Stoney

Sure, if someone has to watch out for the "dire wrath of the fans" when they give a CD 3 stars instead of 5, that says a lot about many things.

Exactly, Edgar, that's what's disgusting: that by constantly shoving so much crap down our throats, they've convinced us that even Subsonica are something worthwhile. Lowering the bar below zero so that zero seems like something, that's the trendiest attitude today, nothing but criticizing anyone else.

P.S.: Maybe you're right Ktulu, I'm too biased, I hate the DT. But these 5 idiots have managed to convince half the world that playing means sitting at a table and thinking of the most difficult way to fit the largest number of notes and riffs together. Let's realize this. These 5 morons have created a generation of musicians who spend 5 years studying alternate picking but can't even do a bending, who can't think in 4/4 time because they're too worried about doing it in 13/16 right away. These 5 idiots have led people to believe there's only one "correct" way to play if you're good: theirs. These 5 jokers have created people who come to tell you "if you play Dream Theater then playing Pink Floyd is a walk in the park," as if everything were on the same level, as if a musician's preparation were a straight line with them at the end as the goal. If you can play like them, you can do EVERYTHING. They've made it so that when you talk about music with someone, you hear truly outrageous phrases like "oh yes Jimi Hendrix was good but he didn't have technique," or "yes but Dave Gilmour doesn’t use a pick," or "Jimmy Page couldn't really play BUT he did beautiful things." Truly horrifying contradictions. Even here, on a music forum, we've reduced ourselves to talking about technical execution and not, in the end, about music. We've completely overlooked the inventive aspect, the intuition, the sensitivity, and also the contextualization, which are things that, in my opinion, are essential if you want to demonstrate that a musician is valid, and this is simply because they do NOT EXIST. Well, for me, this is indicative of a certain rampant ignorance, of which these types of musical phenomena are a small mirror, but that perfectly illustrates where we are headed.

I’ll also wrap up, but I want to say one last thing. If it hasn’t been understood yet, I despise those who focus their attention on “technical skill” and “perfect execution of pieces.” I don’t care, I repeat, if you’re a virtuoso on the instrument, if you’re Jesus Christ come down to earth, if you’re the best player in the world. I don’t care, and I don’t see why such an outstanding merit should matter. Because those who have nothing to say can save themselves by saying “yes, but I’m good”? It’s like we’re praising a soccer player who hasn’t scored a single goal but can dribble blindfolded and with his hands tied. “And who cares?” they say in Rome. In any sport, artistic discipline, or field, we tend to consider technique only in the light of what it takes to produce; I don’t see why it should be different in music. Everywhere you turn, mere technical skill is NOT considered a quality if it stands alone, and that seems to me the bare minimum. Who cares about the scores, about the difficulty of execution, who cares? Anything that exists in the world, any activity, from cleaning toilets to being the President of the United States requires TECHNIQUE. Playing soccer, basketball, picking someone up and getting laid, EVERYTHING can be reduced to mere technique; we could all invent a game or an activity for its own sake and establish a technique for doing it, it seems OBVIOUS to me. And then what does it matter that Harrison is a jazz drummer while Portnoy is rock? It seems to me that Harrison plays rock much better than Portnoy. And Harrison’s touch is NOT soft at all! As for cleanliness, let’s not even go there. I also don’t understand why execution technique should coincide with cleanliness. Then Dimebag Darrell wasn’t technical. Then Michael Romeo is three times more technical than Petrucci. Well, I think I’ve reiterated the concept enough; those who want to understand will understand, and those who don’t want to understand can keep listening to Dream Theater.

I believe that in this film, the message is not as hidden as in the Kinder Cereali advertisement. In fact, I think that those who haven't grasped the troubling similarities between the film and today's reality are either incompetent or pretending to be.

Because, you see, what I hate is taking a group that may or may not be liked, like DT, and not just saying "look, I like them," but spending life searching for objective reasons why they should be THE BEST in their field. I don't like this kind of absolutism, and I won't accept either being told that I want to play the know-it-all or that I actually know the "real" best groups in the world. If it pleases you, let's say I don't understand shit about music, but at least I’m aware that no matter how refined my tastes may be, I will never comprehend all music, and surely, due to my limitations, I will never know many great artists who deserve acknowledgment. Sure, I have my tastes too, and you might be surprised to know that not only have I listened to the DTs deeply, but I have also played them, and I think I’ve understood the role they have in rock/metal. It is possible to listen to them every now and then without necessarily experiencing mystical ecstasies and consequent divinatory oracles that must render their skill ABSOLUTE over the rest of the world. To say that Rudess is the Petrarch of music is something outrageous; such a lack of objectivity from someone who claims to be discussing music is unacceptable. I, for example, love the Pearl Jam’s singer for how he writes lyrics and how he interprets them, and I have inexplicable and unique emotions tied to many of his songs, but I would never dream of saying that he is the Dante of rock, even though I have often heard people say similar things. That DTs are the best holds true for you and maybe for some other fervent fans, but I don't understand why you can't just enjoy them, perhaps be swept away by your passion for their music while simultaneously accepting the fact, first and foremost, that you are biased, and secondly, that they are not the be-all and end-all of everything. If nothing else, because being human and limited, you cannot know ALL music, and therefore, surely someone better than them who escapes your attention, at least in terms of sheer probability, certainly exists.

You’re mistaken: I’ve heard everything about the DT. I repeat, it’s the same old story. Reread the cinema example I gave before. Take, for example, Boldi-De Sica—they might make you laugh (maybe), but nobody considers them great directors because it’s obvious to everyone that they aren’t; Pasolini is a genius, but not everyone understands him, and besides, it’s too complicated, so the audience ignores him. However, the public worships Muccino, who is worse than Boldi-De Sica, but pretends to be deep, and everyone falls for it. Today we live in a difficult era where no one wants to study and commit, but everyone wants to appear as scholars and engaged. If the cultural level today is underground, it’s clear that something that merely scrapes the surface may seem elevated. If you dress up banality by giving it a cultural appearance and dignity it doesn’t possess, it’s logical that people become convinced that this is true culture, and suddenly everyone becomes a great connoisseur of something without doing a damn thing. And let me tell you, if you can’t understand the difference between Gavin Harrison and Portnoy (you tell me that The Sound Of Muzak is pop? But wait, didn’t you say we were talking “only from a technical point of view”? What does such a consideration have to do with it now? I didn’t say I liked the PTs; I was talking about pure execution technique), I’m sorry to say, but it looks like you belong to that category.

One thing and I’m done. All this talk, while valid, is ultimately self-serving and misses the crux of the matter, which is that no matter how you look at it, the DTs are nobody. Neither in expressiveness nor in technique (so yes, I dare to criticize their objective technique). I refer you to the study of any piece by the Dave Matthews Band to understand the difference between those who are truly technical and those who pretend to be, or if you prefer, to In Absentia by Porcupine Tree, or if we want to go with Moving Pictures by Rush (always disregarding expression and meanings, mind you), and there are billions of examples. It’s just that they don’t have the same impact, they’re not as flashy as the DTs. Want to compare the finesse and class of a drummer like Gavin Harrison against Portnoy’s overly forced double bass? Who entertains us more? That’s what I think the legend of the DTs is: a group of metalheads that, thanks to a couple of technical tidbits and a few faux-deep melodies, has occasionally earned the fame they enjoy today. It’s like the case of certain actors who are worth less than nothing compared to the greats, yet are loved by the public because they make easy movies wrapped in a poetic aura that gives everyone the illusion of being great connoisseurs of cinema.

But but but… you also read whatever you want. I'm not saying "everyone does it" (talking about the fusion of technique and expressiveness) in the sense that "it's easy to do." I'm saying that everyone strives to do it, at least if they want to be considered someone. It’s clear that not everyone succeeds, but what kind of discussion is that: not everyone, as you say, knows how to conjugate complicated linguistic syntaxes with meaning, you're right. But then, sticking to the metaphor (apart from the fact that it's yet to be demonstrated that the DT have a mastery of language, because to me, it seems like they've been saying the same four things for 15 years), what sense does it make to be surprised by a brilliant speaker in rhetoric but often lacking in content, who only occasionally says something sensible, when there are Dante, Petrarch, and Manzoni? Sure, it might be nice to hear someone who "speaks well," and maybe now and then, one reads a Ken Follett book; we can't just read classics of literature, that’s for sure, but do you realize that this doesn’t allow us to say that certain authors are on par with the real masters? I'm saying this because nobody here has ever said "I like the DT," but everyone has said "objectively, they are sacred monsters," which is quite different. And one last thing: even assuming one wants to judge based solely on technique and instrumental preparation, once we concede that they are "one of the groups with the best technical preparation" in the current rock scene, honestly, I would like to understand what that changes. I don’t know if there exists someone capable of playing Bach blindfolded with their feet while taking a dump and pleasuring themselves, but that's a different matter. Once we establish that J. Rudess and his companions are the best students in the course, the ones who have studied 9 hours a day and have all gotten top marks, what changes? It is well known, since we are children in elementary school, that this is not what determines a person's actual skill in a discipline. Especially since there are people who, in addition to having a top average (perhaps achieved with only 4 hours of study per day, who knows), also know how to use their instrument to create things with a certain noteworthy artistic significance, we realize by ourselves that the world can very well do without someone like J. Rudess without anything changing at all.

"If you allow me, of any song by Dire Straits, I don't perceive the technical brilliance (Petrucci is ten to zero against Knopfler if we talk about cleanliness and execution; conversely, you could argue for expressiveness, and I might even agree with you), but expressiveness and emotion"... but what sense does it make to oppose expressiveness and executional cleanliness? What you call executional cleanliness is just the style someone adopts. Knopfler is Knopfler; he has that characteristic sound that if it were different, he wouldn't be him, and Petrucci is Petrucci. And then what sense does it make to quantify a musician's ability as 10 to 0? Have you ever been on a forum, say, about classical music? No one there dreams of saying something like "Mozart beats Chopin 10 to 0" because it doesn't make sense. Excuse me for a moment, a stupid question: shouldn't a musician's goal always be to express something? What kind of discourse is "yes, DT are usually technical, but sometimes they have managed to be expressive too"? It's like saying "I speak Italian very well, and sometimes I’ve also been able to make coherent speeches." You've said an absurd sentence. "In my opinion, sometimes they have managed in their intent"... Are we joking? What other purpose should a musician have? I mean, you idolize these guys because they have the "merit" of having done "sometimes" something that anyone who plays does "always" for centuries, namely to express themselves? So what art is "Music"? In front of millions of artists who are looking for new ways to express themselves, new languages since they first picked up their instruments, should I idolize those who managed it a couple of times in their entire career? But this is absurd; it’s a musical conception I didn’t even have at 4 years old. Then you want to make me believe (at least in prog) that expressiveness is secondary, a "surplus," and that’s what leaves me astounded: we are now so flattened by ignorance that the standard seems like an achievement. We admire these guys for a couple of "expressive" notes when historic bands (like Dire Straits, but I could mention millions) have made emotion and expressiveness their distinctive banner, creating things that are compositional and execution-wise, no matter what you say, complex, not necessarily MORE complex, but certainly not less so. I conclude, bitterly, with a small postscript: I do not consider myself the god of music. Who knows why Dream Theater fans always respond like this when you touch on their idols: there’s no way around it, either a person believes that Dream Theater are gods, or they are presumptuous because they think of themselves as a god instead of them. According to you, there is no middle ground. Crazy. You can’t criticize DT; you can’t say "I think they are crap," no, if you do that, you’re an envious detractor. And there’s nothing more presumptuous because it means you believe the only possible reason for not liking DT is having something against them for some personal quirk (as if to say that anyone who doesn’t believe in God is a crazy heretic who doesn’t know what they’re talking about) and not for a reasoned criticism born from reflections. If this isn’t blind idolatry, then you tell me what it is. You have unconsciously and glaringly demonstrated what these gentlemen found their decade-long success on, nothing but technical skill.