QUEEN VS DREAM THEATER

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?

• 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.

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.