QUEEN VS DREAM THEATER

MikeEnRegalia wrote:  "Are XYZ prog? No, they're bad.", "Are XYZ a good band? No, they're not prog."

XYZ are actually a hair metal band from LA.

• Good vs. Bad
• Prog vs. Not Prog
• Inventive vs. Derivative

Why can't people keep these three things apart? "Are XYZ prog? No, they're bad.", "Are XYZ a good band? No, they're not prog." ... it's pathetic.

Dream Theater is not about creativity. IMO they are quite inventive ... but often they are re-combining things that other musicians did. I don't think that's a bad thing at all. My CD collection would be quite small (and boring) if it only contained albums of sheer brilliance and creativity.

Bach rarely broke the rules, i've studied quite a bit of Bach and i could count the amount of times he breaks his harmonic rules on my right hand.

Bach more or less invented the rules!

That's how he broke them - he formalised what had previously been more or less word-of-mouth, and added bits of his own. He broke the rules all the time - that's why he is one of the greatest composers ever!

He didn't really invent anything, formally - I think that's where you're getting mixed up - but his inventiveness in terms of the music and how to use harmony was staggering. For one single example, the 48 preludes and fugues with their myriad melodies, involved suspensions and incredible multi-part working are a shining testimony of what he could do compared with, say, Telemann, who wrote the same piece 450 times...

You couldn't even begin to count the number of times Bach broke the rules unless you understood fully every rule he broke - you'd have to understand all Bach's influences, such as the Italian Renaissance composers, like Monteverdi and Palestrina, the great British composers such as Byrd and Gibbons and the awesome German composers such as Buxtehude, who Bach practically worshipped, Telemann and Keiser, and the French composers such as Couperin.

Like Brian May, Bach was a great improviser, and interested in developing the instrument he played. Like Brian May, he played before heads of state. Like Brian May, he had curly hair. What more evidence do we need? Brian May is Bach.

Maybe Queen executed their music differently from Dream Theater, but does Queen's music even require the execution that a band like Dream Theater demands?

See, you're comparing the incomparable again. Queen's music demanded a completely different execution style to DT. I daresay that DT could copy it note for note, but they could never get the raw feeling that Queen had for music, because they simply don't have it. I've heard their covers of "Master Of Puppets", "Number of the Beast" and "Dark Side of the Moon", and what all those covers prove is that Dream Theater understand numbers.

I would hate to hear that Dream Theater had covered any Queen album - particularly Queen II. I doubt very much that they could cover A Night At The Opera - although I've no doubt that they could probably learn the notes. Wheel re-invention is something they do frequently - hence my stipulation that they're not particularly creative.

No, the arguement started when you said "Queen II is more creative than Dream Theater's entire catalogue".  Something i still disagree with, maybe Queen II vs. a specific Dream Theater catalogue, but to say that one album is more creative than Dream Theater's entire catalogue is nothing but extreme.

Ah! That's what upset you is it?

Guess what.

I was teasing.

But only just...

It might be extreme, but if I think it, am I wrong?

WHY?

Composition is based off of music theory, which is highly mathematical.  If someone were to know all the ins and outs of composing wouldn't they be making mathematically correct music. 

Music theory has a high degree of mathematics to it, that's true - but not even the great mathematician Bach used pure mathematics to compute his works. Making mathematically correct music takes all of the art out of it - sterilises it.

Composing music is about understanding the rules and breaking or bending them as only a human being can.

Using mathematics and computers is another way to produce music, but it'll never beat humans for pure creativity and invention.

Humans can create music without a great knowledge of mathematics - thus proving it's only a single element.

19th Century Counterpoint is much easier than 18th Century Counterpoint, the only true rule of 19th Century Counterpoint is the abscence of parallel 5ths, so therefore it would be quite easy for a musician like Petrucci to surpass C19.  I will say Petrucci is absent to C18 a much more difficult composition.

Again, that's a very broad and sweeping statement that is in no way connected with reality! The absence of parallel 5ths is NOT the only true rule of C19 counterpoint - where the heck did you learn that? Whoever told you that should be sacked.

Parallel 5th avoidance is a basis of composing in the style of J.S. Bach, who composed in the 17th century.

19th Century counterpoint is NOT easier than earlier counterpoint. On the contrary, Composers in the 19th Century applied counterpoint rules from previous eras and worked on their own methodologies, extending the rules to suit the new styles of Romanticism.

Execution and composition should work hand in hand.  I keep bringing up execution mainly because that is what makes Dream Theater a special listen.  It relates to composition becuase they have to compose before they play don't they? 

No - exectution is what comes after composition. I fully acknowledge that Dream Theater are all about execution. It's the compositions that I take issue with.

By "trades off melody" i mean that the insturmentalist are in a state of flux of who's playing the melody.  Holst first movement of his first military suite in Eb uses the chaconne melody with different insturments throughout the entire tune.  I see this influence in Overture 1928.

Passing a melody from part to part is no big deal - Deep Purple did it and so did Queen.

With Mercury being someone that just improvised and such, is it safe to say that Queen lacks the execution of Dream Theater? 

No. Queen executed their music differently to Dream Theater.

Maybe Queen is on a slightly higher level of creativity than Dream Theater, but does creativity equate musicianship?

It's a VERY large part of being in band that writes its own material, yes. If you're not creative, why bother, unless you just want to be a tribute band or in a symphony orchestra.

I think it's fair to say that Dream Theater has a higher level of execution than Queen, so should this arguement shift to what is more musical execution or creativity?

You decide - the argument started with your original post, which ran

AtLossForWords wrote: Queen did some good stuff, but their music is not as original as everyone puts it up to be.  Queen was different for their time.  They didn't sound like the typical hard rock band from late '70s.  They sounded more influence by '40s jazz.  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.  John Myung has talent that is so far beyond John Deacon, Rudess is a full time keyboardist as opposed to the spoofs Mercury did on piano, but i will say Petrucci and May would be a good comparison in creativity  and skill.  Insturmentally, Dream Theater rapes Queen.