DT... already a prog legend? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

A Person

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760

Posted: March 09 2010 at 12:06

The T wrote:

Even worse because I'm quite sure he shouldn't go away just because he doesn't, according to you, know what "math rock" is. It's kind of difficult these days to be able to keep track of all the new rocks...maybe soon there will be a "Physics rock", "Chemistry Rock" or something like... When in the end they all are very similar with just minimal differences in their emphasis on some of the elements of rock music...

If it is about the elements I'm sure it would be Chemistry Rock.

Windhawk

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 28 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 11401

Posted: March 09 2010 at 13:50

progressive wrote:

If you don't even know what is math rock, please go away.

And here I thought all along that this was a website that people could come to so that they could learn what math rock, post rock etc. was all about.

Guess I must have been badly mistaken then... Confused

Websites I work with:

http://www.progressor.net
http://www.houseofprog.com

My profile on Mixcloud:
https://www.mixcloud.com/haukevind/

Logan

Forum & Site Admin Group

Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 35940

Posted: March 09 2010 at 14:06

A Person wrote:

If it is about the elements I'm sure it would be Chemistry Rock.

And the appreciation of rock, generally, is a geological pursuit.

Duos for fave acts

A Person

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760

Posted: March 09 2010 at 14:09

Logan wrote:

A Person wrote:

If it is about the elements I'm sure it would be Chemistry Rock.

And the appreciation of rock, generally, is a geological pursuit.

So it is about geochemistry?

TheGazzardian View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: August 11 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8690

Posted: March 09 2010 at 14:25

Logan wrote:

A Person wrote:

If it is about the elements I'm sure it would be Chemistry Rock.

And the appreciation of rock, generally, is a geological pursuit.

That was a pretty good one. XD

ExittheLemming View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415

Posted: March 09 2010 at 19:20

Windhawk wrote:

progressive wrote:

If you don't even know what is math rock, please go away.

Best post in the entire thread, no contest Clap

CCVP

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971

Posted: March 09 2010 at 21:53

Really? I think that all classics are all overdue, and its only me! Hell, Transatlantic is singing that all over the world! LOL

BTW, this thread has long became useless. The guy created it with the best of intentions and since page 3 (I think) there have been some ridiculous discussions over some of the most unimportant matters ever. And really, if you want to troll a music forum, try going to an imageboard at least. Seriously, its not even that hard.

Certif1ed

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559

Posted: March 10 2010 at 01:57

progressive wrote:

If you don't even know what is math rock, please go away.

progressive wrote:

I didn't mean math rock by saying "math" metal

Are you quite sure that YOU know what math rock is?

CCVP wrote:

BTW, this thread has long became useless. The guy created it with the best of intentions and since page 3 (I think) there have been some ridiculous discussions over some of the most unimportant matters ever.

I think that the recent discussion has been very civil (with one exception), and well focussed around a specific argument.

Let's go back and be even more specific to the original post;

crimson87 wrote:

Lately I have been listening to DT for hours and hours and I realized that I can be considered a fan of the band. Three years ago , I couldn't understand what the fuss was about with this group. But now they are one of the ones that I listen the most.

The question is , when we always talk about the prog giants we always mention: Yes , Genesis , KC , ELP , Tull and Rush. They all had their prime in the 70's and some like Rush and KC recorded good material in the 80's (KC always released good records to my ears) The point is , can't DT be considered into this group as well? Some of my reasons that could stand this statement are the following:

They are the most successful American prog band , touring all over the world and having good sales figures taking into consideration they are a prog act.
They are the most representative Progresive Metal band
While not in their prime (in my opinion) the band's output has been consistent all over 20 years. We can compare this with what Genesis , Yes ELP or Tull were doing 20 years after their first release (late 80's)
They achieved all previous three at a time when prog is not fashionable anymore

They are a very successful American Heavy Metal band , touring all over the world and having good sales figures.
They are widely held as a Progresive Metal band, but largely by fans and journalists. The fact that their music hardly ever matches the definition of Progressive Metal doesn't seem to bother these fans - DT are "representative" largely by straw man polling rather than actuality.
What Genesis , Yes ELP or Tull were doing 20 years after their first release (late 80's) has more to do with the musical climate than the bands. People were much less tolerant and less likely to buy Prog Rock at that time. Heavy Metal is currently extraordinarily popular as a genre, and established long-running acts in this genre have always been "pedestalised". It's fair enough to claim the "Legend" part, but not the "Prog" part. The fact that their output has been "consistent" is also at odds with the very notion of Progressive.
There has been an "underground" progressive "movement" ever since it's "death" in the 1970s. Sorry about all the quote marks, but the words are inadequate really. This is, however, probably the best point - Dream Theater have, by associating themselves with Prog Rock, raised the profile of the genre and it's actually a lot more popular now than it was when they started out - and for that, they deserve plenty of kudos. Legendary status, if you like

But this is why DT can't really be considered alongside Genesis, Yes, ELP, Tull, Crimson, GG et al - the music does not have the same attributes, even if it does share some of the same elements. The key attributes of Dream Theater's music lie in Heavy Metal and not Prog.

But should that matter?

As I said earlier, Metal always feels this need to prove itself.

Why does it need to prove itself now that it's unquestionably one of the most technically proficient genres - if not THE most technically proficient genre of popular music, with Dream Theater ranking very highly on that score?

Edited by Certif1ed - March 10 2010 at 01:59

The important thing is not to stop questioning.

DavetheSlave View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 23 2007
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 492

Posted: March 10 2010 at 03:10

Cert1fied - I agree with you in the main body of your arguments above and further back in the thread. I do believe however that Dream Theater are most definately prog music. The prog music umbrella from the 70's that we used to know and love has moved on and morphed into what we struggle with today as a prog definition. To me anything that isn't pop - pure commercial money making pop made for the masses is prog as long as it progresses or is involved in progressing music.

I've never believed that Metallica is prog and my reason for that is that Metallica's music was made for the demand of the then masses. To me it was pop metal - metal's answer to the punk movement. I do believe that Metallica were important in that they, almost single-handedly at the time, brought metal back into the public's eye. It is another argument for another thread but I think that Dave Mustaine's influence on Metallica was huge and that that influence is the reason that Metallica in fact gave birth to their classic 1st 4 or 5 abums.

Pekka

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 03 2006
Location: Espoo, Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 6442

Posted: March 10 2010 at 03:18

DavetheSlave wrote:

I've never believed that Metallica is prog and my reason for that is that Metallica's music was made for the demand of the then masses. To me it was pop metal - metal's answer to the punk movement. I do believe that Metallica were important in that they, almost single-handedly at the time, brought metal back into the public's eye. It is another argument for another thread but I think that Dave Mustaine's influence on Metallica was huge and that that influence is the reason that Metallica in fact gave birth to their classic 1st 4 or 5 abums.

I'm not going to get deep into this, but my view is that hair metal like let's say Mötley Crüe was the (heavier) music for the masses at the time, and Metallica was fighting that approach by making more complex and extreme kind of music. The actual masses caught onto them around the Black Album, before that they were a metalhead thing pretty exclusively, I think.

It's on PA!

Certif1ed

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559

Posted: March 10 2010 at 03:42

Pekka wrote:

Got it in one.

Even among metalheads, Metallica were a bit extreme in the beginning - as a big Motorhead and Venom fan, I caught on quickly, but balked a little at Slayer. I soon got over that.

And really, it was the combination of Mustaine, Hetfield, Ulrich, Burton and Hammett that really made the band, not any particular member - all 5 contributions are plain on the debut, although Mustaine's is less so on later releases.

Without their frequent sharing of tapes of other bands (ironic, given their attack on Napster) Metallica would have lacked the variety of influence that they had, which made their particular brand of metal so overtly progressive - one major overlooked aspect of "Progressive" is the drawing together of a wide variety of influences.

The fact that the band moved to Cliff Burton in order to include him in the band also speaks volumes about the man's rightful legendary status, and he was a massive driving influence, as testified by the lack of contributions from Jason Newstead on "..Justice", as well as that album's somewhat directionless feel.

The metalheads finally caved in to Metallica's onslaught when they performed "One" on MTV, and the Black album cemented their postion as #1 metal band - a position they should have lost with subsequent releases and behaviour - but that's just my opinion.

Anyway, to get back to the original criticism of my position, what is the fundamental difference between the music on Dream Theater's early albums and Metallica's that makes the former "Prog" (which they're not) and the latter "Not Prog" (which they're not)?

The important thing is not to stop questioning.

DavetheSlave View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 23 2007
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 492

Posted: March 10 2010 at 03:55

I think that possibly I allow my dislike for Metallica, which wasn't really there up until their next release after the Black Album, cloud my accpeptance of them as prog.

I really find no real similarity between Metallica and Dream Theater other than for one or two tracks where they do try the Metallica sound - and obviously the Metallica bootleg album that DT did.

I do find massive similarity to Deep Purple's music although DT are way more modern in approach as they would be given the time line. Those are my personal views though.

By the way Certif1ed - and a little off topic - I still find your comments about the Sweet way interesting and I'm trying to slot them into my "Prog Brain" as they should be there in a musical influence way - very much so.

Certif1ed

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559

Posted: March 10 2010 at 05:16

^You really need to listen to everything they released from "Fanny Adams" onwards. "On The Level" has some quite astonishing moments, but so do the earlier albums.

Even the title track of "Fanny Adams" has experimental, dare I say Progressive leanings - there are so many different sections in different styles, and even keyboards. I wouldn't call it Prog, but there are Prog bands that are less Proggy than that song.

You can even hear "Ripper" in it.

Here it is. <-Note that this is a "rare studio version"

Here is the album version, if you can't get enough - check out the instrument tones - you can practically smell the tubes smoking!

Edited by Certif1ed - March 10 2010 at 05:19

The important thing is not to stop questioning.

DavetheSlave View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 23 2007
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 492

Posted: March 10 2010 at 05:46

You do have my blood bubbling - unsung heroes of the past (maybe you should do a post). The Sweet, Slade, Leo Sayer - maybe not prog but unsung heroes of Rock Music in general. By the way, is John Miles represented in PA - haven't checked - if he aint he dam well should be. Sean Phillips perhaps as well - if only for the longest name of any track in music history (lol). Thanks Cert1fied. Time to rebegin a music adventure starting with hunting down the Sweet albums again with a smattering of Slade.

Fieldofsorrow View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 27 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 220

Posted: March 10 2010 at 10:51

Something I don't understand in your argument, Certif1ed, is how Dream Theater brought little to the table that Metallica hadn't already offered. In my mind they wrote music that was so much more intricate. Dream Theater employed far more complex rhythmic patterns - tackling terrors such as 15/8 and 21/16 sequences, and even ventured into polyrhythmic territory. In addition, the melodies covered an expansive range, rather than the somewhat restricted scope of Hetfield's voice, and in many places were modal, rather than based on the pentatonic. Their harmonies also broke from the 'power chord' syndrome, with 9th, 11th and 13th voicings, as well as much experimentation with suspended chords.

Structurally, I believe that Metallica probably had the edge - their song form possessed that spontaneous feel we were recently discussing in your blog. (I find them progressive, regardless of this.) But in multiple respects, Dream Theater, whether you find them to be progressive or not, differed from Metallica, and in many cases their differences achieved a more sophisticated compositional approach.

Groovy teenage rock with mild prog tendencies: http://www.myspace.com/omniabsenceband

progressive View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 08 2005
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 366

Posted: March 10 2010 at 11:46

Certif1ed wrote:

progressive wrote:

If you don't even know what is math rock, please go away.

progressive wrote:

I didn't mean math rock by saying "math" metal

About math rock and math metal and math music... for example Meshuggah can be considered as math metal, but math rock is quite far away from it, and not only because the other is rock and other is metal. Of course there's many similarities, but for example math rock drumming is basically quite different. And what about other math music? Let's say Gentle Giant and Egg. Very different bands but in some ways people can think them as math. However, comparing DT and Meshuggah, both has some polyrhythmic music in it, like GG, but all of them approach it from different directions. Meshuggah is very repetitive, whereas DT isn't so polyrhythic usually, but otherwise complex.

Of course this site is for learning, but I found the attitude a bit negative and not willing to learn. And there's other sites too where you can learn about things. It should be common knowledge to know genres, unless you don't need them or don't discuss about them. But sorry for the bad punch.

DavetheSlave wrote:

The prog music umbrella from the 70's that we used to know and love has moved on and morphed into what we struggle with today as a prog definition. To me anything that isn't pop - pure commercial money making pop made for the masses is prog as long as it progresses or is involved in progressing music.

I would like it to be called, let's say... progression music. Well, I'm not good in English so maybe that wouldn't be the best name for that umbrella.

I think prog is mostly _only_ complex music.

Other new "progressive" directions have other names, like post-rock, post-metal, art rock, experimental rock, symphonic rock (well of course there's symphonic prog, but many of them aren't so progressive).

And why can't prog be pop? For example GG is very pop to me, but also one of the most complex prog bands there. I agree that there's not so much pop prog, at least popular (pop and popular are different things! pop is a genre but for example there's many pop bands that aren't popular at all). There's also many different popular approaches. For example, post-rock is very very popular. So if one makes post-rock, it's usually a pop act. DT is definitely a pop act, and in some places it's even progressive pop (pop as an opposite to rock and metal, not prog - prog can be in pop, rock or metal).

DavetheSlave wrote:

To some point, that's the case, but like some people said, there's other bands that are much more pop metal. But for example, most people who listens to the track "...And Justice for All" don't find it pop at all, but unaccessible. Maybe it's because it's a bad song? I don't know, but Metallica has clearly made metal also more progressive.

Certif1ed wrote:

2. They are widely held as a Progresive Metal band, but largely by fans and journalists. The fact that their music hardly ever matches the definition of Progressive Metal doesn't seem to bother these fans - DT are "representative" largely by straw man polling rather than actuality.

So what is progressive metal then? Could you give me for example 20 examples? Or is there such a thing? Maybe only few bands?

Certif1ed wrote:

Heavy Metal is currently extraordinarily popular as a genre - -

Actually it's not. There's many metal genres that are more popular. Think of Black Sabbath kind of music, it's not very popular. There are some popular metal bands that can maybe considered as heavy metal, but many times they are just plain "pop" metal and maybe for example gothic rock, melodic death metal and some slow simple pop versions of other genres. There's very little classic heavy metal that is closer to let's say traditional doom metal or even blues rock. But DT is much heavy metal, though I'd rather say "heavy rock", because like many modern bands, it leans much towards pop/rock/metal. I'm glad that they don't do metalcore.

► rateyourmusic.com/~Fastro 2672 ratings ▲ last.fm/user/Fastro 5556 artists ▲ www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=4933 266◄

Petrovsk Mizinski View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: December 24 2007
Location: Ukraine
Status: Offline
Points: 25210

Posted: March 10 2010 at 23:59

For Cert's information, math rock is as much an aesthetic/scene as it is music. Just ask David/Atavy as well, and he'll tell you this, as he's one of the more knowledgeable math rock guys around here.
It's surely not too hard to understand that.
It's a scene that originated in the late 80s in the US, that to some extent shared characteristics, if not musically, but aesthetically with hardcore punk and post hardcore. A lot of the math rockers back then really just dressed like they came out of the hardcore punk/post hardcore scene.
Math rock also has links with the indie rock scene too.
To understand math rock is not just to understand the music, but the culture and scene. I grew up with a sister heavily into the punk scene, so this stuff clicks with me because I understand the indie rock, hardcore punk, math rock and mathcore thing all fall together. For others it might not.
They don't really see themselves as being aligned with the classic prog movement as bands like Dream Theater or Porcupine Tree do. It's a different beast altogether

Edited by Petrovsk Mizinski - March 11 2010 at 00:00

Certif1ed

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559

Posted: March 11 2010 at 03:07

This appeared in my inbox - I'm assuming that the sender wishes to remain anonymous - but it made me LOL and spit coffee all over my monitor.

Thanks for that - now where are my tissues?

The important thing is not to stop questioning.

DavetheSlave View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 23 2007
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 492

Posted: March 11 2010 at 04:00

I didn't see what arrived in your inbox - want to laugh as well. As for the monitor thing - you ever tried sneezing in front of your monitor with a mouthful of coffee

Certif1ed

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559

Posted: March 11 2010 at 04:44

Fieldofsorrow wrote:

Something I don't understand in your argument, Certif1ed, is how Dream Theater brought little to the table that Metallica hadn't already offered.

In my mind they wrote music that was so much more intricate. Dream Theater employed far more complex rhythmic patterns - tackling terrors such as 15/8 and 21/16 sequences, and even ventured into polyrhythmic territory. In addition, the melodies covered an expansive range, rather than the somewhat restricted scope of Hetfield's voice, and in many places were modal, rather than based on the pentatonic. Their harmonies also broke from the 'power chord' syndrome, with 9th, 11th and 13th voicings, as well as much experimentation with suspended chords.

OK, so you've broken it down into 3 elemental fields, which is very helpful;

1. On the rhythmic front, while using "unusual" time signatures is more common in Prog than other genres, it is not exclusive to Prog - and neither are polyrhythms.

These are very nice mathematical devices, but more technical than progressive, because the end result doesn't really sound like new music, by which I mean it does not stop it sounding like Heavy Metal, but a revisit of the recurring tendency in metal to want to "prove itself" by making the music more technical and harder to play.

Indeed, Metallica played with rhythmic devices, albeit on a lesser scale, particularly on "...And Justice".

2. Melodically I can't really comment, as melody is probably the hardest area of music to prove anything in from a technical point of view, as so much is aesthetic.

I'm only really familiar with Dream Theater's early output - but the melodies on "Images and Words" aren't particularly interesting to me aesthetically and don't really sound so different to "ordinary" heavy metal. They're hardly comparable to the sprawling yet coherent melodies of Peter Gabriel while he was with Genesis.

The comparison to Metallica is fair - Hetfield is not the world's greatest vocalist, although there is surprising depth in his lyrics, particularly on Ride The Lightning, Master of Puppets and Justice.

However, this comparison doesn't establish the Prog credentials of Dream Theater as Prog from a vocal point of view - I've yet to hear anything beyond a somewhat second-rate Ronnie James Dio impersonation (IMO), and certainly nothing along the lines of "On Reflection" by Gentle Giant, "The Prophet's Song" by Queen or "Harold The Barrel" by Genesis.

3) Harmonically, Metallica were already breaking away from the minor pentatonic - even though Kirk does use it a lot in his solos, there are diatonic and modal tendencies - indeed, the harmonic minor scale is one of the most metal scales in existence, and the Phrygian mode is common in metal, as it gives that kind of "Eastern" sound - right back to Deep Purple. Michael Schenker (among others) was mixing pentatonic and diatonic back in the 1970s. This is all part of metal's evolutionary processes as a genre, and nothing to do with "Prog" per se.

The "power chord syndrome" was broken by Hendrix, and many, many metal bands based stuff on Hendrix - and suspended chords have been around in rock for ever - Radiohead used them on OK Computer, Barclay James Harvest used them - even Joni Mitchell used them.

The point really is that none of the rhythmic/harmonic/melodic exploration stops their music from sounding like Heavy Metal - which is what it is.

Compare with Gentle Giant, Genesis et al, where you get many, many moments in which you don't even think that you're listening to a Rock band - the music is too far beyond Rock.

Fieldofsorrow wrote:

Structurally, I believe that Metallica probably had the edge - their song form possessed that spontaneous feel we were recently discussing in your blog. (I find them progressive, regardless of this.) But in multiple respects, Dream Theater, whether you find them to be progressive or not, differed from Metallica, and in many cases their differences achieved a more sophisticated compositional approach.

The phrase "compositional approach" is the weasel term here - you presumably mean the techniques employed during composition, not the approach to the actual composition, which is where the Metallica structures came from.

This is a key difference between "technical" and "progressive" to my mind - it is certainly something that separates the two, despite the common ground, and is why I think that Metallica had the more sophisticated compositional approach, despite lacking the musical education of Dream Theater.

Think about it - Miles Davis had a sophisticated compositional approach too, but he didn't attend university to the best of my knowledge. I await correction

As I drunkenly ranted in my blog last night - the music should all be mixed up to the point that you are no longer aware of listening to the "super-genre".

As they say in the biz, it's all in the mix.

The important thing is not to stop questioning.