Saputello

enthusiastic this dick. It sucks the dead.

The example of structures was a way to distance the music of the DT from pop. However, it is true that analyzing their albums, the DT wouldn’t know how to write songs with simple enough structures, because when they try to do so (see certain ballads), they fail spectacularly. But I don’t see this as a limitation: it’s a characteristic of theirs. Just like the Beatles would never have been able to compose a multi-part suite. It’s a matter of different attitudes, but trust me, I can appreciate both, and I am also convinced that a piece doesn’t need to have a complex structure to be complicated (just look at minimalism), but I pointed it out as a characteristic that deeply distances them from the pop and mediocre logic you mention.

But music must necessarily contain a message that is not purely musical in order to exist; it must have a meaning that can be grasped by the listener, if not the pure pleasure of listening? So you seek in music, if not the pleasure of listening as a primary good? I look for this and, in a second analysis, for intuition. The voice has always been a particular factor for the listener because, regardless of its validity, if the timbre or the pieces drawn in the songs are not liked, there isn’t much to be done. What should harmonies narrate? Can’t they be epic, why? Can’t they contain baroque elements, why? Why can’t they be sensational? I mean, they can also not be, but they can also be; I don’t see any contraindications to a certain musical sensationalism, as long as it seems inspired to me. To me, this seems inspired, but perhaps that's the problem: You don’t feel inspiration in the music of DT, but perhaps you only feel constraint and self-indulgence. At least in their early albums, I still see spontaneity and creativity combined with pieces (as mentioned) sensational for their harmonic exploration, epic and sometimes baroque.

Except for another day, which I don't particularly like (aside from the concluding sax solo), it's hard to find a harmony that feels obvious in the other pieces. If anything, in certain transitions between different tracks, there are some somewhat unnecessary tempo changes, but that's another story. The beginning of pull me under is part of the epic and baroque style I mentioned; it's light-years away from polished pop, both in terms of structures and riffs. No, because you see, before calling a piece obvious, you also have to look at its structures, which in the case of DT are quite variable and don't leave many reference points (in short: there are no songs that repeat the same structure).

I misspoke in a sentence: "the least memorable tracks on the album are the ones with solos and virtuosity."

Sorry, you didn't understand a damn thing about what I wanted to say regarding valid and meaningful melodies. I'm not in love with catchy melodies just because they're ear-friendly, but with intricate and beautiful melodies for being intricate and baroque. Plus, it's not true at all that to elevate their pieces they need to resort to virtuosity; in fact, the least memorable tracks on the album are precisely those that lack banal solos or time changes. And the riffs in "Pull Me Under," "Take the Time," "Metropolis," "Under a Glass Moon," "Wait for Sleep," and "Learning to Live" are anything but poppy in the style of Elisa. I get that you're a drummer, but you should know certain differences. Because what the hell do you think, that great performers like Bowie in their more pop albums, yet celebrated as serious pop, don’t use fully established riffs from the '50s and '60s? Why do you always bring up shit pop? Don't you know anything but the real thing? Not to mention that you completely overlook the arrangement factor in your argument, which is primarily linked to composition, and it doesn't seem to be covered solely by virtuosity; just listen to the album's finale to understand that. But evidently, it seems like these albums that many criticize have been listened to very little by their detractors. I don’t hear many musical fireworks; sure, it comes down to perspective, because if we're comparing them to the Sex Pistols, then even my fart becomes pretentious and a firework.

Well, if it's true that you appreciate both certain metal and certain prog, as you said, then I must be wrong. In any case, I agree about the wrong approach towards their instruments, but when it comes to the compositions, I simply think they had the ability to write very beautiful original pieces, with an emotional epicness sought in the melodies. Probably the flaw of this album is the absolutely sterile sound (with the drums that sound MIDI) and the tendency to fill certain tracks with needless length and irritating solos (like "Metropolis" or "Take the Time"). In terms of composition quality, we are at excellence level. Associating two different genres even just in sound, I consider a novelty, and not just me; otherwise, an album like "Bitches Brew" by Miles Davis, which fuses rock and jazz, wouldn’t seem like a novelty. But beyond innovation, I’m convinced that great albums can also be made relying simply on the extreme quality of the music. Rush have undoubtedly influenced DT (and I also consider them superior to DT), but to say that here DT simply rehash Rush with a more metal twist seems to me a laughable and superficial opinion, and it misses the points you brought up about double bass and a thicker sound; I’m talking about a harmonic level, in which DT have (or rather had) a personality. I also don’t understand on what basis you define an album like this as soulless, just because it has very technical pieces? Do you think that writing very technical pieces always requires all this cerebralness and external constraint on the instrument? Do you think there can't be spontaneity even in virtuosity? Well, if you think that way, I wouldn't recommend listening to certain pieces by Stravinsky, where there’s a virtuosic and technical exhibition that is no different.

Let me explain further: since in Dream Theater albums like this one are full of solos and the vocals echo many hard rock stylistic features, you automatically consider them a garbage band. Then if we add in the virtuosic guitar and metal elements, you hate them even more. And if we add that they are prog and often create long compositions, the picture is complete. What you don't understand, in my opinion, is: 1) these guys know how to write beautiful pieces, they know how to use musical notes, something that many other highly appreciated musicians in the history of music can't do (but have other merits). 2) Images and Words is an album that, whether you like it or not, represents a significant innovation in the music scene; no wonder DT has influenced a ton of bands (90 percent of those bands are terrible).

I believe that Dream Theater have been truly great composers, who have sometimes marred their good compositions with an instrument immaturity that can be somewhat irritating. Immaturity because: they lack taste in shaping the sound of their instruments; they wield technical skill haphazardly; they falter at times with excessive academicism. However, this is not enough to overshadow the talent that emerges from pieces such as "Learning to Live," "Take the Time," or those from the subsequent (more mature) album like "Mirror" and "Scarred." Your misunderstanding stems from a musical language that you cannot tolerate: the prog mixed with metal evidently causes you severe gastric distress. I don't mean to say that Dream Theater are the greatest band of the '90s, far from it. But they are undoubtedly among the most deserving groups. In music, there is not just one way to conceive composition. There is not just one way to play.

Misdirected hatred stems from a total misunderstanding of certain musical languages.