven, Out of Reach, The Spirit Carries On, Disappear). I mean, come on. They've done this again and again.

While I disagree with some individual points here, this is definitely a pertinent point. They can't really win because any ballad is just considered obligatory, so then that would be the "safe" and "uninspired" decision.

Let's on a different take; Dream Theater's brand of progressive metal isn't all that varied to begin with in the grand scheme of things (the last time I posted something like this, it got me into a huge discussion, so let's not to that again) and that's OKAY.

I might actually bring this up in a thread of my own, because I think it could definitely be an interesting discussion.

They have their influences, they wear them on their sleeves. They have influenced countless other bands, including bands that literally want to sound like them, all because their stylistic choices are pretty clearly defined. You know what you can reasonably expect with a Dream Theater album, and this album basically delivered on that front. What to hear actual 'progressive' metal, you know, music in the same genre that still at least tries to push boundaries, then Dream Theater are not the band to look towards (anymore). And that too, is not a problem whatsoever.

This is a good point. I never looked to Dream Theater because they consistently innovate, because I just don't feel that's a particularly realistic goal. After the 90s, it's fair to say that they focused on refinement and adaptation over staying ahead of the curve and I like that about the band. Sometimes, when bands try to constantly be unpredictable and unique, I find that it can often dilute what I enjoyed about them in the first place. I admire a band like Ulver for instance but there's very few albums that interest me enough to willingly listen all the way through.

Dream Theater's initial agenda was straightforward: mix the excesses of progressive rock with the power and punch of metal. They will always have that legacy of being the first progressive metal band to highlight instrumental virtuosity as much as they do, while remaining accessible enough to garner a wide audience. I have no issues with them providing iterations on that formula and pushing themselves in different ways (rather than the genre as a whole). With the way each album of their career has its own identifiable features, they vary things up enough for me to stay engage. Even still, while I don't think the band are carving out any new niches, I still personally think they're ahead of the pack in a lot of other ways (I don't think any prog metal bands have instrumentalists as strong as these, while also having a vocalist that appeals to my tastes). This doesn't mean I think they're being safe though, as my thoughts on the new album above show. It's just that I acknowledge that it's not going to revolutionise the genre.

[Kyo]

Transcending Time is The Looking Glass which is every Rush song ever.

Both of these deliberately copy some Rush approaches in terms of guitar voicings, drum fills and general production vibes, and the band would be the first to tell you that. But at the same time, neither of them directly copies any Rush riffs or melodies and both of them include stuff that you wouldn't find in a Rush song, like the metal verse or the harmony vocals in TLG. So I'm not sure what this type of extremely superficial "analysis" is supposed to accomplish.

With View they basically wrote the same song seven times. I was hoping for some variety in the middle of Sleeping Giant, perhaps a softer passage like the piano interlude in Barstool Warrior, but they just went into yet another soulless technical instrumental.

First off, the first sentence is just utter nonsense. And then, "another soulless technical instrumental" not only sounds like the typical sweeping statements of the usual DT haters, but in this case it could hardly be more wrong. The instrumental section of Sleeping Giant is a prime example of thematic development - all of these bits are built on the same ideas which are interpreted differently throughout, and the arrangement around the ideas also changes all the time - all that even before looking at the actual solos, which I'd also call very nicely constructed and nicely flowing rather than "technical". I'd say it's instrumental songwriting at its finest and this whole section is as far from "uninspired" as it gets.

Also, the reason why there's no ballad is because they only included the songs which they were inspired to write. Seems pretty silly to simultaneously demand something inspired and complain that they didn't force themselves to include something else just to check some box for you. Which is really a lot of this discussion in a nutshell. "I don't like this, it sounds so uninspired, why can't it be more like that old thing that I liked?", basically.

[bosk1]

Kyo, may I please have my brain back when you are done with it?  Thanks.

Too the words right outa my mouth.

[lovethedrake]

"With View they basically wrote the same song seven times"

Then proceeds to point out similarity of Transcending Time to a song in another album.

Yep, exactly.

What I'm noticing is that a lot of the people (and I'm not just referring to one instance here) who are very insistent on labelling an album as "uninspired" or "uncreative" appear to end up tying themselves in knots when arguing against condracting points. That's because at some point in the line, we have to concede that our judgement on creativity or inspiration is just as a result of how close a band is veering towards what we enjoy. I also find it amusingly ironic that RoeDent says "It's your fault for hating on The Astonishing, the boldest most inspired work DT has ever done, that DT have played it safe since." directly after my post... not knowing that the album is one of my absolute favourites and that I've consistently defended it. I'm not even sure if it was directed towards me, but it's still kinda funny.

Digging into some of the prior comments a bit further, I also find it funny how "DT have played it safe" has been contradicted by what was said earlier on about there being no ballads. Is veering off from what has been the expected pattern playing it safe? Hell, I wouldn't stop there either. The very percussive and rhythmically complex nature of this album seems to go beyond prior albums, even when you wouldn't normally expect it like in the verses, which have generally tended to hold the ground and provide a break from all that. Sure, the verses are still instrumental breaks of a sort, but the more minimalist backing in terms of guitar work is underlined by a more present rhythmic tension and harmonic support from Jordan. There's nothing here like Paralyzed, A Rite of Passage, Prophets of War or Build Me Up, Break Me Down that functions as a pretty much wholly straightforward, streamlined piece, just as much as there is no ballad.

This consistency of course doesn't mean that the album is monochrome, however. Each piece has its own mood as well as dynamic ebb and flow. The Alien is energetic and angular, Answering the Call is spacious and commanding, Invisible Monster is anxious and melancholy, Sleeping Giant is sweeping and theatrical, Transcending Time is pensive and nostalgic, Awaken the Master is regal and exotic, A View is triumphant and daunting. Plus, I find enough contrast within these tracks that I don't find a ballad necessary to balance the scales. Sure, The Alien is pretty full-on throughout arguably, but Invisible Monster has its gentle intro, the mid-section break that reprises that and the first verse (might have chugs, but they're purely textural and not as upfront in the mix). Sleeping Giant has its ambient intro and verses that are more reflective than driving, Transcending Time might be brisk but it has the fairly sparse first verse and a downbeat second one. Awaken the Master cuts out the chugs for most of its second verse and the epic of course has plenty of dynamics, including a pretty lengthy break. Hell, I haven't really calculated it because I haven't been looking at the timestamps while listening, but I'm reasonably sure that Rapture of the Deep would be a longer "ballad" than Out of Reach if it was its own song. I've kinda just scratched the surface in terms of dynamic nuance there.

Do I think a ballad could be good for pacing? Maybe, but I don't think it's essential here and I think it would clash with their intent.

I never really understood that criticism, to be honest.  At least how that translates into "lazy".   I've been practicing law for 25 years now; notwithstanding my time on here, I work a LOT of hours, and I'm putting a lot of effort in to reducing the risk profile of my company.  That I don't pour over obscure legal texts anymore doesn't make me "lazy".   Mike putting his energies to other skill sets besides paradiddles doesn't make him lazy.   It's a matter of taste, focus, and goals.

I agree here actually. I think his work on an album like LTE3 is very good and I don't really think him using similar beats makes him a lazy drummer. If a bag of tricks keeps working, I'm not going to knock him for using that. One can still produce interesting and engaging results with the tools that they already have, similarly like how I feel about the new DT album.

I've seen some say "people use the word 'uninspired' when they don't like the music anymore"
like you don't like metal or prog metal anymore.

I still highly enjoy DT's first 8 albums immensely. I still get some satisfaction from the best stuff off of SC, BC&SL, and ADTOE.
It's not like they completely changed musical directions over the last 10 years or so.
So shouldn't I still enjoy their last 4 albums as much as the rest, even though I don't?
Could an uninspired DT be most other band's best efforts?

Going back to this one because I feel this needs to be clarified. Not liking the newer music is different to still enjoying the older material. I've seen enough of your posts to know that this essentially know that this amounts to another box-ticking exercise. The band stylistically have different elements to what they had on the first 8 albums, even if it's not worlds away. I remember hearing that you don't like modern metal riffing for instance or even just the timbre of low 7 string notes being used for textural effect (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I remember this being something you disliked about The Astonishing). Perhaps think of it like an uncanny valley effect where the aesthetics are close enough for you to expect something substantively similar, but those differences in substance (that you wouldn't appreciate in isolation) are enough for something to feel "off".

This isn't a matter of DT losing inspiration or making worse music, they're just not appealing to you like they used to due to changes they made. As a wider point (and I feel like this should be emphasised): An artist can feel greatly inspired and energised by (as well as proud of) creating music that happens to not appeal / be interesting to you. There's no need to try and validate your own opinions by projecting them on the band's output as some albums being inherently less "inspired" than the others. It really is just preferance.

No, it is not. There's a million ways of addng variety that doesn't require you to write a pointless ballad for the sake of having a ballad - again, for the sake of having so-called variety. Where is the variety in between DT's ballads then? Far From Heaven and Out of Reach (to use two recent examples) could be the same song. Swap them from their respective albums an no-one would notice (I like one of those two, by the way). Furthermore, there's proof that DT's albums do not 'need' a ballad to have variety. DT12 doesn't have one, Systematic Chaos doesn't.

Furthermore, what 'album flow' do you mean? Put the 'ballad' (or slow/short song, whatever) before the final song? (Wait for Sleep, Anna Lee, Far From Heaven, Out of Reach, The Spirit Carries On, Disappear). I mean, come on. They've done this again and again.

While I disagree with some individual points here, this is definitely a pertinent point. They can't really win because any ballad is just considered obligatory, so then that would be the "safe" and "uninspired" decision.

Let's on a different take; Dream Theater's brand of progressive metal isn't all that varied to begin with in the grand scheme of things (the last time I posted something like this, it got me into a huge discussion, so let's not to that again) and that's OKAY.

I might actually bring this up in a thread of my own, because I think it could definitely be an interesting discussion.

They have their influences, they wear them on their sleeves. They have influenced countless other bands, including bands that literally want to sound like them, all because their stylistic choices are pretty clearly defined. You know what you can reasonably expect with a Dream Theater album, and this album basically delivered on that front. What to hear actual 'progressive' metal, you know, music in the same genre that still at least tries to push boundaries, then Dream Theater are not the band to look towards (anymore). And that too, is not a problem whatsoever.

This is a good point. I never looked to Dream Theater because they consistently innovate, because I just don't feel that's a particularly realistic goal. After the 90s, it's fair to say that they focused on refinement and adaptation over staying ahead of the curve and I like that about the band. Sometimes, when bands try to constantly be unpredictable and unique, I find that it can often dilute what I enjoyed about them in the first place. I admire a band like Ulver for instance but there's very few albums that interest me enough to willingly listen all the way through.

Dream Theater's initial agenda was straightforward: mix the excesses of progressive rock with the power and punch of metal. They will always have that legacy of being the first progressive metal band to highlight instrumental virtuosity as much as they do, while remaining accessible enough to garner a wide audience. I have no issues with them providing iterations on that formula and pushing themselves in different ways (rather than the genre as a whole). With the way each album of their career has its own identifiable features, they vary things up enough for me to stay engage. Even still, while I don't think the band are carving out any new niches, I still personally think they're ahead of the pack in a lot of other ways (I don't think any prog metal bands have instrumentalists as strong as these, while also having a vocalist that appeals to my tastes). This doesn't mean I think they're being safe though, as my thoughts on the new album above show. It's just that I acknowledge that it's not going to revolutionise the genre.

Agree with almost all of this but still disagree with the notion that a band can’t be more or less inspired.   There are plenty of artists that ham in a performance just to cash a paycheck and stay in business.   I’m not suggesting DT did that here but a band making a bad album doesn’t mean you don’t like the band and it doesn’t necessarily mean the artist put everything they had in it.   I agree that there is no way to measure “uninspired” but that’s why I think saying it “sounds uninspired” makes sense.   Again I’m not suggesting DT was uninspired here, I’m glad there was no ballad, and The View is probably my favorite Mangini era album.

[svisser]

"With View they basically wrote the same song seven times"

Then proceeds to point out similarity of Transcending Time to a song in another album.

Yep, exactly.

What I'm noticing is that a lot of the people (and I'm not just referring to one instance here) who are very insistent on labelling an album as "uninspired" or "uncreative" appear to end up tying themselves in knots when arguing against condracting points. That's because at some point in the line, we have to concede that our judgement on creativity or inspiration is just as a result of how close a band is veering towards what we enjoy. I also find it amusingly ironic that RoeDent says "It's your fault for hating on The Astonishing, the boldest most inspired work DT has ever done, that DT have played it safe since." directly after my post... not knowing that the album is one of my absolute favourites and that I've consistently defended it. I'm not even sure if it was directed towards me, but it's still kinda funny.

Digging into some of the prior comments a bit further, I also find it funny how "DT have played it safe" has been contradicted by what was said earlier on about there being no ballads. Is veering off from what has been the expected pattern playing it safe? Hell, I wouldn't stop there either. The very percussive and rhythmically complex nature of this album seems to go beyond prior albums, even when you wouldn't normally expect it like in the verses, which have generally tended to hold the ground and provide a break from all that. Sure, the verses are still instrumental breaks of a sort, but the more minimalist backing in terms of guitar work is underlined by a more present rhythmic tension and harmonic support from Jordan. There's nothing here like Paralyzed, A Rite of Passage, Prophets of War or Build Me Up, Break Me Down that functions as a pretty much wholly straightforward, streamlined piece, just as much as there is no ballad.

This consistency of course doesn't mean that the album is monochrome, however. Each piece has its own mood as well as dynamic ebb and flow. The Alien is energetic and angular, Answering the Call is spacious and commanding, Invisible Monster is anxious and melancholy, Sleeping Giant is sweeping and theatrical, Transcending Time is pensive and nostalgic, Awaken the Master is regal and exotic, A View is triumphant and daunting. Plus, I find enough contrast within these tracks that I don't find a ballad necessary to balance the scales. Sure, The Alien is pretty full-on throughout arguably, but Invisible Monster has its gentle intro, the mid-section break that reprises that and the first verse (might have chugs, but they're purely textural and not as upfront in the mix). Sleeping Giant has its ambient intro and verses that are more reflective than driving, Transcending Time might be brisk but it has the fairly sparse first verse and a downbeat second one. Awaken the Master cuts out the chugs for most of its second verse and the epic of course has plenty of dynamics, including a pretty lengthy break. Hell, I haven't really calculated it because I haven't been looking at the timestamps while listening, but I'm reasonably sure that Rapture of the Deep would be a longer "ballad" than Out of Reach if it was its own song. I've kinda just scratched the surface in terms of dynamic nuance there.

Do I think a ballad could be good for pacing? Maybe, but I don't think it's essential here and I think it would clash with their intent.

I never really understood that criticism, to be honest.  At least how that translates into "lazy".   I've been practicing law for 25 years now; notwithstanding my time on here, I work a LOT of hours, and I'm putting a lot of effort in to reducing the risk profile of my company.  That I don't pour over obscure legal texts anymore doesn't make me "lazy".   Mike putting his energies to other skill sets besides paradiddles doesn't make him lazy.   It's a matter of taste, focus, and goals.

I agree here actually. I think his work on an album like LTE3 is very good and I don't really think him using similar beats makes him a lazy drummer. If a bag of tricks keeps working, I'm not going to knock him for using that. One can still produce interesting and engaging results with the tools that they already have, similarly like how I feel about the new DT album.

I've seen some say "people use the word 'uninspired' when they don't like the music anymore"
like you don't like metal or prog metal anymore.

I still highly enjoy DT's first 8 albums immensely. I still get some satisfaction from the best stuff off of SC, BC&SL, and ADTOE.
It's not like they completely changed musical directions over the last 10 years or so.
So shouldn't I still enjoy their last 4 albums as much as the rest, even though I don't?
Could an uninspired DT be most other band's best efforts?

Going back to this one because I feel this needs to be clarified. Not liking the newer music is different to still enjoying the older material. I've seen enough of your posts to know that this essentially know that this amounts to another box-ticking exercise. The band stylistically have different elements to what they had on the first 8 albums, even if it's not worlds away. I remember hearing that you don't like modern metal riffing for instance or even just the timbre of low 7 string notes being used for textural effect (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I remember this being something you disliked about The Astonishing). Perhaps think of it like an uncanny valley effect where the aesthetics are close enough for you to expect something substantively similar, but those differences in substance (that you wouldn't appreciate in isolation) are enough for something to feel "off".

This isn't a matter of DT losing inspiration or making worse music, they're just not appealing to you like they used to due to changes they made. As a wider point (and I feel like this should be emphasised): An artist can feel greatly inspired and energised by (as well as proud of) creating music that happens to not appeal / be interesting to you. There's no need to try and validate your own opinions by projecting them on the band's output as some albums being inherently less "inspired" than the others. It really is just preferance.

No, it is not. There's a million ways of addng variety that doesn't require you to write a pointless ballad for the sake of having a ballad - again, for the sake of having so-called variety. Where is the variety in between DT's ballads then? Far From Heaven and Out of Reach (to use two recent examples) could be the same song. Swap them from their respective albums an no-one would notice (I like one of those two, by the way). Furthermore, there's proof that DT's albums do not 'need' a ballad to have variety. DT12 doesn't have one, Systematic Chaos doesn't.

Furthermore, what 'album flow' do you mean? Put the 'ballad' (or slow/short song, whatever) before the final song? (Wait for Sleep, Anna Lee, Far From Heaven, Out of Reach, The Spirit Carries On, Disappear). I mean, come on. They've done this again and again.

While I disagree with some individual points here, this is definitely a pertinent point. They can't really win because any ballad is just considered obligatory, so then that would be the "safe" and "uninspired" decision.

Let's on a different take; Dream Theater's brand of progressive metal isn't all that varied to begin with in the grand scheme of things (the last time I posted something like this, it got me into a huge discussion, so let's not to that again) and that's OKAY.

I might actually bring this up in a thread of my own, because I think it could definitely be an interesting discussion.

They have their influences, they wear them on their sleeves. They have influenced countless other bands, including bands that literally want to sound like them, all because their stylistic choices are pretty clearly defined. You know what you can reasonably expect with a Dream Theater album, and this album basically delivered on that front. What to hear actual 'progressive' metal, you know, music in the same genre that still at least tries to push boundaries, then Dream Theater are not the band to look towards (anymore). And that too, is not a problem whatsoever.

This is a good point. I never looked to Dream Theater because they consistently innovate, because I just don't feel that's a particularly realistic goal. After the 90s, it's fair to say that they focused on refinement and adaptation over staying ahead of the curve and I like that about the band. Sometimes, when bands try to constantly be unpredictable and unique, I find that it can often dilute what I enjoyed about them in the first place. I admire a band like Ulver for instance but there's very few albums that interest me enough to willingly listen all the way through.

Dream Theater's initial agenda was straightforward: mix the excesses of progressive rock with the power and punch of metal. They will always have that legacy of being the first progressive metal band to highlight instrumental virtuosity as much as they do, while remaining accessible enough to garner a wide audience. I have no issues with them providing iterations on that formula and pushing themselves in different ways (rather than the genre as a whole). With the way each album of their career has its own identifiable features, they vary things up enough for me to stay engage. Even still, while I don't think the band are carving out any new niches, I still personally think they're ahead of the pack in a lot of other ways (I don't think any prog metal bands have instrumentalists as strong as these, while also having a vocalist that appeals to my tastes). This doesn't mean I think they're being safe though, as my thoughts on the new album above show. It's just that I acknowledge that it's not going to revolutionise the genre.

Agree with almost all of this but still disagree with the notion that a band can’t be more or less inspired.   There are plenty of artists that ham in a performance just to cash a paycheck and stay in business.   I’m not suggesting DT did that here but a band making a bad album doesn’t mean you don’t like the band and it doesn’t necessarily mean the artist put everything they had in it.   I agree that there is no way to measure “uninspired” but that’s why I think saying it “sounds uninspired” makes sense.   Again I’m not suggesting DT was uninspired here, I’m glad there was no ballad, and The View is probably my favorite Mangini era album.

At least they didn't go full Iced Earth or Amon Amarth on us. There is a freshness to the songs in a familiar way, but no to the point that I feel they were only appealing to the fans.

[cramx3]

I personally never like the "uninspired" phrase being used when someone doesn't enjoy the music.  It's usually a baseless claim.  However, I think you can find moments in many artists pasts where there's actual evidence of them feeling uninspired and releasing a poor album.  It does happen, for sure.  But in most cases, it's a blanket term thrown around because someone doesn't like the music and they don't know or have a way to really justify why they don't like it.

Anyway, I've never felt like bands need to change or do something different to stay good and interesting.  Almost all bands over time find their sound and stick with it.  The difference is when bands can continue to do that to make good albums consistently.  When that fails, I feel like people start to itch for something fresh and new.  However, there are bands that don't change and are still great because in the end, if the songs are good most people aren't going to care if it's been done before. 

I do think the genre of progressive music does tend to have more fans who enjoy the difference in style the genre offers and that generally the fans of this style of music also like when the bands progress in style as well.  I think this is why we see so much of it for Dream Theater than say bands like Bad Religion, Sabaton, Skillet.  They aren't progressive bands and they found a consistent formula while managing to make music the fans still like.  That's OK IMO.

[Enigmachine]

*snip*

Nailed it.

Agree with almost all of this but still disagree with the notion that a band can’t be more or less inspired.   There are plenty of artists that ham in a performance just to cash a paycheck and stay in business.   I’m not suggesting DT did that here but a band making a bad album doesn’t mean you don’t like the band and it doesn’t necessarily mean the artist put everything they had in it.   I agree that there is no way to measure “uninspired” but that’s why I think saying it “sounds uninspired” makes sense.   Again I’m not suggesting DT was uninspired here, I’m glad there was no ballad, and The View is probably my favorite Mangini era album.

Please just snip the quotes for space.

Honestly, for starters I think the notion of "more or less" inspiration is a miscoception. Being inspired by Opeth to make a dark and heavy song or by a film to make an album about reincarnation can't be any "more or less inspired" than being inspired by a podcast to make a song about terraforming. Even if inspiration was a thing we could tangibly judge, the idea that it'd be this thing that was a linear "more or less" is bizarre to me. Once you have a guiding idea and influence to set the agenda for your work and you feel comfortable in getting on with it... you're inspired. As I said before, even doing it for the money can be a strong inspiration, so I don't think it's relevant. Yes, sometimes that motivation could cause an artist to make stuff that the former core base no longer enjoys, but the artist themselves could still feel proud of what they made, as well as having thousands of people connect to it. It's not fundamentally "less" of an inspiration than anything else, it just might produce different results... just like many different sorts of influences might (such as personal events, news, watching TV, a piece of art etc.). You might have a preference for what certain kinds of inspiration lead to in terms of results, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily "more inspired".

This links in to a big reason why a lot of bands say that their latest works are their best stuff yet, because it's all freshly inspired by things that resonate with them at that point in time, while the catalysts behind older material won't as much. Once time passes, their perspectives on that older work will end up shifting around and some might even connect with them again (like when bands return to their initial style).

Plus, I have to again emphasise that for anyone to try and make themselves the arbiter of this is the arrogant thing to me. Why try and project your lack of enjoyment onto the idea that the artist must've been slacking / lacking inspiration? Seriously, I'm not sure why this is a valuable thing to have in music discourse. Even the qualifier of "it's just my opinion" seems bizarre, because then you might as well cut to the chase and just say your opinion on the music rather than shielding baseless assumptions with it. Instead of "it's uninspired", say "it's too heavy / not varied enough / too streamlined / too over-the-top for me". If you can't describe it, then just stick with "I don't like it".

Not only is it kind of insulting to the artist to suggest that they willingly released "uninspired" material as well, but it's kind of condescending to those digging deep into the music and thoroughly enjoying it to suggest that they're unwittingly consuming art that "lacks inspiration", what with the implication that they've somehow been conned by people putting in less of an effort. Maybe that's not the intent, but the implication is there all the same imo.

However... a word that I don't have as much of an issue with is "uninspiring", because then it switches the angle from assumptions about the process to the resulting effect on the listener, where it should be. The only thing it judges is the art's effect on the one saying it.

I personally never like the "uninspired" phrase being used when someone doesn't enjoy the music.  It's usually a baseless claim.  However, I think you can find moments in many artists pasts where there's actual evidence of them feeling uninspired and releasing a poor album.  It does happen, for sure.  But in most cases, it's a blanket term thrown around because someone doesn't like the music and they don't know or have a way to really justify why they don't like it.

Okay, yeah this is the correct context I think. If an artist says something to the degree of "we felt like shit, ideas weren't coming, it was just a tough album to make" then the label is accurate in a descriptive sense (even then, it wouldn't necessarily be "sounds uninspired" as much as "they felt uninspired", but that's just me being pedantic), because then we have our evidence. My issue is definitely when it's just in the "it sounds uninspired to me" claims, when the only thing it's based on is gut feeling.

[svisser]

I personally never like the "uninspired" phrase being used when someone doesn't enjoy the music.  It's usually a baseless claim.  However, I think you can find moments in many artists pasts where there's actual evidence of them feeling uninspired and releasing a poor album.  It does happen, for sure.  But in most cases, it's a blanket term thrown around because someone doesn't like the music and they don't know or have a way to really justify why they don't like it.

Anyway, I've never felt like bands need to change or do something different to stay good and interesting.  Almost all bands over time find their sound and stick with it.  The difference is when bands can continue to do that to make good albums consistently.  When that fails, I feel like people start to itch for something fresh and new.  However, there are bands that don't change and are still great because in the end, if the songs are good most people aren't going to care if it's been done before. 

I do think the genre of progressive music does tend to have more fans who enjoy the difference in style the genre offers and that generally the fans of this style of music also like when the bands progress in style as well.  I think this is why we see so much of it for Dream Theater than say bands like Bad Religion, Sabaton, Skillet.  They aren't progressive bands and they found a consistent formula while managing to make music the fans still like.  That's OK IMO.

I used to be a huge Frying Pan fan back in the day. Problem for me was John Cooper's voice and lyrics. He was never much of a poet. Having said that, Comatose if in my top 10 albums of all time. They got it right on that album. Awake was the last one I cared about. I feel like they are a band that is mostly for the youth.

[Stadler]

Okay, yeah this is the correct context I think. If an artist says something to the degree of "we felt like shit, ideas weren't coming, it was just a tough album to make" then the label is accurate in a descriptive sense (even then, it wouldn't necessarily be "sounds uninspired" as much as "they felt uninspired", but that's just me being pedantic), because then we have our evidence. My issue is definitely when it's just in the "it sounds uninspired to me" claims, when the only thing it's based on is gut feeling.

Well, I think I said something similar above (on the last page); it works the other way, too, though.   I have a number of albums in my collection where the band was pretty clear "we were in a tough place and that's not a favorite record of mine" and yet, I personally love them. 

[Enigmachine]

Well, I think I said something similar above (on the last page); it works the other way, too, though.   I have a number of albums in my collection where the band was pretty clear "we were in a tough place and that's not a favorite record of mine" and yet, I personally love them.

Oh absolutely, can relate to that feeling as well for a few albums.

[Kotowboy]

  Can't wait for DT16

[Architeuthis]

Well, I think I said something similar above (on the last page); it works the other way, too, though.   I have a number of albums in my collection where the band was pretty clear "we were in a tough place and that's not a favorite record of mine" and yet, I personally love them.

Oh absolutely, can relate to that feeling as well for a few albums.

Union by Yes is a great example. The band hated that album and called it a disastrous project, even calling it "Onion" 
Anyway, I love that album!

[TheBarstoolWarrior]

A band can certainly be more or less inspired...I just don't think forum posters, some of whom might even be trolling us, are in any position to perceive this based on nothing more than how much they liked the album.

[Enigmachine]

Fair enough. The way I look at it, once an artist's inspiration becomes a clear enough guide to them, the distinction between what constitutes "more or less" would be very hazy. I guess that perception comes packaged with the concept of motivation maybe, because I can see how one's motivation to take advantage of their inspiration could be lesser or greater.

[Stadler]

A band can certainly be more or less inspired...I just don't think forum posters, some of whom might even be trolling us, are in any position to perceive this based on nothing more than how much they liked the album.

Again, I'm going to point out, it's not just those that are negative that are confusing "like" and the "intent of the artists", and I'm not sure it's fair to assume those that aren't all in on it are "trolling". 

[Ben_Jamin]

Could you say that the band were always uninspired if they needed to visit other bands albums for inspiration?...

[hefdaddy42]

Could you say that the band were always uninspired if they needed to visit other bands albums for inspiration?...

No. 

Besides, no one said they NEEDED to do so.  It was an artistic choice, not much different than their choice on DoT to use more focused, disciplined songwriting.

[JLa]

The band wouldn't decide to put out a record if they didn't feel inspired to record one, no?

But to me they seem to have gotten stuck in a 'formula'. From the self titled one to DOT to the latest release, they all sound the same to me. All songs from those albums could easily be mixed and matched on the records and I doubt anyone would notice. Then go back and listen to I&W, FII, SDOIT, 8V. They're all different. The band tried incorporating new stuff in their music, finding new ways to express themselves. That seems to have stopped now, they've found their thing and stick with it.

I don't really like this new style as much as their old stuff, but that's my problem.

[KevShmev]

I think it is also fair to point out that there is a difference between "Is DT truly 'uninspired?'" and "Does DT sound 'uninspired?'"   The latter would have been a better way to ask it.

Because, unless we can get inside their heads, there is no way of really knowing how much they were really inspired, so it comes to down to each listener and how we perceive the songs.  Do I think DT sounds uninspired on the new album? By and large, no, with the one exception being Invisible Monster, which still feels like a DT by the numbers song that the band sounds totally bored with throughout.  That is my perception.  I don't think any of the other six songs sound boring or "uninspired" at all.  Even though most of them are still in that "solid, but still not sure how much I like it" vein for me, it does feel like the band brought good energy to all of them.

[hefdaddy42]

I think it is also fair to point out that there is a difference between "Is DT truly 'uninspired?'" and "Does DT sound 'uninspired?'"   The latter would have been a better way to ask it.

Because, unless we can get inside their heads, there is no way of really knowing how much they were really inspired, so it comes to down to each listener and how we perceive the songs.  Do I think DT sounds uninspired on the new album? By and large, no, with the one exception being Invisible Monster, which still feels like a DT by the numbers song that the band sounds totally bored with throughout.  That is my perception.  I don't think any of the other six songs sound boring or "uninspired" at all.  Even though most of them are still in that "solid, but still not sure how much I like it" vein for me, it does feel like the band brought good energy to all of them.

Invisible Monster is certainly the one song that doesn't really work for me.  And it was added after all the others were done.

*shrugs*

[Kyo]

with the one exception being Invisible Monster, which still feels like a DT by the numbers song that the band sounds totally bored with throughout.  That is my perception.

They sound "totally bored" with the 2nd verse of Invisible Monster? I mean, "my perception" is nice and all, but I'd say that weird, rhythmically layered and driving 9/8 there is some of the freshest and most unusual stuff they've done in quite a while and I can't think of anything resembling it.

[svisser]

Gotta say I am very pleased with how this thread has gone. Has made me rethink my view on Six Degrees for one, and is just interesting to read.

[KevShmev]

with the one exception being Invisible Monster, which still feels like a DT by the numbers song that the band sounds totally bored with throughout.  That is my perception.

They sound "totally bored" with the 2nd verse of Invisible Monster? I mean, "my perception" is nice and all, but I'd say that weird, rhythmically layered and driving 9/8 there is some of the freshest and most unusual stuff they've done in quite a while and I can't think of anything resembling it.

Yes.

[erwinrafael]

with the one exception being Invisible Monster, which still feels like a DT by the numbers song that the band sounds totally bored with throughout.  That is my perception.

They sound "totally bored" with the 2nd verse of Invisible Monster? I mean, "my perception" is nice and all, but I'd say that weird, rhythmically layered and driving 9/8 there is some of the freshest and most unusual stuff they've done in quite a while and I can't think of anything resembling it.

The variation in that second verse did not work for me. The vocal lines did not fit the rhythmic pattern at all which is why there are long uncomfortable pauses in between lines. I prefer that they just built on the music behind "the serpent inside..." which was the high point of the song for me.

[TheBarstoolWarrior]

JP also sounds a little constipated on that second verse of IM.

[Spin]

DT is a bit stuck in between creating music that sounds like Dream Theater and being creative and making something from left field that would received mixed reception (e.g. the Astonishing).

In the current environment, being able to tour for the first time in almost 2 years.  It's not unsurprising that Dream Theater want to tour successfully and putting out a safe, dream theater like album would be their best bet at achieving this.  Doing what you've been doing for 35+ years and doing it well is not a crime!  That being said, i know both John Petrucci and Jordan Rudess have massive amounts of creativity in them and will put out much more experimental music in the future.

There are many other bands in the same boat where their signature sound or songwriting formula is holding them back in a way.

[TheBarstoolWarrior]

DT is a bit stuck in between creating music that sounds like Dream Theater and being creative and making something from left field that would received mixed reception (e.g. the Astonishing).

In the current environment, being able to tour for the first time in almost 2 years.  It's not unsurprising that Dream Theater want to tour successfully and putting out a safe, dream theater like album would be their best bet at achieving this.  Doing what you've been doing for 35+ years and doing it well is not a crime!  That being said, i know both John Petrucci and Jordan Rudess have massive amounts of creativity in them and will put out much more experimental music in the future.

There are many other bands in the same boat where their signature sound or songwriting formula is holding them back in a way.

That's a huge space to get stuck in. There's a LOT they can do to keep things fresh, if they so choose. Entering another genre like musical theater is not necessary to advance their sound.

[noxon]

Then go back and listen to I&W, FII, SDOIT, 8V. They're all different.

There's a HUGE factor you're missing out on here.

I&W had Kevin Moore as a huge part of both the composition style and the sonic style.

FII had Derek Sherinian as a huge part of the sonic style, and to a lesser extent the composition style.

SDOIT and 8V had Jordan Rudess as a huge part of the composition style and sonic style.

Just that factor ALONE is enough to make the albums sound remarkably different, not even taking into account the fact that the first two also had outside producers that had input in what the albums would be like, and the difference in maturity within the band and how they approach writing music, AND the final and maybe most important factor is your own exposure to what the band sounds like...

[JLa]

Then go back and listen to I&W, FII, SDOIT, 8V. They're all different.

There's a HUGE factor you're missing out on here.

I&W had Kevin Moore as a huge part of both the composition style and the sonic style.

FII had Derek Sherinian as a huge part of the sonic style, and to a lesser extent the composition style.

SDOIT and 8V had Jordan Rudess as a huge part of the composition style and sonic style.

Just that factor ALONE is enough to make the albums sound remarkably different, not even taking into account the fact that the first two also had outside producers that had input in what the albums would be like, and the difference in maturity within the band and how they approach writing music, AND the final and maybe most important factor is your own exposure to what the band sounds like...

DT need a new keyboardist then! 

[svisser]

Then go back and listen to I&W, FII, SDOIT, 8V. They're all different.

There's a HUGE factor you're missing out on here.

I&W had Kevin Moore as a huge part of both the composition style and the sonic style.

FII had Derek Sherinian as a huge part of the sonic style, and to a lesser extent the composition style.

SDOIT and 8V had Jordan Rudess as a huge part of the composition style and sonic style.

Just that factor ALONE is enough to make the albums sound remarkably different, not even taking into account the fact that the first two also had outside producers that had input in what the albums would be like, and the difference in maturity within the band and how they approach writing music, AND the final and maybe most important factor is your own exposure to what the band sounds like...

DT need a new keyboardist then! 

But if you are using SDOIT and 8V for your argument, then you might need to rethink your statement because Rudess was on both of those albums.
Also, we only heard three albums with Moore and one with Sherinian. And FII was massively manipulated by outside producers. The band almost split after that album. If anything, the Rudess era DT is way more diverse. SFAM, SDOIT, TOT, 8V, SC, BL&SL are all unique albums.

At the end of the day, DT is 15 albums into their career. To claim that they need to be as diverse as their first few albums is missing the opportunity to hear HOW they use what they learned on those first few albums on their later work. there are few bands that change their sounds successfully. And a lot of the artists I know of are ones that are known to be totally different on every album as part of their artistic profile.

[TheCountOfNYC]

-Dream Theater fans: Dream Theater needs to make more unique albums.
-Dream Theater: *releases The Astonishing, a two and a half hour rock opera and one of the most unique and well written records of their career.*
-Dream Theater fans: Why would the band release something so different like that?
-Dream Theater: Releases two great albums that don’t push too many new boundaries.
-Dream Theater fans: Dream Theater needs to make more unique albums.

Mike Portnoy was right. Everything is never enough.

[Stadler]

^^^ But this is an age-old problem. 

Led Zeppelin, Genesis, Kiss, Guns'n'Roses, Marillion, Van Halen... they've all endured this phenomenon.

[Dream Team]

^^^ But this is an age-old problem. 

Led Zeppelin, Genesis, Kiss, Guns'n'Roses, Marillion, Van Halen... they've all endured this phenomenon.

Right. Basically music super-fans are stuck up, demanding snobs.

[Herrick]

To answer the question, no.  Anyone who would say they are "uninspired" is probably just grasping for a big sounding word to hide behind and somehow blame the band for the fact that their own personal taste and DT's music just aren't a match, for whatever reason.  I don't think "uninspired" could possibly apply to DT in any context.

When the band releases a 60 min album of 12 bar blues songs in 6/8 time with Petrucci playing only the minor pentatonic then yes.

Until then no.

But then they'd finally put out an album with SOUL and FEEL! 

[Lupton]

Something that's been bugging me. Does anyone know which Rush song in particular that Looking Glass or Transcending Time are supposed to be reminiscent of? I get a major key upbeat cheery 80s vibe, but that's about it.

If someone could provide me of an actual example of x part from Looking Glass/Transcending Time sounds like y part from [insert Rush tune here] it would be extremely helpful in understanding why/how people can make these comparisons. Again, please cite specific examples... I always hear claims of those songs essentially being Rush songs but frankly..I don't hear it.