What does Dream Theater need ?

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 sircosick wrote:

Now, I ask you: I personally dislike DT but I consider them, anyway, a prog band, in the sense that they are complex (more than symphonic prog? Arguably), they have that epicosity (or epicness?) thing and, in general, there is a permanent use of odd time signatures and countless beat changes..... Then, what does make you state the abscense of prog in DT?

I won't go over all the bits and pieces that arose from comments that were, indeed designed to stir up a little discussion - I will even overlook TheT's comments about "idiotic" or somesuch .

This is the very bit I'm interested in - how people hear DT's music as "complex", and this post partially answers it.

In my view, "odd" time signatures are not complex in themselves - I quite often find myself writing riffs in 11/4, for example, as it's a very comfortable sig to write in. Often I extend this to 21/4 (usually 3 bars of 5 and one of 6), as that creates a jazzy undertone, and again, is very comfortable to play.

"Odd" time sigs do not, by themselves, constitute Prog Rock - I can think of several pop songs in time sigs that are not 2/3 or 4/4, such as "Golden Brown" by the Stranglers, "Turn it On Again" by Genesis - the latter, particularly, could be considered a grey area, as Genesis used to be a Prog band. However, the song itself does not sound Prog - and that's kind of the point.

Somewhere along the line, the MUSIC should sound Prog - or progressive, if you will.

The underlying structuring of the two DT albums I have reviewed (discounting the Metallica cover album) is so derivative of Metallica's structuring - on the micro level, such as the individual riffs as well as the macro - the overall song structure (on the whole, basic intro/verse/chorus with extended/multiple instrumental sections) that I see Metallica as the more progressive of the two bands.

This is nothing to do with preference.

The addition of keyboards would be a welcome departure, were it not for the fact that the keyboards are largely used as an additional guitar - bolstering out the rhythm section and providing similar style solo passages.

I know it gets DT fans riled, and most will simply accuse me of hating them (which I don't) - but it's still a question that I have yet to find an answer to. 

I think the main problem is that many fans are young, inexperienced musicians, who view anything difficult to play as being complex - which I suppose is kind of reasonable in a way. However, technically challenging does not necessarily equate to complex. It is difficult to play any music fast, but anyone can do it with practice. Once you've mastered the speed thing, it's not hard to learn definite rules, such as notes of a scale, beats to a bar, etc - again, practice is all it takes.

To me, Prog is not about "symphonic" or any other categorisation that I, for one, do not recognise. As an aside, "Symphonic" Prog is not symphonic. There is nothing in it that even vaguely resembles a symphony. It's not just Prog Metal I "pick on" - it's the whole notion system that seems to be developing of wishing to sub-categorise and pigeon-hole music (which is like trying to herd cats).

Progressive music since its inception in the world of Jazz in the late 1950s has been about combining the two skills of composition and improvisation. This is easily demonstrable in the most iconic Prog bands, less so in Prog bands that are widely held to be "second division" and not at all in bands that are not Prog - so this view of Prog, limited though it is, does hold water.

Let's think of some examples;

1. "The Musical Box" - 100% Prog, by this definition.
2. "Oh Yeah" (Can) - feels more like improv, but you just know it was designed that way - Prog,
3. "Easy Livin" (Uriah Heep) - quite obviously a rock song with no improv. Can't really call it a composition either - anyone who's ever tried to write a rock song will recognise the structure - and be extremely jealous that they didn't write such a great song 

It's all in the structure. Elements and details (like time sigs) don't really count - imagine if Beethoven (or anyone classically trained) tried to write rock music. Think of Sky... how often do the trained musicians just "get it wrong". Most have the improv trained right out of them.

You cannot teach someone how to improvise like Miles or Hendrix, just as you cannot teach anyone how to compose like Beethoven or Bach (both of whom were prolific and noted improvisers). There are rules you can learn on how to compose in their styles - but yet again, rules only need time to learn. They are not hard in themselves.

It is easy to hear the difference between someone who composes following the rules, someone who makes up their own rules, and someone who demonstrates that they understand the rules so well that they re-write the book.

Bear in mind, though, that Prog isn't just about these two things - it's obviously more than that, as several hundred "What is Prog?" threads have proven. However, the more Prog you hear, the more you realise that the "most interesting" stuff does indeed centre around this combination. Prog Metal is something else - but I have heard some that follows this line, and have enjoyed it more, specifically because of that. Examples = Fantomas, Spastic Ink, John Zorn.

When I listen to Prog, I want surprises. Could be just me, but I don't mind being a demanding listener. Impressive technical details and virtuosic firework displays are great - but quickly lose their shine when you realise that it is all like a particularly delicious sauce poured over a somewhat plain - or in some cases, unappetising meal.

It's kind of the opposite to what I get from the Mahavishnu - a particularly sumptuous spread of fine musical delicacies - with cold, thin and lumpy gravy made from cabbage water (waits for onrush of displeasure from McGlaughlin fans...)

I think it's nearly lunch time... 

Edited by Certif1ed - February 19 2008 at 06:23