Stoney

Sure! Please send the text you'd like me to translate.

"Just to say one thing, as a fan of DT, I believed that Portnoy was some sort of demigod on Earth when my drummer friend, who graduated, comes and dismantles everything by telling me that Portnoy doesn’t always play to a metronome and sits too high compared to the optimal posture to use the double pedal." Good, that’s exactly what I’ve been trying to say for months: why did you think he was a demigod on Earth? The answer to this question is the solution to the long-standing enigma.

So. The idea that to understand music you have to be able to play it is a massive load of nonsense. By the same logic, no one could critique a politician if they haven't studied political science, or a soccer player if they haven't been playing for at least 10 years. I'll leave the conclusions to you. As for the speech about Elio e le Storie Tese, I've referenced two other bands and I highly recommend checking them out; maybe I said something ridiculous, but maybe not. And I could name many more. Elio e le Storie Tese manage to navigate through millions of different genres without ever talking over themselves, with irony and wit, choosing different styles for different purposes without ever repeating themselves. They can "speak" through music, mastering technique with ease, creating jokes and games that often serve as the soundtrack to their irony, just like a good speaker masters the terms of the language they express themselves in, allowing for sharp and witty wordplay. This enables them to deliver complex content without ever becoming heavy on the ears, able to amaze both the music enthusiast who spots subtle virtuosic passages or unique solutions and those who understand less about music but can still easily grasp the meaning of what they are hearing. You can easily enjoy an Elio concert without caring about the technical finesse of the bass and drums; it all comes through clearly, and you will still be engaged by the clarity of the language without finding what you're hearing difficult to follow. And then, once you understand it because they expressed themselves clearly, you can judge: you can say "yes, I like it" or "no, I don’t like it." In both cases, the technique has allowed you to grasp a message with a sense of continuity and an intelligible structure, meaning you were presented with a discourse that didn’t fold in on itself through self-citation but did everything to express itself in maximum semantic clarity.
The DTs, on the other hand, are the exact opposite: when they play, they showcase technical artifices that are functional solely to their pieces, thus becoming self-referential. The amazement comes from the fact that every 10 seconds they emphasize, oh, they are doing some virtuosity! Applause! This is why they need a standard technique, less refined, shoved in the listener's face, who must pay attention whether they want to or not; otherwise, they risk missing the point of the piece, which is just to be played in a "virtuoso" way, and nothing more. Moreover, they limit themselves to reproducing their songs live EXACTLY AS they recorded them on the album, except sometimes for a few more solos, or a repeated verse, a sign that, all in all, they are just executors of already written charts with very little room for maneuver. On top of this, the technique of the DTs is confined within a few frameworks, which are, by the way, the same ones they've been using for 20 years. The technique of the DTs consists of playing all the right notes at the right time in the right sequence, adjusting the tempo knob at will, or trying to solve some complicated random time almost as a challenge. This is a matter of mere exercise, exactly like a juggler who can spin 10 pins instead of 3. But music isn’t a marathon or the 100 meters flat where physical capability to sustain a certain effort counts. Listen to the sax solo on "What Would You Say" by the Dave Matthews Band, or the subtleties of the drums in "#41" (also Dave Matthews Band), then try to say what the difference is between those and any solo by the DTs. It’s not just a matter of style; it’s primarily about expressive capacities that find foundation in the reasoned use of technique.

@Nes even this thing that they are technical monsters needs to be toned down a bit. If they are technical monsters, then I recommend two listens that will soon change that opinion: Dave Matthews Band and Screaming Headless Torsos. Especially the latter. But without acting smug, it's also fine to mention Elio e le Storie Tese, whom your DT wouldn't even be able to wash their underwear.

"I see this obsession with Dream Theater as the outpourings of arrogant people who think they understand music better than others (for the meaning of 'arrogant,' see Wikipedia)." This sentence is arrogant, as it sends me to Wikipedia, subtly suggesting I'm ignorant. "I listen to and appreciate the DT for their ability to make good and beautiful music." "Good" and "beautiful" are the most general concepts that the human mind can come up with, as well as the most subjective that exist. "Honor to the merits of a band that has made history (not by chance) in rock with beautiful albums." The same observation applies here. The most you can say is that DT makes "beautiful music," and you take it out on me because I'm arrogant. You provide a list of entirely personal impressions and feelings, without caring to explain them, and get angry when someone, perhaps reasoning, comes to opposite conclusions. You're not asking for sharpness of thought; you're only asking that people think like you. In this sense, the humility you invoke is just a very subtle trick to tell people not to dare to think too differently.

Yes Larrok. Objectivity is in stating that the DTs are a tremendous group, without ifs or buts, and humility is in calling obtuse arrogant anyone who says otherwise :)

Not easy listening, you say. To me, it doesn't seem that difficult to listen to a piece by DT. Surely it's hard for those who listen to pop or are used to the verse/chorus structure, but perhaps not even for them. Of course, if the comparison is with the garbage from MTV, anything else is difficult to listen to. The fact that a DT piece is "complicated" doesn't mean it's "hard" to listen to; you just have to solve the "puzzle" of all the interlocking pieces, and the listener's task is done. Once you've memorized the sequence of the building blocks with which the song is constructed, the game is over. But in 90% of cases, this sequence is entirely arbitrary, in the sense that there’s no reason why one piece comes after another rather than before; there’s only the appearance of an evolution, all the pieces are placed next to each other simply because that’s how they liked it, period. It's like painting a canvas with all the colors next to each other without any sense, just based on how you enjoy putting them, giving free rein to your imagination. Creative, okay, nice, fun, but in the end, what are you trying to say by doing this? You’re just having fun, and that’s where it ends. And indeed, I don’t doubt that DT can make “good” entertaining music that pleases without resorting to the stuff from MTV, but to consider it that important in the panorama of global musical evolution is another story. They are a band that entertains those who listen, just like many others. A lot of idolization for them is wasted, especially if it reaches the levels of fanaticism we are used to.

@Mauro60: this "humility," this "sharpness" (elsewhere referred to as "objectivity") in judgments strangely coincides with the personal opinions of you who appreciate the DTs. Truly, truly strange.

Shindooo, the girl who screams at the Finley concert does so because she wants to sleep with the singer; the DT fan who yells at the concert does it because he thinks he's better than his peers who, in his opinion, listen to worse music. Just look at your comment: the usual dualism Dream Theater - Finley (or Dream Theater - Cristina D’Avena, occasionally someone brings up something similar), as if there were no alternatives. You know what? I believe that behind Finley and DT there’s the same attitude: listening to something to stand out, to give oneself an identity. It’s true that everyone does it a bit, but in the case of DT, it’s much worse, in my view, than the innocent and instinctive hormonal rush of the thirteen-year-old who puts up a poster of the boy band in her room, because at least she lives her obsession as it is without convincing herself that she understands music. Regards.

I quote Gasta. The story of Alice in a coma locked in a mental institution who attacks nurses has nothing to do with syntax and grammar; it is simply a nonsensical sentence that even I don't understand. Perhaps you meant to imply that the aggression happens in her mind like a dream while she is in a coma, I believe, but if that's the case, the sentence is poorly formulated. In any case, it can happen that someone posts an imperfect review (typos, sentences that are only understandable after they are too ambiguous, etc.), what’s the problem if someone points it out? I don't understand the bitterness of those who receive such criticism. No one is telling you that you are an idiot. In reality, the issue of "errors in reviews" here on DeBaser takes on gruesome tones. Outside of this particular review, it is true that a large number of reviews on the site are written with "horrors" of grammar, punctuation, syntax, and spelling. I really don't buy that they are "distraction errors": they are genuine incidents of inability to write both formally and in terms of content by people who can't speak, let alone write. And okay, we’re not all perfect, and we shouldn’t pay too much attention to form to the detriment of content, but with this excuse, if someone points out inaccuracies, feuds erupt because they are FOR SURE a self-important, pedantic professor. No one seems to think that the understanding of what he/she writes is at stake: it’s your problem if you can’t be understood; it’s a rather serious matter, in my opinion.