easycure

So, beneath the surface of constant dynamic changes, their approach is unilateral... maximum formal rigor, which manifests in a noticeably conservative musical style. Not only that; various dogmas and stylistic elements never seem to conform as a style, also because whenever they attempt to integrate them with other references or devices, Dream Theater completely lack coherence: what is the point of that Oriental-sounding riff in "Home"? what is the point of the funk inserts that occasionally pop up? What is the explicit reference to Thrash that they overuse in "Train of Thought"? None, except for the pure self-referentiality of the device that exists as such. For this reason, gradually arriving at issues of "substance," their pseudo-poetics are terribly pretentious and aesthetically hypocritical: because formally what they communicate is that they are a 360° band, a group that can express everything, and not coincidentally chooses to express itself by adopting the most grandiloquent format, additionally reinforcing it with an interpretation that is much more paroxysmal and labyrinthine compared to the past, and moreover insisting on "telling" something, meaning that they are not making a "Zappaesque" discourse of meta-music at all, but staying true to the classic "expressing" of art. However, this is precisely where they are deeply hypocritical; for theirs is never about eliciting an emotion but always about imposing one. Through dogma or through citation. Or even pretending to express an emotion with nonsensical devices that once again would claim to resolve expression merely by their existence (therefore not only imposing an emotion but even imposing the perception of an emotion, evidently exploiting the lack of culture. As intellectuals, they seem to me to be on the level of books from the Harmony series). From this perspective, they are the opposite of a group like Slint, who deconstruct the stylistic element and reformulate a style to serve an expression. Dream Theater, at best, on the contrary, pretend to resolve expression by obliterating it and subjugating it to a few inevitable dogmas, and hiding this enormous deficiency under a paroxysmal and grandiloquent form.

Focusing for a moment on the first point, namely the specific "pseudo-plagiarisms," I wanted to draw your attention to two excerpts from the album “Metropolis Part 2: Scenes from a Memory”: the first, “Regression,” is a blatant and overly explicit reference to “Outside the Wall” by Pink Floyd. The second, “The Spirit Carries On,” in the part of the central solo, not only clearly references Gilmour's solo from “Shine On You Crazy Diamond,” but even plagiarizes it in a section where Petrucci exactly copies one of Gilmour's bends. Aside from this, the point I feel is most important to emphasize is how their approach completely lacks style: in their widespread citationism, the framework of their approach generally remains that of a progressive suite or a rock ballad, with few and largely insignificant exceptions (the more “experimental” “Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence,” pathetic in its mimicry of more than one passage from King Crimson, or “Falling Into Infinity,” even more banal in rehashing the atmospheric sound of the Floyd during the Parsons era), and yet they offer no real innovation to the suite or long piece format beyond the mere addition of other elements, such as some metal tropes (double kick, palm muting, 2/4 time signatures) or other hints that, as such, never genuinely contribute to the group’s “poetics.” In fact, every piece of theirs, in its intricate and unfolding dynamic and rhythmic changes, never fails to rest on a few dogmas that inevitably repeat themselves. And these dogmas, by definition, cannot constitute style: for while each of them is clearly and consciously a cultured and particularly technical musician at an executional level, at the same time their interpretation is never personal, always referential, chasing in its frenzied mutations a “already said.” For example, Petrucci is completely anonymous in how he interprets metal tropes: when I listen to his palm muting, I do not feel at all that expressiveness, that precise purpose that someone like Hetfield can have, for instance. It is precisely this glaring lack of purpose beyond the mere context of the piece that renders the execution of Dream Theater entirely formless. And for this reason, their reliance on tropes does not imply a reinterpretation, but in its superficial dependence on what a passage of a piece unfolds at the precise moment of its existence, it is merely to cite something that, in its repetition and in its never being avoided from piece to piece, constitutes nothing but a dogma. This is a blatant and unresolved contradiction: because while one might argue that such an approach is motivated by a fundamentally “jamming” framework, it does not explain why every element within the piece, despite referencing very different genres, has an extraordinarily formalized, precise, and inevitable placement. First and foremost, I refer to Labrie's singing, which, with its polished vocal clarity, always and only has a pathetic function in the literal sense of the term, but also the use and position of guitar solos, or the emphasizing entrances of keyboards.

Dream Theater were among the founders (or among the first) of Progressive Metal, a genre that synthesizes elements borrowed from progressive rock with typical stylistic features of Metal, in its various forms. Compared to Rush, Dream Theater belong to a different generation and, of course, have an approach that encompasses a broader range of references. However, their insight is far from original; they merely jumped on the bandwagon of those bands that, almost a decade earlier, made stylistic crossover the foundation of their avant-garde. Even within the limited realm of metal, this fundamental insight could easily be attributed to Metallica, where various factors (the much drier drums, the generally less theatrical and more straightforward composition, the hyper-speed riffs) are all elements that break down the barriers between metal and hardcore, two genres that are not only different but even at opposite ends of the spectrum. This is only the first issue, though. The underlying point is that Dream Theater completely lack originality, and even more fundamentally, they lack personality: their approach is essentially conservative, a sort of widespread revivalism of thirty years of rock music, an attitude of a sideman who knows everything and cites it in a more or less veiled or abstract manner; in fact, their operation, when not limited to pseudo-plagiarism, consists of extrapolating a dogma and re-presenting it in a decontextualized manner, precisely a kind of "abstraction" of a stylistic feature, an abstraction that has purely and merely performative, exhibitionistic value.

Moreover, obviously, thousands of posts and countless discussions cannot simply be reduced to one answer. Picking up the thread of the discourse would be a lengthy task, so to present my point of view (which goes far beyond just referencing plagiarism), I'll do as I did in another review: I will post in full the letter I wrote to a critic outlining my perspective on the DTs; if you like, you can read it.

Thank you very much for the "ridiculous" and "genius"... those are two adjectives that I absolutely love together :-D ..first point: I didn’t say that Petrucci is the same as Gilmour just because he starts an arpeggio in D major. I said that Petrucci is like Gilmour because in "The Spirit Carries On" he does a passage that's identical to Gilmour's... I didn't just make that up. I had a very long discussion with Orion, and I posted the exact second when the guitar in "Spirit..." was the same as in "Shine On You Crazy Diamond"... of course, I can't remember it now (nor am I interested in going back to find it), but if you want to satisfy your curiosity, you can do a little search and you'll find it. Oh, it has now been officially established that "Regression" is practically identical to "Outside the Wall" by the Floyd. Oh, the arrangement of "Spirit..." especially in the vocal parts, is copied straight from the arrangements of "Dark Side of the Moon"... and there are many other instances of plagiarism or pseudo such, posted not just by me :-D

ah, even the Polvo

I don’t really know where to start… maybe tell me a genre or, I don’t know, a decade… to cut to the chase, I can tell you what I’m listening to at the moment: new releases by Battles, in general the Blossom Toes, the ubiquitous Sonic Youth, and I’ve also rediscovered the first Coldplay album, although honestly I only like three or four songs from the whole record… then I don’t know, if I think of any others I’ll let you know.

no nostalgia, anyway.. I mean, if I watch it now, I watch it with great pleasure and it entertains me like crazy.. and I'm someone who appreciates, let's say, Sokurov, just to be clear. I completely agree with those who said that we need to relativize judgments. In cinema, it’s a necessity.. I mean, in music, even if genres really exist, the boundaries between seriousness and entertainment are definitely blurred.. but in cinema, there are indeed distinctions in this regard (with this, I'm responding to Poletti, not to Psycho, who was making a different point).

Psycho, you are right (forgive me, I just arrived and missed a good part of the discussion) but for me, it remains a great film.. the plot is brilliant as it weaves various references, the characters are genius in how they are constructed, and the mix of adventure and irony is irresistible. For me, it’s a masterpiece (relatively, of course, to its purpose and target).

I don't want to instruct anyone! I'm following exactly your same logic.. you're right: I don't like Muse, that's the only substance of the review. What I'm not clear about, though, is why I can't express this opinion.. you're really a fascist! :-D