Zarathustra

In some spots, it’s really disgusting.

Indeed, Frusciante's voice isn't that magical... but at least, do we know what music is on this CD? Should I listen to it? What is it like? I mean, come on... couldn't you manage to write a proper review?

Great opening.. Just for that, you deserve a 5. I don’t like them very much.

I instead find that Theater, and in particular Labrie with his voice, has an innate talent for ballads. The Spirits Carries On, Another Day, The Silent Man, Wait for Sleep, Vacant, Goodnight Kiss, The Answer lies within seem quite significant to me.

@fidia: I wouldn't say that the discussions you call sterile and useless are actually so on a site where music is discussed. However, I respect your opinion, which I think is well-formulated, even though I don’t share it. If they bore you and make you fall asleep, that’s perfectly fine; it's just a matter of taste.
@saputello: I can accept a critique like yours because it’s motivated and clearly backed by a certain level of cultural preparation. And on the fact that Portnoy is a bit aseptic and, as you put it well, "school-like," I can't fault you. To be honest, he has little imagination; I think that's the crux of the problem. And I would never swap him for Bonham, who, in my view of drumming, is the perfect musician: dry, powerful, relentless, precise. As for whether they pay attention to dynamics, I'm not so sure. Also, because I don't know exactly what you mean. But you see, a critique like this makes sense, so you could tell me "for this reason I don’t like them," and I would say: "I, on the other hand, adore them, but I fully respect your opinion." The fact is that one doesn't criticize the group's technique in its more complex aspects; one critiques good technique as such.

Sorry, Know-it-all (saying it this way seems like an insult, but it isn't ... :-) ), can you tell me what these criticisms consist of? In particular, what distinguishes the Theater from the supergroups just mentioned?

Or again, as I said in my first intervention, it's said that they are derivative, as if there were any non-derivative musician in relation to something. Well, we need a bit of seriousness. If you don't like them, that's fine, but just say "I don't like them" or "it's not my genre," not nonsense like that.

The fact is that (rightly) no one has the guts to slander people of such caliber, except for the followers of punk, in which case I understand because it’s in the DNA of the genre-movement to reject the masters of the past. And so they invent the nonsense of technique serving emotions, which is precisely a load of crap.

But why did Jimmy Page play so many notes per minute? And Blackmore? And Ray Vaughan? And Satriani? And Steve Vai? And that Swedish guy whose name I can't remember? Maybe a few less, but the point is that if we are going to tarnish the technique of the Theater (specifically Petrucci but it also happens with the others), then we must tarnish people like Yes, Emerson Lake and Palmer, King Crimson, Gentle Giant, Area, Rush, Camel, and many others from those years. And don’t give me the usual idiotic and childish phrase that, in Gentle Giant for example, "technique serves emotions" because we all know that in those supergroups (among which I also count people like Zeppelin, Cream, and Purple not to mention Hendrix who played with cans, to say, where's the emotion there?) there was a lot of healthy showmanship, which I believe is right in rock. The same goes for the Zep in the 20 minutes of "Moby Dick" or in those of "Dazed and Confused," or in Cream's "Toad" and so on.

@iside: perfect, if you say you don’t like it because it made you fall asleep, that’s one thing. In that case, I can understand you since, objectively, music does promote sleep (which, from my perspective, is quite different from saying it makes you sleepy; in fact, even "The Dark Side Of The Moon" promotes sleep, in my opinion, but it definitely doesn't make me sleepy..) and so it’s plausible that it makes someone sleepy. I know people who say the same thing. However, your review is framed differently; the fact that it was deliberately polemical explains everything, though.