New Dream Theater photo

excellent Teo...  great reply... you took that where I wanted to take it my friend.  


I liked this in particular... great answer  

So even if today they're not cutting-edge prog, they ARE a progressive-metal band as much as Rush is a prog-rock band... Because they broke the molds once, and we like them for that. Now we enjoy them like they are

I think the problem here is another... I have to wonder at the reason why some people feel the need to post in a thread whose topic they are clearly NOT interested in, just in order to bash it (and, indirectly, those who instead are interested in the topic).

Yes, I know all about freedom of speech and all that, but at this point I have to wonder about myself... Why is it that I avoid posting in threads about bands/artists/kind of music/social phenomena (etc. etc.) I have no interest in? Perhaps there is something inherently flawed in me if I don't feel the need to bash something I don't like?

The T wrote: 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...   Micky, what you say has its coherence. But again, two things: one, people are judging an album in advance for a picture... a PICTURE... couldn't that be more... pretentious, to use a classical prog-word, or even stupid?   but Teo... isn't Rocky right though ...  the fact is you can make assuptions on the music based on the picture. One would be stupid  to make assumptions as to quality.. but as to the substance...  is he (or anyone) wrong to make assumptions as to what you are going to get? As I posted about though.. this isn't about quality...  if quality was really what mattered here...  we'd be talking about Pat Benatar.  Two, if prog artists need to have pictures that also "push boundaries", then I expect we demand the same of all of them... starting with Rush, for example, a band that never changed their style since Moving Pictures, or even Yes, and many many more. There's only a handful of bands which changed and evolved radically from album to album. It would seem only DT HAS to do it or they're ridiculed.... And now we also add the obbligation of hiring a fantastic photographer and an artistic graphic designer! very true point... with exception of Yes that did have shifts from album to album, even Rush that have changed styles since Moving Pictures as well.   The point is that they do not have to push those boundries to be prog... the evil of genrefication has seen to that....... but what makes a group great ..is doing just that.  Those if a group does not..  then again I ask.... is it unfair to judge them on lack of progressiveness.  Like it or not my friend.. for a site about progressive rock.. that is going to be a VERY important point for a lot of people.  Without it.. . what seperates Prog Metal from Metal that is simply technical.It has to be that artistic element.. the notion that it isn't all technical wizardry... but a sense of doing something WITH it.

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

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).

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

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?

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.

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

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