QUEEN VS DREAM THEATER

Not everyone can write a cycle of arpeggios, in fact most bands do not write cycles of arpeggios. 

It's not hard, and Deep Purple did it. Among many others. Yngwie Malmsteen, for example. Not everyone does it because ultimately it's boring.

Metropolis is special because it isn't just some guitar virtuoso showing off how fast he can play a E minor arpeggio.  Metropolis is special because the arpeggios are constantly modulating in a Bach fashion that it is impossible to write any key signature for this part.

No - it's not impossible. One thing I've really noticed about Dream Theater is that they stick to safe tonalities, simply using modal scales and arpeggios to try to hide this fact.

And modulating in a Bach fashion is not only not impossible, but part of every Secondary school music pupil's basic education - you have to learn how to harmonise and modulate in the style of J. S. Bach before you can learn more advanced techniques.

I once wrote a computer program (back in 1991) that automatically harmonises melodies in the style of Bach, recalculating for modulations as necessary .

On top of that, playing those arpeggios in a signature other than 4/4 is an excellent composition technique.  Adding an extra beat to a phrase in a signature like 5/4 instead of 4/4 or 7/8 instead of 6/8 makes a band a more enjoyable listen.

To you, maybe. It's all academic - and merely a technique that's based in mathematics, not composition.

I don't find it's a more enjoyable listen because of polyrhythms - music is greater than the sum of its parts.

I see no flaws in Petrucci's counterpoint.

You know, I didn't think you would somehow...

  Now maybe Petrucci isn't an 18th Century Couterpoint musical genius, but most of his guitar composition surpasses 19th Century Counterpoint which is really quite simple.

Oh yes?

Care to give an example of so-called "simple" C19 counterpoint and where Petrucci surpasses it?

You haven't answered any of my other techical questions so far, so it's a safe bet that you can't.

On Goodnight Kiss, you just debated that Petrucci has not a clue about counterpoint, but now your saying that the solo is entirely calculated.  Dream Theater is a band that must be perfect on studio recordings, or else the band could not survive.  I wouldn't doubt for a second that the solo is calculated notation wise, but it has the flow of an improvised solo.  Especially the rythmn where Petrucci is really feeding off of the drums.

Calculated does not mean skillful counterpoint, so that point is moot.

Being "perfect" on studio recordings is meaningless unless the music is good too - you're still talking about execution, not composition.

You think a particular solo (you don't say which) has the flow of an improvised solo - I'd like to hear that particular solo, as that is one feature that is distinctly missing from most of Petrucci's soloing - it all sounds pre-calculated so that all notes fit the harmony mathematically - almost as if a computer had worked out where the notes should be and where the columns of vertical harmony should slot in like pre-fabricated blocks.

Solitary Shell is a perfect prelude to About To Crash (Reprise), because it is a constant build in tonality.

How? You make these statements as if they're fact, but do not have any evidence to back them up! I do not hear this "constant build in tonality" (whatever that is) of which you speak. Please elaborate, as I don't understand what you mean.

  The song starts off quite soft and "poco a poco" crescendos to the climax that About To Crash (Reprise) is.  Then About To Crash (Reprise) falls slightly and then crescendos to the true climax of the piece, Losing Time.

So it gets louder and quieter? Am I missing something?

As for Scenes From a Memory, the structure of the songs (especially the ones i mentioned earlier) is nothing short of excellent.  Overture 1928 constains great trades off melody between all the insturmentalist, a technique perfect by Brittish compoers like Gustav Holst. 

What does this mean? "trades off melody"?

I hear nothing that puts me in mind of Holst.

Holst's approach was strongest in harmonic textures - none of which I hear in Dream Theater, who always seem to choose the safe option rather than get experimental with harmonic textures.

Dance Of Eternity is technical brilliance and saying something like technical skill is not part of composing is a slam to brilliant composers like John Cage.

How so? Please bring some facts to your statements - this is meaningless drivel otherwise.

John Cage did not sweep pick arpeggios and scales to the best of my knowledge - indeed, a lot of Cage's approach was in philosophy.

As for the structure of the song, the cycle of time signature is very impresive and few parts are repeated.  The creativity of Jordan Rudess rag time interlude is something that i never saw coming.

It sounds awful to me - that's one part I particularly dislike, as it has no grounding in actual ragtime - it's more like a lazy impression of what it might sound like.

As for "cycles of time signatures", it's meaningless unless the music is somehow inproved by it.

One Last Time is incredibly simple compared to it's scene partner Dance Of Eternity, but i find it to be a great way to end the scene.  Finally Free, i mean come on.  Hating this song is just bigotry, it goes through so many tones and emotions.  There is something in this song that anyone can appreciate.

Hmm. Have to agree to disagree there - you cannot make such broad statements as if they're truth, as no two people appreciate music in the same way, as you seem to think.

With regards to Mercury and Rudess on the piano you slammed Rudess's sound and supported Mercury's piano spots as dramtic, humorous, and musically educated.  I say that Mercury's musical education does not hold a candlestick to Rudess's.  In support of Rudess, i use evidence of his studying at Julliard and his career being one of length and versitility first playing in a band like the Dixie Dregs and then later joining Dream Theater.  Rudess is a first class musician.

You miss the point entirely. Mercury's style shows education - but not necessarily musical education! It's absolutely clear where the music is grounded, and it's also clear that Mercury was hyper-inventive and of the type of person that played with music - improvised and created rather than painstakingly calculated the life out of.

Academic musical education has very little to do with rock music - in fact, it's probably better in most cases that rock musicians do not have too much of it or they go thinking they're something special - which shows in the music, which ends up sounding, well... academic.

It's ridiculous to slam Rudess's choice of synth sounds in a battle of creativity.  I say Rudess is creative because he uses most unconventional synth sounds and you defeat them because of tastes.  Maybe you don't like Rudess's sounds, ok that's fair, but that does not reduce his skill or creativity. 

Not really - timbre is one fifth of what makes music.

If I don't like Rudess' sounds, then that lessens his skill to my ears, by one fifth.

All music boils down to taste eventually - which is what you seem to be forgettting. You're presenting everything as if it's some kind of fact, which is why I'm picking up on it and wondering where your statements come from.

If it was just your opinion, I couldn't argue with it, could I?

Maybe Rudess's synth sounds in Losing Time, but Overture has brilliant authentic orchestral sounds.  Many keyboardists lust over the technology Kurzweil has in their synths.

Rudess invented those sounds, did he?

All in all, very unconvincing - but please don't stop trying to convince me - unless you think that somehow I'm being unfair or worse, plain ignorant. Arrogant and patronising I can live with

Dream Theater has some of the greatest compositional skills of any band. As evidence of their great compositional creativity let's take a song like Metropolis Part I, the arpeggitated section ending the insturmental section is sheer genius, not only is the arpeggio cycle brilliant writing, it shows amazing technique while the insturmentalists stay away from open strings.

Anyone can write a cycle of arpeggios - you're talking pure technique here, as you underlined in that last sentence - not skill in composition. Skill in composition is not about playing technique. At all. I reviewed "Images and Words", and "Metropolis Part 1" impresses me not one iota, as far as composition goes - it's decidedly below average IMHO.

More evidence would be Learning to Live where Petrucci does so many different layers of guitar harmonies giving the song the most grandiose of a feel. 

Brian May was doing guitar layers (and more of them - also backwards) looong before Petrucci. Petrucci sticks with very safe harmonies and precise "following" movement - he clearly hasn't got a clue about counterpoint or any real compositional technique.

What about the Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence epic?  The 42 minute masterpiece is amazing from the first not of Overture to the final chord of Losing time. 

Not in my opinion it isn't - I think it's awful.

Petrucci's solo in Goodnight Kiss shows incredible feel for his guitar.

Not to me it doesn't - it sounds calculated, clinical and decidedly unfeeling.

Soliatry Shell has bright atmosphere and sets up About To Crash (Reprise) perfectly.

Define "perfectly" - it sounds perfectly dreadful to me.

What about Scenes From a Memory, Overture 1928, Dance Of Eternity-One Last Time, and Finally Free are nothing less than brilliiant composition. 

Not in my opinion, and I'd bet that if I analysed the composition I'd find very simple structures and probably stolen riffs.

I hope you didn't say that Freddie Mercury has more musical education than the piano phoenomenon that attended Juliard at the age of nine. 

Where did I say that? What difference does it make to Rock music anyway?

Jordan Rudess would fit perfectly on keys for almost any band.

I doubt it very much!

You don't like Rudess's synths? 

No - the sounds he chooses suck worse than a sucking thing in Suck Street, Sucksville.

I think Rudess has done an excellent job straying from the typical analog synth sounds.  Rudess uses synths that sound closer to insturments than the simple analog fuzz. 

They sound like a digitized nightmare to me. Give me authentic analogue every time.

Rudess's Kurzweil also has the most authentic orchestral synths i have ever heard. 

You're joking, right? I spotted them straight away!

 I was shocked when i couldn't find orchestra credits anywhere in the Six Degres Of Inner Turbulence album.

I wasn't.

And none of this answers any of my questions, or helps the debate one iota, except to prove that you have a lot of opinions.

Which is fair enough - but try not to present them as some kind of fact, unless you have actual evidence to back it all up, OK?

Certif1ed wrote: Manunkind wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Silly poll - apples vs aardvarks, but no contest; Queen have it completely sewn up - they're one of the best bands in the archives (at their best, that is...). As for "pop rock", that statement clearly comes from someone who has never heard Queen II. And this is the point - Queen have one excellent album, whereas DT have at least four.  I don't think that's true - Queen have 4 excellent albums, some good albums and a couple of naff albums, while DT have only naff albums.

Your posts show one of two things.  One, you're a Queen fanboy, or two, you just really hate progressive metal. 

You like to draw conclusions based on trivial evidence then?

 Queen did some good stuff, but their music is not as original as everyone puts it up to be. 

Oh yes it is.

Can you actually say why it isn't?

 Queen was different for their time. 

...and different <> original?

 They didn't sound like the typical hard rock band from late '70s.  They sounded more influence by '40s jazz. 

Er... how so? And isn't that extremely progressive?

We're yet to talk about insturmental might of either of these bands, and i think the reason why is that Dream Theater is a CLEAR victor there.

That's not a reason - that's your opinion. Squeaky clean virtuosity with no actual compositional skills vs over average playing with exceptional compositional skills. I guess Queen win that one actually. Sorry to break it to you, like.

  John Myung has talent that is so far beyond John Deacon,

Possibly, but I bet John Myung would get bored doing JD bass lines. JD did what was right for Queen, just as Ringo Starr did what was right for the Beatles. I doubt very much that Mike Portnoy could have ever replaced Ringo. It's a silly comparison, as I said.

Rudess is a full time keyboardist as opposed to the spoofs Mercury did on piano,

Mercury's "spoofs" were often inspired and full of great humour and drama, and showed musical education - as you said, sometimes the music sounded like it came from a bygone age - now that's skill. Rudess, well, I'll reserve my opinions on his playing for when I can be bothered, but his choice of sounds sucks donkeys!

but i will say Petrucci and May would be a good comparison in creativity  and skill.

Hahahahahaha!  Nice one! Comparing Ocelots and Oranges - what's the point?

How about Mercury versus LaCheese? You left that one out. I wonder why

  Insturmentally, Dream Theater rapes Queen.

That's so sick, dude.

And unsupported opinion too. Opinions are like, well, you know...