What does Dream Theater need ?

Cylli Kat wrote: What part of It's most certainly not a case of not being allowed to have an opinion.  And it has even less to do with people's negative opinions.  Dream Theater certainly don't need me to defend them, their record speaks for itself. Did you miss?

Ad hominem. Disregarded.

Would you prefer if I addressed your reply line by line?

Once again, ad hominem.

"Sorry guys, we're not allowed to have opinions anymore." Cheap shot, and you know it.

I'm seeing a trend, here.

"And since when does somebody need to be a instrumental virtuoso to have an opinion about one?" Since when does being a virtuoso musician preclude me from offering my opinion?

Straw-man argument.

"I guess Leonard Maltin isn't allowed to have negative opinions about movies because he's never made them." Opinions are fine, but being a critic does not necessarily qualify one in the same way (using your analogy) that being a filmmaker, or director, an avid student or a participator in an art or craft may qualify someone. I'll phrase this differently; just because someone can build something with Legos, it doesn't make them an architect.

Ambiguous point.

And in the meantime, quit freaking out about negative opinions regarding bands you like. It doesn't/shouldn't affect you. I missed the part where I was freaking out.  Besides which, your argument here is self-refuting; it would appear that you are the one freaking out over my freaking out, which you, yourself say shouldn't be done.

Straw-man and ad hominem.

You took a portion of my reply to this thread which, apparently, you misconstrued and took umbrage over, then created motivations and arguments which you ascribed to me that were never implicitly nor explicitly intended or stated, and in the process completely missed the central point of what I was trying to say.

Straw-man, once again...

Here, I'll state it plainly: The whole beat on Dream Theater issue has been done to death, it is boring and pointless. I have no issues with disagreement, or spirited debate, but this issue has been hashed out to the nth degree and to repeatedly rehash it  seems a pointless waste of time.

Why stop at Dream Theater? I'm sure every single "bash on" thread for every band in existence has been done to death.


Edited by Avantgardehead - March 08 2008 at 01:53

Avantgardehead wrote: Cylli Kat wrote: Avantgardehead wrote: Cylli Kat wrote: if you think you can do what they've done for the last couple of decades, then step up to the freakin' plate and take your swing. In the meantime, quit knockin' what you, yourselves can't do... Sorry guys, we're not allowed to have opinions anymore. And since when does somebody need to be a instrumental virtuoso to have an opinion about one? I guess Leonard Maltin isn't allowed to have negative opinions about movies because he's never made them. And in the meantime, quit freaking out about negative opinions regarding bands you like. It doesn't/shouldn't affect you. You missed the important point I was trying to make, which was: This whole "If I were in Dream Theater, I would..." or, "Let's bash on Dream Theater" kind of thread is vapid 1. lacking or having lost life, sharpness, or flavor; insipid; flat: vapid tea. 2. without liveliness or spirit; dull or tedious: a vapid party; vapid conversation. insipid 1. without distinctive, interesting, or stimulating qualities; vapid: an insipid personality. 2. without sufficient taste to be pleasing, as food or drink; bland: a rather insipid soup. and pointlessly inane 1. lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly: inane questions. 2. empty; void. . It's most certainly not a case of not being allowed to have an opinion.  And it has even less to do with people's negative opinions.  Dream Theater certainly don't need me to defend them, their record speaks for itself. You have no idea of what I did or did not miss. I quoted a part of your post and gave what I thought about it. What you posted has nothing to do with what I quoted.

What part of
It's most certainly not a case of not being allowed to have an opinion.  And it has even less to do with people's negative opinions.  Dream Theater certainly don't need me to defend them, their record speaks for itself.
Did you miss?

Would you prefer if I addressed your reply line by line?

"Sorry guys, we're not allowed to have opinions anymore."
Cheap shot, and you know it.
"And since when does somebody need to be a instrumental virtuoso to have an opinion about one?"
Since when does being a virtuoso musician preclude me from offering my opinion?
"I guess Leonard Maltin isn't allowed to have negative opinions about movies because he's never made them."
Opinions are fine, but being a critic does not necessarily qualify one in the same way (using your analogy) that being a filmmaker, or director, an avid student or a participator in an art or craft may qualify someone.
I'll phrase this differently; just because someone can build something with Legos, it doesn't make them an architect.
"And in the meantime, quit freaking out about negative opinions regarding bands you like. It doesn't/shouldn't affect you."
I missed the part where I was freaking out.  Besides which, your argument here is logically self-refuting; it would appear that you are the one freaking out over my freaking out, which you, yourself wrote shouldn't be done.  Because, as you wrote, it shouldn't affect you.

You took a portion of my reply to this thread which, apparently, you misconstrued and took umbrage over, then created motivations and arguments which you ascribed to me that were never implicitly nor explicitly intended or stated, and in the process completely (and I would argue intentionally), missed the central point of what I was trying to say.

Here, I'll state it plainly: The whole beat on Dream Theater issue has been done to death, it is boring and pointless.
I have no issues with disagreement, or spirited debate, but this issue has been hashed out to the nth degree and to repeatedly rehash it  seems a pointless waste of time.


Edited by Cylli Kat - March 08 2008 at 01:49

cuncuna wrote: I got tired of this, so I called them. They just need a bit of milk, lettuce, sugar, some mustard and toilette paper.

Nevah meant ta be a Doutin' Thomas
Nothin' breaks lika broken promise!

lol!

MisterProg2112 wrote: p0mt3 wrote: MisterProg2112 wrote: ProgBagel wrote: I would like to see another Falling Into Infinity. Now that they are extremely popular for a prog band, I believe they have a lot less restrictions or pressures from the label. Of course, I think they over dramitized not being able to do what they want on Falling Into Infinity and their 'big struggle' but theres a lot of that in bands. Falling Into Infinity contained some of their best work, but was enveloped with a lot of sub-par tracks. Again, they don't seem to have too many restrictions, I would like to see something like that again, but better this time.   Falling into Infinity is a great album, I really don't know why some DT fans hate the album. Trial of Tears is among one of the great things they have written in their entire careers.   It's because they have heard Mike Portnoy bitch about that album time and time again and figure, 'Well, it must be true!' rather than actually listen to the thing and form an opinion of their own about it. (Just for the record, when being interviewed during the recording of that album, John Petrucci proclaimed it as their best yet, and while he says that every album, I truly think the only DT member who actually dislikes that album is Portnoy).   Trial of Tears, Hell's Kitchen and even Anna Lee are great tracks that really make the album special for me. I understand Portnoy's fustration during the making of the album, but looking back on the finished product . . . I still don't get what was supposed to be so horrible about it.   Probably because Portnoy is the "metalhead" of the band. He probably would've liked hollow years to have more brutal and metal lyrics

Edited by p0mt3 - March 07 2008 at 23:42

MisterProg2112 wrote: ProgBagel wrote: I would like to see another Falling Into Infinity. Now that they are extremely popular for a prog band, I believe they have a lot less restrictions or pressures from the label. Of course, I think they over dramitized not being able to do what they want on Falling Into Infinity and their 'big struggle' but theres a lot of that in bands. Falling Into Infinity contained some of their best work, but was enveloped with a lot of sub-par tracks. Again, they don't seem to have too many restrictions, I would like to see something like that again, but better this time.   Falling into Infinity is a great album, I really don't know why some DT fans hate the album. Trial of Tears is among one of the great things they have written in their entire careers.

You know what they do not need..a song like "Prophets of War" on their next album...I love DT but that is a little ridiculous.

Cylli Kat wrote: Avantgardehead wrote: Cylli Kat wrote: if you think you can do what they've done for the last couple of decades, then step up to the freakin' plate and take your swing. In the meantime, quit knockin' what you, yourselves can't do... Sorry guys, we're not allowed to have opinions anymore. And since when does somebody need to be a instrumental virtuoso to have an opinion about one? I guess Leonard Maltin isn't allowed to have negative opinions about movies because he's never made them. And in the meantime, quit freaking out about negative opinions regarding bands you like. It doesn't/shouldn't affect you. You missed the important point I was trying to make, which was: This whole "If I were in Dream Theater, I would..." or, "Let's bash on Dream Theater" kind of thread is vapid 1. lacking or having lost life, sharpness, or flavor; insipid; flat: vapid tea. 2. without liveliness or spirit; dull or tedious: a vapid party; vapid conversation. insipid 1. without distinctive, interesting, or stimulating qualities; vapid: an insipid personality. 2. without sufficient taste to be pleasing, as food or drink; bland: a rather insipid soup. and pointlessly inane 1. lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly: inane questions. 2. empty; void. . It's most certainly not a case of not being allowed to have an opinion.  And it has even less to do with people's negative opinions.  Dream Theater certainly don't need me to defend them, their record speaks for itself.

You have no idea of what I did or did not miss. I quoted a part of your post and gave what I thought about it. What you posted has nothing to do with what I quoted.

Avantgardehead wrote: Cylli Kat wrote: if you think you can do what they've done for the last couple of decades, then step up to the freakin' plate and take your swing. In the meantime, quit knockin' what you, yourselves can't do... Sorry guys, we're not allowed to have opinions anymore. And since when does somebody need to be a instrumental virtuoso to have an opinion about one? I guess Leonard Maltin isn't allowed to have negative opinions about movies because he's never made them. And in the meantime, quit freaking out about negative opinions regarding bands you like. It doesn't/shouldn't affect you.

You missed the important point I was trying to make, which was:

This whole "If I were in Dream Theater, I would..." or, "Let's bash on Dream Theater" kind of thread is
vapid

1.	lacking or having lost life, sharpness, or flavor; insipid; flat: vapid tea.

2.	without liveliness or spirit; dull or tedious: a vapid party; vapid conversation.

insipid

1.	without distinctive, interesting, or stimulating qualities; vapid: an insipid personality.

2.	without sufficient taste to be pleasing, as food or drink; bland: a rather insipid soup.

and pointlessly inane

1.	lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly: inane questions.

2.	empty; void.

.

It's most certainly not a case of not being allowed to have an opinion.  And it has even less to do with people's negative opinions.  Dream Theater certainly don't need me to defend them, their record speaks for itself.