New Dream Theater photo

Henry Plainview wrote: I have too much time on my hands.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! The Dark s I de of the Lateralus. Also some hand which I forget what album it's from.


Edited by Treasure - April 02 2009 at 06:31

The T wrote: plants and dogs have a language which you have decoded... now it's the time for pictures!

Where the f*ck is his Nobel Prize in Literature???????

Henry Plainview wrote: micky, I am a novice at Photoshop, really, if you want to be really impressed you need to see some of the shops SomethingAwful pulls off, but your wish is my command. If you don't like this crop I can do it again, but I thought it looked the best

I like the crop ..definitely






you have more talent that I do or else my reign of terror on this site would be even more legendary hahaha

.... now... do that cool thing you did with the lights on the faces...'art' up that bitch.. and I'll use that as promised. No way in hell those faces on in my signature

micky wrote: CCVP wrote: The T wrote: plants and dogs have a language which you have decoded... now it's the time for pictures! Where the f*ck is his Nobel Prize in Literature??????? hahahhahahha...  coming back to this.... I have a pic I need to find....

now...  time to turn serious...

does Rocky have point... in his own unique plants and dogs language... I think he does...

bear with me....

what is the purpose of that pic...  what did I post something to the effect of earlier in the thread. What has happened to 'art' as being a very important and distinctive subtext of prog. 

 As usual it was a joke... but as usual with a bit of subtle meaning. 

The picture can be seen as symptom of the break down progressive rock.. and 'progressive' rock

why did classic prog appeal to so many people as it did...  it was art.. it was about pushing artistic and musical boundries.   What has prog become today.... genrefied is what it has become (© Micky 2008).   Just as pop, country and other forms of popular music have become.

What is that picture all about... image....image over substance.  It is a targeted appeal to a partcular subset of the listening audience.  How much more effective would that picture have been if there was some 'meaning' to it.   The point in which I think Rocky was right...  was not making a value judgment of the music itself... but telling just what that music IS going to be like, and if you didn't like it before... you sure as hell are not going to like it now.  You can tell from that picture that DT is not going to roll out anything remotely progressive...  take listeners for a real musical ride as musicians of their caliber SHOULD do.

That I think is the point Rocky was trying to make.. could be wrong.... I don't speak plants and dogs... only broken English.


Edited by micky - April 02 2009 at 19:28

All I'll say is that if the new album is as good as the last one, that will do very nicely for me .

Rocktopus wrote: The T wrote:   My beloved one, R, I tell you again: I don't want to have problems with you ever again, I think we both want that. So stop quoting me unless I say, literally, that you're an idiot. Something that you have said in the past about me, in your very social style... But I will not avoid DT threads only because you appear there, so please, stay out of my way. I can promise you as much as this: I won't quote you unless I think you write something really stupid. Now let's start our course with a not to difficult task: What genre do you think this band belongs to? What do you think the quality of the music will be like?  And is it likely to appeal to a elitist snob like myself (in an unironic way)? Any thoughts? Btw: Obviously Micky (and everyone else) understood my post better than you did.

let me play....


quality?... sorry Rocky... quality is the eye of the beholder...   show me a Debby Gibson album cover..and I'll show you a great teeny pop album.

genre?  that is akin to asking what the music is like... it is in that that I think you are right... it is damned obvious just what you are going to get with that.. unless the group is a lot more subtle than the cover itself is hahha.  All it is missing is some tits and ass.  It is obviously (forgetting the title) a heavy metal album.

and yes... for someone like you Rocky...a cover like that is an immediate turn off to someone who likes their music more on the 'progressive' or experimental side.  Just as it would for a fan of Faith Hill or whatever the flavor of the week is for hip-hop artists.

King By-Tor wrote: Okay, lolz and all aside - why is everyone basing the quality of the music on the new album by the artwork and press photos? That's just stupid.

If they're pushing a certain aesthetic with the visual aspect of the album, would it be crazy for this to be indicative of the musical aesthetic being pursued as well?

oh sure... think quality was mentioned elsewhere..

Ahh yes, I remember the good old days when this was about lens flare and the appropriate placement thereof.

Those were good times huh?

(PS, on the picture above, I totally think the girl on the left is easy, she has that look to her).

micky wrote: no... I agree... quality has nothing to do with it.  However.. to string the conversation along... if quality was all that mattered.. why don't we review Duran Duran or Pat Benatar albums on this site.  This site is about progressive rock... and what makes progressive rock so good... when artists push the boundries and explore places that they.. or others might not have gone.  By doing another album in the same vein as they have done previous..  or worse...  sounding (and looking hahhaha) like a Metallica wanna-be...  it is then unfair to judge them on  the LACK of progressiveness...

Edited by The T - April 03 2009 at 12:51