easycure

As already mentioned, Ajeje, for me Bark Psychosis are far more capable of reinterpreting their influences than DT, I really don’t see any room for comparison in this.

"In LaBrie, the quintet boasts a noteworthy 'shouter' who never loses his classic composure and is never swayed from his melodic course by the instrumental cataclysms happening around him." "By reinventing the syntax of progressive rock, Dream Theater has also highlighted new harmonic possibilities." Once again, Scaruffi focuses on purely formal aspects (notably using the term "syntax," as if that alone could suffice to evaluate the significance of the music...). Scaruffi contradicts himself, however, because this doesn’t at all align with the criteria he uses for many other albums, where far more relevant aspects were evident in judging the release. The truth is that Scaruffi likes bands that meander through suites or near-suites, and from this stems his biased (and I reiterate, contradictory) preference for this album.

X musicInProgress: "Dream Theater can boast above all unusual skills as sound 'directors,' that is, the ability to build complex harmonies and to flow different episodes within the same piece." They already did it in the progressive bands of the '70s, no more, no less. "Much of the appeal of these scores arises from the interplay between keyboards, drums, and guitar—three instruments (the first with a classical flavor, the second with a jazz construction, the third imbued with all the tricks of rock)—that unleash in perfectly organized jams where none ever prevail over the others, managing to intertwine their respective phrases elegantly and naturally, even though they almost always involve 'extreme' sounds (deafening, extremely fast, barbaric). That is a purely formal consideration, one which any trio of jazz musicians with years of career and study behind them would be capable of.."

Fidia, with all due respect, I talk about whatever I want... moreover (evidently you haven’t followed the development of the discussion), the speech refers to the group in question... certainly not to the album, about which I wouldn’t really know what to say if not to bring out something not very gratifying... hehehe : ).. bye

ajeje, exactly! The difference is there and it's important. Innovation is something that disrupts, that changes existing standards, that breaks down patterns and rebuilds them in different terms, that adds. Originality is not necessarily any of these things.. being original can mean fitting into established patterns but interpreting them in a unique way, without necessarily innovating (that is, breaking and reconstructing) them... the Cure, for example, are original; there isn't a single song that even remotely resembles another artist's track, they are all very oblique pieces, very personal, but the Cure have NEVER been innovative.. innovation implies originality, but not vice versa.

NGW, you are totally right about Bark Psychosis... they have reinterpreted progressive in personal and creative terms; theirs is a modern fusion. You gave a perfectly fitting example of what a truly creative stylistic reinterpretation is and what it isn't (i.e. Dream Theater).

Ajeje, apart from the fact that when it comes to Lou Reed the discussion is quite different, for me a song is absolutely not just a sum of originality + lyrics etc. As Gestalt theory teaches me, since I study psychology, the final result is always more than the sum of its components... if you understood this part of my argument, I think you have partly misunderstood it... originality is a fundamental component for me because originality is personality... every form of expression, if personal, is also original since everyone is different from one another, and thus, tying back to the Gestalt idea of overcoming additive thinking, every form of personal expression cannot help but be original as well... the mistake I think you made, like many do, is identifying originality with innovation, but they are two related concepts (in potential) that are quite different.

In fact, for me, De Andrè may have been an appreciated poet, but I would certainly never define him as a great musician... with all due respect, I think a kind of sacred adoration has developed around him that definitely transcends purely musical reasons; in Italy, if you talk about De Andrè, it really feels like risking blasphemy... but musically, it doesn't seem to me that throughout his career he ever created anything essential... it's the trap that one often falls into when talking about singer-songwriters... Bruce Springsteen, for example, is great relative to the history of American songwriting perhaps... in absolute terms, he's quite a mediocre rocker, regardless of the lyrics.

I like it a lot! When I heard that, my eyes went wide open... too bad the rest of the album, with no exceptions, just doesn't measure up..

Moreover, originality may not be the only criterion for judgment, and here we agree, but it is still fundamental. Certainly, originality alone makes no sense, and therefore it is not enough, but a non-original group makes just as little sense... it is a necessary but not sufficient condition.