The (Factually) Greatest Drummer

Snow Dog wrote: Basically DT write  basic songs with a ton of widdly bits in the middle.

Ok, so in the structure I described above, take out the verse-chorus-verse-chorus at the beginning and the chorus-chorus at the end - you'd describe that as "traditional"?  Seriously - yeah, they use verses and choruses, but I don't think the "widdly bits" in the middle can be described as traditional, so maybe they just wanted to have something more accessible around the "widdly bits".  I don't mind.  As long as that's not all they do.

dtguitarfan wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Basically DT write  basic songs with a ton of widdly bits in the middle. Ok, so in the structure I described above, take out the verse-chorus-verse-chorus at the beginning and the chorus-chorus at the end - you'd describe that as "traditional"?  Seriously - yeah, they use verses and choruses, but I don't think the "widdly bits" in the middle can be described as traditional, so maybe they just wanted to have something more accessible around the "widdly bits".  I don't mind.  As long as that's not all they do.

Yes, it is just like that. The "widdly bits" might be way longer and way more instrumentally pyrotechnical than yor average rock band, these bits might contain a few different subsections within them, but in the end they are just "widdly bits" added to make the songs feel longer and more complex than they really are.

And I'm not attacking DT for I love them for what they do! They are still my favorite prog-metal band and probably my favorite all-around prog band (maybe next to Genesis) but to say that DT's music is not rather very traditional is not "factually" true .

dtguitarfan wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Basically DT write  basic songs with a ton of widdly bits in the middle. Ok, so in the structure I described above, take out the verse-chorus-verse-chorus at the beginning and the chorus-chorus at the end - you'd describe that as "traditional"?  Seriously - yeah, they use verses and choruses, but I don't think the "widdly bits" in the middle can be described as traditional, so maybe they just wanted to have something more accessible around the "widdly bits".  I don't mind.  As long as that's not all they do.

...and, it's been done before, by Rush.  You could say Rush popularized this whole separate niche of prog wherein the songs are very much like rock songs with technical instrumental sections in between.   Because the prog that preceded it tended to break out of a verse chorus set up and usually had elaborate preludes, interludes and lots of changes in direction.    What Dream Theater have done is to (a) follow a sort of metal equivalent of Rush's approach and (b) heighten the technical difficulty.   It's good for what it is, but it is not something unprecedented or groundbreaking either, not the best thing since sliced bread and all that.  In a nutshell, it doesn't really transcend one's personal preferences, it is not necessarily music that everybody should listen to before they die (if there at all exists such a thing).

^DT make it rather obvious  though. And I'm a fan  too

Dean wrote: The T wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Basically DT write  basic songs with a ton of widdly bits in the middle. Ok, so in the structure I described above, take out the verse-chorus-verse-chorus at the beginning and the chorus-chorus at the end - you'd describe that as "traditional"?  Seriously - yeah, they use verses and choruses, but I don't think the "widdly bits" in the middle can be described as traditional, so maybe they just wanted to have something more accessible around the "widdly bits".  I don't mind.  As long as that's not all they do. Yes, it is just like that. The "widdly bits" might be way longer and way more instrumentally pyrotechnical than yor average rock band, these bits might contain a few different subsections within them, but in the end they are just "widdly bits" added to make the songs feel longer and more complex than they really are. And I'm not attacking DT for I love them for what they do! They are still my favorite prog-metal band and probably my favorite all-around prog band (maybe next to Genesis) but to say that DT's music is not rather very traditional is not "factually" true . I'm not knocking you here Teo, and as you know I'm a bit of a not-so-closet DT fan myself and have been for the best part of 15 years or so, but aren't the widdly-bits pretty much what prog is? Even a prog epic like Close To The Edge is three more or less traditional structured songs glued together with widdly bits, and even Supper's Ready with its many sections, each of which isn't that un-traditional in format or structure, is gummed together with widdly bits. There aren't that many prog tunes that are puposley structured in any unconventianal sense, many are studio improvisations on a simple jam-like stucture. It's when the widdly-bits are the structure it all falls down, and unfortunatley DT are the masters of that (Six Degrees for example... IMO).

Hey...wow...I uh...I actually completely agree with Dean and have to say he said what I wanted to way better than I ever could... uh...

Dean wrote: The T wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Basically DT write  basic songs with a ton of widdly bits in the middle. Ok, so in the structure I described above, take out the verse-chorus-verse-chorus at the beginning and the chorus-chorus at the end - you'd describe that as "traditional"?  Seriously - yeah, they use verses and choruses, but I don't think the "widdly bits" in the middle can be described as traditional, so maybe they just wanted to have something more accessible around the "widdly bits".  I don't mind.  As long as that's not all they do. Yes, it is just like that. The "widdly bits" might be way longer and way more instrumentally pyrotechnical than yor average rock band, these bits might contain a few different subsections within them, but in the end they are just "widdly bits" added to make the songs feel longer and more complex than they really are. And I'm not attacking DT for I love them for what they do! They are still my favorite prog-metal band and probably my favorite all-around prog band (maybe next to Genesis) but to say that DT's music is not rather very traditional is not "factually" true . I'm not knocking you here Teo, and as you know I'm a bit of a not-so-closet DT fan myself and have been for the best part of 15 years or so, but aren't the widdly-bits pretty much what prog is? Even a prog epic like Close To The Edge is three more or less traditional structured songs glued together with widdly bits, and even Supper's Ready with its many sections, each of which isn't that un-traditional in format or structure, is gummed together with widdly bits. There aren't that many prog tunes that are puposley structured in any unconventianal sense, many are studio improvisations on a simple jam-like stucture. It's when the widdly-bits are the structure it all falls down, and unfortunatley DT are the masters of that (Six Degrees for example... IMO).

I agree completely. Most prog (not all) is like that. And frankly, I prefer it like that.

rogerthat wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Basically DT write  basic songs with a ton of widdly bits in the middle. Ok, so in the structure I described above, take out the verse-chorus-verse-chorus at the beginning and the chorus-chorus at the end - you'd describe that as "traditional"?  Seriously - yeah, they use verses and choruses, but I don't think the "widdly bits" in the middle can be described as traditional, so maybe they just wanted to have something more accessible around the "widdly bits".  I don't mind.  As long as that's not all they do. ...and, it's been done before, by Rush.  You could say Rush popularized this whole separate niche of prog wherein the songs are very much like rock songs with technical instrumental sections in between.   Because the prog that preceded it tended to break out of a verse chorus set up and usually had elaborate preludes, interludes and lots of changes in direction.    What Dream Theater have done is to (a) follow a sort of metal equivalent of Rush's approach and (b) heighten the technical difficulty.   It's good for what it is, but it is not something unprecedented or groundbreaking either, not the best thing since sliced bread and all that.  In a nutshell, it doesn't really transcend one's personal preferences, it is not necessarily music that everybody should listen to before they die (if there at all exists such a thing).

I feel like DT is more of a metal version of Kansas than anything, actually.  But I agree with your idea of Rush setting a precedence to this approach.  I think that's one of the reasons that Rush transitioned to a more accessible approach in the 80s and on in their career; they were rock songwriters first and foremost from the beginning, and brilliant ones at that, which I think made it natural for them to strip down their approach and still produce material of excellent quality.  I feel the same way about The Mars Volta.

I think it's interesting that the OP keeps saying "it's just a matter of preference" and chastising people for being ishonest in their reviews and not acknowledging this, but then he makes threads  with titles like "the factually best drummer" and links articles like "why you should listen to dream theater."

A little inconsistent there, guy.

The existence of this thread greatly irritates me.

11 pages in I'd like to ask Geoff if he's even a drummer, because if he's not he has no ground to judge the "factual" best drummer in the world.

As a DRUMMER and a HUGE FREAKING DT FAN I can confidently say Mangini is *not* the greatest drummer in the world and that's *still* my opinion and in no way could anyone's opinion ever be factual.
Fastest drummer, well hell yes he kills everyone in the sport of drumming. In the art of drumming, though, he does not.