Stoney

@Poly, I once knew a drummer who really listened to EVERYTHING, but he made no distinction between a Gorgoroth album and one by U2: he considered music an endless series of rhythmic and temporal subdivisions marked by kick drum and snare interspersed with breaks. On Mondays, he played in a cover band for Elisa, and on Sundays in a brutal band. And if you said anything to him, he would reply, "oh, I'm not closed-minded, I listen to and play all possible music." With your comment about electronic music, you’re dangerously close to his example. Setting aside the fact that electronic musicians might work twice as hard as someone picking up a guitar, the issue isn't pressing a mouse or playing an instrument; that’s a superficial way of viewing things: music should be judged by its content and meaning, instruments are, after all, "tools." What matters is what a musician wants to express: if it sucks, it sucks whether they use a guitar or a computer. Using a computer doesn’t mean making life easier; even if it did, I reiterate, a computer is a machine and needs a brain to operate sensibly. I'm afraid you see music solely from a technical-instrumental perspective, and in that case, my criticisms would be more than justified. As for the topic of personal tastes and "respect," I could agree with you, but beware: respecting others' tastes doesn't mean holding back from being harsh when someone deserves it, and the DT absolutely deserve it, especially after a release like this. We’re at the bottom of the barrel, in fact, beyond it, and I find it concerning that the usual fans once again cry miracle. If I were to consider their perspective, what sense would my criticism have? Should I think like them and conclude that it’s a fantastic album? Precisely because I am detached and judge the album in an uninvolved manner, I'm able to notice what a fan comfortably overlooks, and that’s why I believe it makes sense to get angry with a band that decides to release an album like this in 2009. I’m sorry, but if I hear someone praising such an album, I can only conclude that someone is brainwashing them, or that idolatry is blinding them, or I must ask myself why the Dream Theater phenomenon exists, which at this point is completely independent of the musicians’ skills, real or presumed. And that’s exactly what I did in the review, perhaps irreverently, because in my opinion, it was warranted.

Damn, I messed up the last sentence. Let me repeat: “As if the standard is that one must be a technical monster REGARDLESS, and then, well, they make an exception and throw into the Olympus of the deserving even people who aren’t for other 'one-time' merits.”

Furthermore, I would like to say, without offense, that if you listen to all that music and fail to notice these details, perhaps you too are making the same mistake that many do, which is to look at music only from an execution perspective. The emotion that music can convey goes far beyond the excitement generated from playing or listening to it. I mean this when I say the "cultural impact" of Dream Theater on the way we listen to and conceive music today. I will never tire of citing the usual discussions about music that often happen in the company of some musician friend, where one hears phrases like "Yes, Gilmour is not a technical guitarist BUT he plays beautiful solos," or "Maiden are fantastic EVEN THOUGH they are not technical monsters." It’s that adversative "but" that wrecks my soul. As if the standard is that one should be a technical virtuoso REGARDLESS, and then, well, an exception is made and people who are not deserving for other merits are thrown into the pantheon of the worthy "once in a while."

@Poly, I don't care at all how much money they have. Everything you say is absolutely true, but those are not the parameters that I believe determine whether a group is valid. Personally, I have my doubts about whether when Portnoy sits at the drums he "puts in passion," but even if he did, I assure you I wouldn't care less. I, too, put a lot of passion into my compositions, but that doesn't make me an artist, unfortunately. I could possibly offer 10 minutes of entertainment to someone who hears me play, but that is light-years away from being a true artist, alas. What I criticize is the very conception of music that these musicians display, and especially the cultural impact they have had. Thanks to them, music has become an infinite collage where the only aim is to place all the details in the right spot and at the right time according to an idea of "order" already coded by others in the past to be considered "good." What I hate about DT is this strive to play "the way it should be," as if there were actually a "right" way to play (clean, fast, incisive, etc.), this constant tendency toward a standard of perfection, cleanliness, and antiseptic quality that is somehow deemed superior to others but which is actually easier, more immediate, and more superficial. The technique in which DT falls short is THE musical technique, not the one their fans mean, which is the technique that allows the use of phrasing or a certain touch to convey a specific emotion. They fail to give meaning to meaning; in fact, they often invert these two things, resulting in competent speakers who deliver long and "well-crafted" speeches but express nothing other than being well-crafted. None of DT's choices has an expressive purpose; they don't select a melody to convey a particular emotion; they choose it because "it sounds good" and is pleasant to listen to. The same goes for the hyper-technical parts with nonsensical time signatures and endless solos. A serious musician cares for this type of expressive technique, not the accuracy of picking at 160 bpm.

that there is nothing "personal" behind these paths, but that everyone follows the crowd without even knowing why. That said, if you don't mind, I will ask the editors to have this review deleted, because I am really fed up.

Poly, my review was sarcastic, do you know what sarcasm means? It was intentionally biting and provocative, it was "satirical," if we want to define it that way; can you tell me what the problem is? Next time, I'll make sure to write it in big letters, since no one seems to have grasped it. It’s not true that I didn’t provide reasons; you just didn’t want to read them. I’ve learned that people get their panties in a twist and insistently ask for "arguments" when they actually don’t want any at all. After all, even if the Almighty Himself came down to bring them some, they would still find something to complain about. So be honest; my arguments don’t interest you, just like no argument that could dismantle the DT interests you. Or do you really want me to believe that there could be an argument to which you’d respond, “Well, actually, now that I think about it, you’re right, you know?” You’re just upset because I mocked a group that you like, and you’re trying to defend something you feel emotionally attached to. Music, arguments, have nothing to do with it. You said it yourself: "DT is the only band I can listen to, I usually listen to rock." You’re defending your personal tastes, not seeking objective arguments. You mistook my criticism for an attack on your personal passions, and that’s what bothers you. Now you’d like me to start talking and say something vague, or make a misstep so you could latch onto the first loophole that doesn’t satisfy you to claim that I’m not objective, that I don’t understand music. If I had written that DT are fantastic and that nothing is better, I would have been even less objective than I was now, but I would have satisfied your emotional sphere; you would have felt validated in your tastes, and my lack of objectivity wouldn’t have bothered you. Moreover, the reason for my disgust is prominently displayed at the end of the satire-review, in the section from "The difference between a respected musician and Dream Theater..." until the end of the paragraph. Did you read it? And if you read it, did you understand it? Did you grasp its meaning? And if you did, why doesn’t it sit well with you? Would you be satisfied if I now started saying, as I've said before, that in my opinion, Dream Theater only create a mishmash of expressive patterns already worn out over the decades, randomly choosing them for no reason at all, and that their enormous success is due to the superficiality of often coarse fans in search of easy idols? Would you accept it if I said that at a semantic level, DT express nothing—nothing that resembles a discourse or even the slightest poetic sense—because for you fans, the illusion of formal perfection is more than enough (because if you really cared about formal perfection, you’d be listening to something else)? Or would you, like everyone else, respond indignantly, splitting hairs, and maybe, like others have done, would you even bring up the absolutes of art and human knowledge, citing Dante, Petrarch, the Sistine Chapel, the Mona Lisa, comparing them with DT through pointless flights of fancy? I am honestly tired of embarking on such conversations; I’m no longer interested. Everyone should stick to their opinions and mind their own business, me first, here’s my sad conclusion. We’re not talking about geometry or physics where the laws are well written and proven; here everything moves on more subtle channels, each person arrives at their conclusions according to their personal journey. Where "personal" means that each has their own, which hopefully is different from everyone else’s. However, when the paths of millions of people strangely turn out to be the same and fall into idolization, then I allow myself to have some doubts, and if in response to these doubts I receive anger and indignation that are all the same, then I’m led to believe that there’s nothing "personal" behind these paths, but that everyone follows the crowd without even knowing why. That said, if it pleases

Yeah, being forced every year to put out an album that proves to the whole world how perfect you are, otherwise your credibility among fans collapses, is not a symptom of frustration: that's true passion for music. Doing thousands of shows around the world, clinics, endorsements, and after twenty years never a comment that isn't the usual "holy shit, you're a monster, but how do you play so fast!!!!” is not frustrating. :) That said, I hope I never have to play a 17/16 in my lifetime, which I don’t even know how to look at. Fortunately.

Poly, I can't stand DTs, am I not free to think that way or must I like them for some reason? Do you want my reasons? Really? Are you sure? I don’t think you care; what bothers you is that I said something that sounds like heresy to you, namely that your favorite group disgusts me. I've come to realize that no matter how hard I try to present arguments, they'll always be considered "not objective enough." That's the game everyone plays. You fans get angry when someone disagrees with you and you become offended. How offended should I be when, after expressing my thoughts, I always have to hear the same old refrain of "you're not objective," or worse, be accused of seeking attention? As if my opinion wasn't freely formed based on reasoning but was just a childish game of going against the tide. As if it were impossible to gather a series of thoughts and arrive at different conclusions than others without being superficial or foolish. And isn’t this more offensive than being told that your favorite band isn’t all that special after all? What do you want, for everyone to think the same way? We haven't reached that point yet, although, alas, I don't think we’re very far from it. But you die-hard fans are providing a great basis for censorship organizations: perhaps in a few years they will ban independent thinking simply by eliminating those deemed "not objective enough." Best regards.

Anatas, make peace with the keyboard before sending the comments though.

This is where you’re wrong; I never said he was right, quite the opposite. What I said was that he has more grounds to talk about those who approach music solely based on their personal taste, which is different. I’m not interested in crusades to establish whether what Scaruffi says is law or not; I couldn't care less. I only said he has the right to speak and to dismantle (or praise) any records he likes because he does so in a critical way, where "critical" does not mean "right," it means "thoughtful," which is different. I prefer a mediocre critic who dismantles The Dark Side Of The Moon based on half a right argument than some random kid who praises it to the skies just because he found out from friends that it's a historic album (like 90% of modern music listeners). Personally, I hate the aura of sanctity and untouchability that surrounds some rock legends that people believe should never be questioned. It is possible, and almost necessary, for someone to harshly criticize what everyone considers valid; I would like to know why it is so unacceptable for you.