Dream Theater: Prog innovators or merely imitators

For a band that was formed in the mid-80's they are releasing some mighty good music. Even just looking at the big 6 prog acts of the 70's, how does their output from the 90's compare to Dream Theater's most recent albums? Yes and Pink Floyd had good decades (though PF only had one new studio album). King Crimson had also released some good music, though under different names. Jethro Tull released new music, though as far as I know, it went kinda unnoticed. ELP and Genesis released some notoriously bad albums (the rating speak for them, not me). These dates correspond with where DT is right now in their career, considering they are 20+ years removed from possibly their best album, I would argue that they are still doing very well and releasing some good music. Are they still innovating? That's debatable, and not very likely. But the only thing they are imitating at this point is themselves.

Dellinger wrote: rogerthat wrote: Another point is they have a tendency to rely on some cliched modes of developing songs.  E.g  The way Surrounded opens with some cheesy singing over piano and moves on to a fairly hard rocking section but over rather 'happy' chords is very 80s.  That is also pretty typical of metal.  The 80s defined metal's horizons for a very long time and that is probably still the case to an extent so 80s modes of songwriting are very popular in metal.  Ballads HAVE to follow the power ballad pattern; there's no room for vulnerability, longing or tenderness as those are not very 'metal' qualities.  You'd notice that while Petrucci is immensely talented, a lot of his solos follow the patterns that many 80s metal/hard rock guitarists favoured.  Because if he tried to play like Hackett or Rothery, the fans wouldn't like it.  LaBrie's overwrought singing also relates to this, though I wonder if he can indeed sing any other way, given how he renders even classics like Time.  According to ex-Fates Warning vocalist Jon Arch, when he auditioned for Dream Theater, they tried to get him to sing in a way he didn't enjoy  because that's what they wanted.  They knew their audience well from the start and stuck to the winning formula.  What I am saying is that is why you may be left with the feeling they don't have a particularly identifiable sound because it evokes 80s a lot. I guess you could say LaBrie can sing very high or very softly. Though if he wants (or needs) to sing loud, he will go for that horrible high pitch of his. However, when he sings softly, such as he does with many of the other Pink Floyd covers, I actually rather enjoy his singing.

LaBrie has a great voice and astonishing range. The problem is when he sings softly, he can try too hard to emphasise the emotions. The Hey You cover is a good example. When he sings in a more metal, loud way, his diction gets battered high up (chorus of Caught in a web).

rogerthat wrote: Another point is they have a tendency to rely on some cliched modes of developing songs.  E.g  The way Surrounded opens with some cheesy singing over piano and moves on to a fairly hard rocking section but over rather 'happy' chords is very 80s.  That is also pretty typical of metal.  The 80s defined metal's horizons for a very long time and that is probably still the case to an extent so 80s modes of songwriting are very popular in metal.  Ballads HAVE to follow the power ballad pattern; there's no room for vulnerability, longing or tenderness as those are not very 'metal' qualities.  You'd notice that while Petrucci is immensely talented, a lot of his solos follow the patterns that many 80s metal/hard rock guitarists favoured.  Because if he tried to play like Hackett or Rothery, the fans wouldn't like it.  LaBrie's overwrought singing also relates to this, though I wonder if he can indeed sing any other way, given how he renders even classics like Time.  According to ex-Fates Warning vocalist Jon Arch, when he auditioned for Dream Theater, they tried to get him to sing in a way he didn't enjoy  because that's what they wanted.  They knew their audience well from the start and stuck to the winning formula.  What I am saying is that is why you may be left with the feeling they don't have a particularly identifiable sound because it evokes 80s a lot.

I guess you could say LaBrie can sing very high or very softly. Though if he wants (or needs) to sing loud, he will go for that horrible high pitch of his. However, when he sings softly, such as he does with many of the other Pink Floyd covers, I actually rather enjoy his singing.

infandous wrote: I hope those ridiculous "reviews" were posted for humor, as I don't really see the relevance here.........one uneducated listeners opinion is about as good as any other I suppose.However, as to the question at hand.........my personal opinion, since I first heard Images and Words in the mid-90's is that they were mostly imitators.  Some Rush riffs and drumming, some Pink Floyd atmosphere, some 70's fusion type instrumental workouts, 80's big hair band vocals, all mashed together with the "innovation" of metal distortion and double bass drumming.On the other hand, nobody had really done that up to that point (though it could be argued that Metallica created far more interesting "progressive metal" music, back in the 80's, than DT ever came up with later on).I don't think you can really overstate how important DT was (and maybe still is) to modern prog, though.  A lot of people on this site, and that I've met at prog festivals over the years, were turned onto prog rock via DT.  So whether or not they are originals or imitators (like most bands, I think they are somewhere in between), they certainly have had popularity and exposure well beyond the vast majority of most modern prog bands.  Regardless of my personal opinion of them, they must have done something right.

I'm not sure I'd agree that Metallica ever went truly progressive. Perhaps they just got close, but no more. Besides, I find most of their songs rather tedious (though there are indeed some songs from them I really love), while I do have loads of songs from DT that I really love a lot.

It's a bit of both.  One thing you have to understand is metal dudes think there is no other music like metal on the planet.  Yeah, everything else, be it rock, jazz, classical, funk whatever is grossly inferior.  Therefore, for everything rock does, there has to be a metal equivalent because that is what metalheads are going to listen to.  (And by the way, I refer here to a certain kind of metalhead.  Not all metalheads, including self, are like that).  They don't want Zappa or Sparks, they want Faith No More or Freak Kitchen which is basically the metal equivalent of those bands/artists.  Likewise, they don't want Rush or Yes.  They want a metal equivalent of these bands.  That is the gap that Dream Theater filled in the 90s.  Since there had been no out and out metal band before (Deep Purple/Rainbow don't count, I mean metal influenced by Iron Maiden/Metallica) that relied so much on complex keyboard-guitar interplay, there was a certain freshness to their sound at that time.  Fates Warning was already doing something somewhat on those lines but they were a lot tighter and relied less on long interludes.  DT by incorporating long interludes evoked prog rock a lot more.  In fairness to them, Petrucci's guitarwork was also more inspired at that time and showed more than just flashes of originality.  But after a while, as it happens with so many bands, DT became a formula to endlessly regurgitate for the satisfaction of fans and the 'dream' part of the name receded in relevance.  I mean, it's more like they are dreaming they are still in the 90s, still just released Images & Words.  They aren't really dreaming up anything fresh.  And again, that is hard and a lot of bands that lasted that long got stuck in a rut so there's no reason why DT should be singled out for criticism on that count.

Edited by rogerthat - June 09 2014 at 19:21

^I was using copy as in a reproduction of music note per musical note but as a synonym, well, you got me there. 

Edited by SteveG - June 09 2014 at 16:57

Catcher10 wrote: SteveG wrote: Mirror Image wrote: If they were innovators, what did they innovate? But, if they were imitators, who did they imitate? Those are the questions. If this is a philosophical question then I'll have to consult my wife. Every day she keeps telling me how smart she is! But seriously, for an example of DT's imitation, I think back to the opening track from the second disc of the Six Degrees album titled Overture. If I remember correctly, it started off with a Moody Blues style Day's Of Future Passed album orchestral piece, morphed into short loud bass/drum/guitar section, resumed with synthesized strings that resembled the Eldorado overture from ELO before Petrucci caps off the song with one of his best Brian May impersonations. Stunningly beautiful piece but hardly original. Right now I can't think of anything original by them but the day's not over yet. Well it is original DT music, maybe you are using the word original in a different way. I am sure nobody on this site has in-depth knowledge to say that when they recorded Overture DT were copying The Moody Blues, ELO and Queen, or even if they got inspiration from those bands in that one pc of music. Not every pc of music any band creates has to be innovative or imitated. This thread is going all over the place, or it can it seems. In the title of this post you can insert pretty much any band name (nsert Band Name): Prog innovators or merely imitators

Correct.  I shoud have said that the peice was beautiful but completely derivative. I agree that not every pc of music should be innovative but a majority of it should. You seem to know what I'm on about so using your (insert Band Name) here suggestion would indeed introduce many wandering threads. BTW, saying that a PC of music is in the style of someone else's music is not copying, it is only imitating the style of the music. Big difference.                                                                                         

Edited by SteveG - June 09 2014 at 16:41

Catcher10 wrote: Well at some point it seems all bands efforts move sideways when they get in a rut.....IMO right now DT are in a rut, for sure the last two albums are nothing ground breaking from an innovation view. When I think about their early albums like Scenes, SDoIT, Awake those were some pretty innovative albums and a lot of new prog/rock/metal bands acknowledge them as innovators. Imitators, not sure as most bands do imitate the bands they get inspiration from, maybe not flown blown imitation but there are bits and pcs mixed in usually. With DT you can hear Rush, Yes, Genesis, PF, Metallica, Iron Maiden......but DT sounds like DT at least to me. The key to me for DT is will they get out of this rut and create some new music to get excited about, in prog years they are not that old to learn something new or actually create a great album again. Portnoy is the only one who since the breakup has actually made some pretty good music albeit as a session drummer on some, but still, his work with Morse, Transatlantic and Winery Dogs is pretty damn good. All this IMO

Your comments about Rush influences are dead on, but this band's sound was never immediately identifable to me. Perhaps if they a had a more distinctive vocalist. My father used to be able to recognise Geddy after just one syllable.(Perhaps because he hated his voice!) Not knocking La Brie, but his voice just doesn't stand out.


Edited by SteveG - June 09 2014 at 18:37

infandous wrote: SteveG wrote: I would like to think that the answer to most arguments is somewhere in the middle and your response was very insightful. The reason I asked the question in the first place was because after reading so many responses from members to the "What does progressive mean to you?" post, I was curious as to why so many prog bands and fans stay in their comfort zone, for lack of a better term. Thanks again for your response. No problem, glad I could help.  As to "comfort zone".............I think the vast majority of music listeners (heck, musicians as well) always stay in theirs.  Prog rock is supposed to be different, but I think it's the rare exception where that is true.  Usually, after a certain age, most people have formed their views on most subjects, and are highly unlikely to change them barring some dramatic event that forces a change.I notice people often get flac on here for not recognizing the brilliance of certain pop artists and mainstream music, while others seem to think that anything ever remotely conventionally melodic is too safe and "easy".   People have comfort zones because people need to have stability in their lives, which seems to become more important the older one gets.  This is not an absolute of course, as there are many exceptions (which tend to stand out and be noticed more because they are exceptions), but in general, everybody has a comfort zone.

Yes, I'm one of those always looking for a way to invent a better musical mousetrap but your words about people's need for a "comfort zone" are wisdom indeed.

Maybe DT was a band that push the progressive side of the metal to the edge by mixing the symphonic side of Yes, the hard rock and metal side of Rush and Metallica. I don't think they create the genre, but they find a great balance between musicianship and emotion in their songs. However, lately, the band is starting to repeat a bit too much the same formula. So to answer the question, mot totally innovator and not totally imitator.