easycure

I fully agree. It is indeed quite elementary to understand it.

But what are you talking about? Initiators and not artists? Do you know when the Pixies were around? Do you know that the Grateful Dead and Iron Butterfly were among the main representatives, NOT initiators, but representatives of psychedelia? And in what way would I have given you reason? If I’ve just debunked the focal point of your "theory," which is the idea that, in your opinion, the great bands are the ones that don’t rely on "four chords"? Can’t I mention bands that have done great things?? Like who?? The Grateful Dead? Sonic Youth? Explain to me then, where they wouldn’t have been great, give me an analysis of their style, critique them like I critiqued Dream Theater, bring arguments… starting from technique is false. If someone starts from the "usual four chords," how can they start from technique? Rather, one would start from culture, from tradition, from a specific approach, but certainly not from technique, at least not as you mean it. Did you know that Maureen Tucker, the drummer of Velvet Underground, started playing with them without the slightest idea of how to play the drums? Who lays the groundwork gives the cue? You really don’t know what you’re talking about… I’m waiting for your analysis on the qualitative shortcomings and the fact that Sonic Youth weren’t "artists of the genre"... I even gave you an easy assignment; everyone should know Sonic Youth… ;-)

This is quite elementary rock history; you have probably heard many records, but evidently you didn't really understand them. My examples were obviously just a few: I could mention the Velvet Underground, of which I sincerely doubt you've heard anything unless perhaps from the late post-'68 period. I could also bring up the Pixies, among the most original interpreters of the song form ever (a thousand times more original in structure, interpretation, and harmonization of the more linear pieces than the Dream Theater), who were COMPLETELY lacking in technique and absolutely elementary in their approach. Your point of view is historically disproven; it's not about "clichés" (which it seems to me you waste in abundance with the usual superficial argument about the fundamental nature of technique, a discussion that hundreds have made before you); it's about facts. Just listen.

and you're totally mistaken: first of all, I didn't talk about classical music, but anticipating your move, I emphasized that I'm referring to rock, as you can read. Then, the idea that technique is the starting point is completely false: the first great pioneers of rock 'n' roll endlessly repeated the same chord progression, precisely those 4 chords you mention, and yet they revolutionized the way to play the guitar, the way to interpret songs, the way to interpret the blues, completely based on a renewal of the expressive factor, entirely devoid of any modernization or significant technical depth. The Beach Boys, pioneers of pop and all of '60s music (which means a large part of current music), based about 70% of their output on a progression made up of: C, Am, F, G; with this progression, once again exactly the "4 chords" you refer to, they revolutionized the understanding of rock 'n' roll by merging Chuck Berry's energy with the harmonies of the '50s vocal groups. In other words, they revolutionized rock starting from a purely expressive factor, and by endlessly repeating "4 chords," they managed to evolve beyond measure, moving from surf in their early days to the proto-psychedelia of Pet Sounds and Smiley Smile. Do you think the elaborately skilled Grateful Dead had particular technique when they dove into the first major psychedelic experiments with hours-long jams? And the Iron Butterfly, from whom a good part of Hard Rock and classic metal can be derived? Did the Ramones have technique, who with their usual 4 chords were among the most modern groups of the '70s, giving birth to punk and everything that followed?

domo1984 has arrived too, as you can see :-) ..the point is that you focus on the form; if someone knows how to play and has knowledge, then they are a great musician (or band).. but this is not true. look at the substance, look at what you listen to, what these bands can create, what they can transmit.. this is the most important thing to notice. we are talking about music, not nuclear physics; it's not about the "knowing," it's about expressing, creativity; creativity, the foundation of every form of art, on this I hope you agree, is divergent thinking, that is to be unusual, original.. it’s not about learning ten hours a day everything possible about an instrument and then showing it off: this is exhibitionism not art, and it’s totally useless or at best contingent, especially in rock.

Ah, and then the arrogant one would be me.. :-D ahahah, matt7, with all due respect, I think you’re doing everything to make yourself look more ridiculous with each post. Now, I can understand considering Petrucci as someone who has style, that's your business, but allowing yourself to insult Velvet Underground, then Sonic Youth, then Bob Dylan, only reinforces my belief that I am absolutely right about DT ..such a slaughter of dullness (musical, obviously) coupled with the belief that DT are a great band, only gives credence to my opinions.. thanks ;-)

But where is this extremely high quality? In what? When? They are stale, useless, heavy ballads... harmonically they are not original, they lack style, they are obsolete and retrograde... interpretatively they represent the usual gaudy and coarse display of technical grandeur... they are baroque and intrinsically glamorous, they are pure effect, they are empty. I would like to understand this supposed "quality" better.

here, exactly, Bob Dylan strumming away... a guy who revolutionized the way music was understood in the 20th century, let's just leave it at that.

Xmatt7.. look, when I referred to personal attacks I was talking about theroot, not so much about you, although you have definitely crossed the line more than once... anyway, I can only tell you that you need some deep listening to what you call "rock in general" (which it really isn't).. because otherwise it's pointless to continue the discussion.

X orion 1977: indeed, we had already come to the conclusion that the Floyd's piece that was almost plagiarized was actually "outside the wall".. forgive the inaccuracy, but the substance doesn’t change.. the fact that it’s in different keys doesn’t mean a damn thing.. bringing a piece into a different key doesn’t mean you can’t play it practically identical. This is ABC of harmony. As for Fripp, it’s true, they have different styles. But it's actually more accurate to say that one has style (Fripp obviously) and the other absolutely does not (Petrucci clearly).. as I've said a thousand times, he has the same style that any session musician might have, he’s just a machine of clichés.. that amidst many clichés occasionally “recovers” Fripp... in "Six degrees" etc. the atmospheres of King Crimson during the Thrak period are indeed just around the corner... don’t ask me for the exact passage now because it's been three years since I last heard that album and I have no intention of listening to it again. Moreover, nobody has claims of absolute objectivity; if I wrote it (the 1000th time I'll repeat this rather obvious concept) it's clear that it’s an opinion. Simply, opinions are attempted to be demonstrated with various arguments, and this is probably what you understood as a claim to objectivity.