QUEEN VS DREAM THEATER
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics related to progressive music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13228
Printed Date: January 09 2025 at 19:03
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: QUEEN VS DREAM THEATER
Posted By: Fraja
Subject: QUEEN VS DREAM THEATER
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 12:28
|
You know me I'll vote QUEEN!
|
Replies:
Posted By: annt
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 12:29
|
You don't know me, but I'll vote Queen as well.
|
Posted By: Paulieg
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 12:29
|
I'll vote Dream Theater!!
|
Posted By: Cygnus
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 12:32
|
These vs theads are very popular as I can see.
Well DT for me but only for a bit .
|
Posted By: magog
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 12:39
|
Nobody will care of it, but this is the last time I vote a poll about the heavy metal band Dream Theater
|
Posted By: NutterAlert
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 12:47
|
We need more polls like recent Canterbury one, rather than all these A v's B peeing contests.
-------------
Proud to be an un-banned member since 2005
|
Posted By: nimrodel
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 12:58
queen!!!
-------------
We want... a shrubbery!
|
Posted By: Ed_The_Dead
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 13:02
Any other bright Ideas?
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/ed_the_dead/?chartstyle=asimpleblue5">
|
Posted By: magog
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 13:03
 NutterAlert wrote:
We need more polls like recent Canterbury one, rather than all these A v's B peeing contests.
|
Thank you Nutter Alert, but I have to say my poll about Canterbury nearly passed under silence...
|
Posted By: krauthead
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 13:27
Queen, only have their first but in this fight Queen is the solid title holder!
-------------
*Dancing madly backwards on a sea of air* - Captain Beyond
|
Posted By: eduardossc
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 13:34
|
What is this poll doing here?..A poll about two bands that hardly present any prog element?
|
Posted By: eduardossc
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 13:35
|
Oh sorry, metal-prog and rock-pop-prog bands
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 13:53
This poll sucks.
-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Ed_The_Dead
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 13:55
Posted By: daghrastubfari
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 14:03
|
Don't really like both of them, but I voted for Queen
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 14:25
|
Silly poll - apples vs aardvarks, but no contest; Queen have it completely sewn up - they're one of the best bands in the archives (at their best, that is...).
As for "pop rock", that statement clearly comes from someone who has never heard Queen II.
|
Posted By: horza
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 14:29
dream theater followed by queen
-------------
Originally posted by darkshade:
Calling Mike Portnoy a bad drummer is like calling Stephen Hawking an idiot.
|
Posted By: The Miracle
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 18:06
|
You know me I'll vote DREAM THEATER!
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/ocellatedgod" rel="nofollow - last.fm
|
Posted By: The Wizard
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 18:36
I'm kind of sick of these, but Queen, by far, a the better band.
-------------
 
|
Posted By: frippertronik
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 18:46
|
queen was my first introduction to the world of music, their first four albums are masterpieces of music. DT are good musicians but they never could move me like queen.
queen for president!!!!!!!!!!!
-------------
a plague of lighthouse keepers
|
Posted By: ProgPartin
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 19:18
|
DT have great player, no question about it. But Queen put so much in to
the music and lyrics that DT can't touch them. DT made a huge mark on
the Prog world, but Queen has infuened the whole world.
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 19:35
DT outclass queen in all arears
-------------
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
|
Posted By: Drew
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 21:14
|
DT- more of a MANLY band if you know what I mean..............
|
Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 21:16
Posted By: Drew
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 21:18
|
^LOL
|
Posted By: transend
Date Posted: October 18 2005 at 22:12
|
I love both bands...
I prefer DT's albums...
but LIVE!
Jeez, Queen sh*t on almost anyone live, for energy, Freddie was amazing in concert.
So I chose Queen...what shows I saw with them onstage..
|
Posted By: FragileDT
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 00:29
Why are we comparing the most random bands and making polls about
them? Dream Theater and Queen are not related and are nothing like each
other. They are not comparable.
-------------
One likes to believe
In the freedom of music
But glittering prizes
And endless Compromises
Shatter the illusion
Of integrity
|
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 00:58
Compare A Night At The Opera with Scenes From A Memory and you will know which I voted for
-------------
I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT
|
Posted By: Cygnus X-2
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 01:02
Posted By: Citanul
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 02:56
FragileDT wrote:
Why are we comparing the most random bands and making polls about
them? Dream Theater and Queen are not related and are nothing like each
other. They are not comparable. |
I agree. Although at least comparing Dream Theater and Queen is
better than comparing Dream Theater and Van der Graaf Generator.
-------------
Be or be not. There is no question. - Yoda, Prince of Denmark
|
Posted By: JesusBetancourt
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 03:01
|
Citanul wrote:
FragileDT wrote:
Why are we comparing the most random bands and making polls about
them? Dream Theater and Queen are not related and are nothing like each
other. They are not comparable. |
I agree. Although at least comparing Dream Theater and Queen is better than comparing Dream Theater and Van der Graaf Generator.
|
Yeah....What was that comparison all about?
-------------
"He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water"
John 7:38
|
Posted By: Pafnutij
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 04:03
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 04:41
Dream Theater.I was never a big Queen fan.
-------------
|
Posted By: JesusBetancourt
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 04:53
|
I cant stand eighter of them but if I was forced to choose between the less painfull of the two, I would definitly pick Queen.
-------------
"He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water"
John 7:38
|
Posted By: Nazgul
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 04:59
Ed_The_Dead wrote:
Any other bright Ideas? |
Alien vs Predator will be next
|
Posted By: Citanul
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 05:14
Nazgul wrote:
Ed_The_Dead wrote:
Any other bright Ideas? |
Alien vs Predator will be next
|
Freddy vs Jason?
-------------
Be or be not. There is no question. - Yoda, Prince of Denmark
|
Posted By: Fraja
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 05:56
tuxon wrote:
Compare A Night At The Opera with Scenes From A Memory and you will know which I voted for |
WELL??????????????????????????..............................
|
Posted By: porter
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 06:26
|
sleeper wrote:
DT outclass queen in all arears |
HAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA....
HAHAHAHAHA....HAHAH....HAHA...HA......
....HA....
...GOOD JOKE, REALLY!
-------------
"my kingdom for a horse!" (W. Shakespeare, "Richard III")
|
Posted By: M. B. Zapelini
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 06:51
|
FragileDT wrote:
Why are we comparing the most random bands and making polls about
them? Dream Theater and Queen are not related and are nothing like each
other. They are not comparable. |
The next pointless comparison will be Ramones and ELP!!
By the way, my vote goes to Dream Theater for a simple reason: Queen is a great band with fabulous musicians and definitely must be at a list of the most important rock bands of all time, but I simply don't like them!! Please note that I have already listened to ALL Queen's catalogue and paid special attention to "Queen", "Queen II", "Sheer Heart Attack", "A Night at the Opera", "A Day at the Races", "News of the World", "Jazz", "The Game", "The Miracle" and "Innuendo" and I still don't like them...
-------------
"He's a man of the past and one of the present"
PETER HAMMILL
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 07:23
|
It's like choosing between the plague and the cholera.
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 07:47
|
oliverstoned wrote:
It's like choosing between the plague and the cholera. |
the plage ... I thought that was Black Metal and Death Metal.
-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 07:59
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 08:02
|
oliverstoned wrote:
There's always worst! |
Yes ... Can - Landed for instance.
-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Bj-1
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 08:02
|
Dream Theater!
-------------
RIO/AVANT/ZEUHL - The best thing you can get with yer pants on!
|
Posted By: Ed_The_Dead
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 10:35
Posted By: Dream Theater
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 15:44
Dream Theater = 29 votes
Queen ; ;
= 29 votes
Wow! 
-------------
[IMG]http://www.travelwithachallenge.com/Images/Travel_Article_Library/Sacred-Travel/Machu-Picchu-350.jpg"> [IMG]http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a63/panchopc1/machupicchu-1.jpg">
|
Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 16:07
|
^ Yea, either people really suck or just are close-minded elitsts
|
Posted By: AtLossForWords
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 16:24
There is no way i would ever consider Queen to be better than Dream Thetaer. Queen was somewhat original for their time, but Dream Theater is a band that i consider to be one of the most creative ever despite the lack of creativity in the later two albums.
-------------
 
"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls."
|
Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 16:31
|
^ And on parts in Six Degrees too
|
Posted By: AtLossForWords
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 17:31
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 17:43
|
AtLossForWords wrote:
There is no way i would ever consider Queen to be better than Dream Thetaer. Queen was somewhat original for their time, but Dream Theater is a band that i consider to be one of the most creative ever despite the lack of creativity in the later two albums. |
Queen II is far more creative than all the Dream Theater catalogue combined.
Dream Theater are many things, but original is not really one of them - now let's be honest here. Where are the borrowed riffs in any of Queen's material?
And hand-in-hand with originality goes creativity. And the scope of Queen's work is phenomenal - practically unmatched by any band.
I could start with the unparalleled vocal harmonies and go from there...
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 17:57
Certif1ed wrote:
AtLossForWords wrote:
There is no way i would ever consider Queen to be better than Dream Thetaer. Queen was somewhat original for their time, but Dream Theater is a band that i consider to be one of the most creative ever despite the lack of creativity in the later two albums. |
Queen II is far more creative than all the Dream Theater catalogue combined.
Dream Theater are many things, but original is not really one of them - now let's be honest here. Where are the borrowed riffs in any of Queen's material?
And hand-in-hand with originality goes creativity. And the scope of Queen's work is phenomenal - practically unmatched by any band.
I could start with the unparalleled vocal harmonies and go from there...
|
That's quite unfair. Queen II was written in the early 70s, Dream Theater started in the 90s. When I listen to 80s Queen I hear a LOT of borrowed riffs. And even in their 70s work there are MANY concepts they took from 20s/30s/40s music.
BTW: It's funny ... I saw that you had posted in this thread and knew EXACTLY what you had posted.
-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: AtLossForWords
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 18:11
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
AtLossForWords wrote:
There is no way i would ever consider Queen to be better than Dream Thetaer. Queen was somewhat original for their time, but Dream Theater is a band that i consider to be one of the most creative ever despite the lack of creativity in the later two albums. |
Queen II is far more creative than all the Dream Theater catalogue combined.
Dream Theater are many things, but original is not really one of them - now let's be honest here. Where are the borrowed riffs in any of Queen's material?
And hand-in-hand with originality goes creativity. And the scope of Queen's work is phenomenal - practically unmatched by any band.
I could start with the unparalleled vocal harmonies and go from there...
|
That's quite unfair. Queen II was written in the early 70s, Dream Theater started in the 90s. When I listen to 80s Queen I hear a LOT of borrowed riffs. And even in their 70s work there are MANY concepts they took from 20s/30s/40s music.
BTW: It's funny ... I saw that you had posted in this thread and knew EXACTLY what you had posted.
|
i totally disagree, maybe if you were to say that Queen II is more creative than a single Dream Theater album, you might have a fair position. You error in saying that it's more creative than the entire Dream Theater discography. Let me reminded that this discography spans from a hair metal progressive album with Charlie Dominci on When Dream and Day Unite to Progressive Thrash Metal on Train of Thought. This alone means that Dream Theater has had a varied career. Going further into creativity, how can you doubt a band that makes a song like Dance of Eternity, a straight ahead tech song and throws a ragtime piano solo in the middle, or the brilliance of Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence, which i consider to be a musically flawless albums, especially after studying it.
-------------
"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls."
|
Posted By: drumsandbass
Date Posted: October 19 2005 at 18:16
Sorry but DT is way more talented in this case. There music never seems
boring to me and theyve got Portnoy and Petrucci! Although Mercury buries
LaBrie in the vocal department, but then again so do many other people
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 20 2005 at 00:19
|
Don't care for the genre, their music has coherence and structure I can't find in DT.
Iván
-------------
|
Posted By: Fraja
Date Posted: October 20 2005 at 07:25
AtLossForWords wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
AtLossForWords wrote:
There is no way i would ever consider Queen to be better than Dream Thetaer. Queen was somewhat original for their time, but Dream Theater is a band that i consider to be one of the most creative ever despite the lack of creativity in the later two albums. |
Queen II is far more creative than all the Dream Theater catalogue combined.
Dream Theater are many things, but original is not really one of them - now let's be honest here. Where are the borrowed riffs in any of Queen's material?
And hand-in-hand with originality goes creativity. And the scope of Queen's work is phenomenal - practically unmatched by any band.
I could start with the unparalleled vocal harmonies and go from there...
|
That's quite unfair. Queen II was written in the early 70s, Dream Theater started in the 90s. When I listen to 80s Queen I hear a LOT of borrowed riffs. And even in their 70s work there are MANY concepts they took from 20s/30s/40s music.
BTW: It's funny ... I saw that you had posted in this thread and knew EXACTLY what you had posted.
|
i totally disagree, maybe if you were to say that Queen II is more creative than a single Dream Theater album, you might have a fair position. You error in saying that it's more creative than the entire Dream Theater discography. Let me reminded that this discography spans from a hair metal progressive album with Charlie Dominci on When Dream and Day Unite to Progressive Thrash Metal on Train of Thought. This alone means that Dream Theater has had a varied career. Going further into creativity, how can you doubt a band that makes a song like Dance of Eternity, a straight ahead tech song and throws a ragtime piano solo in the middle, or the brilliance of Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence, which i consider to be a musically flawless albums, especially after studying it. |
I agree with Certif1ed Queen II is MASTERPIECE!!What exactly is Train of Thought...........progressive?????I don't think so............
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 20 2005 at 07:29
AtLossForWords wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
AtLossForWords wrote:
There is no way i would ever consider Queen to be better than Dream Thetaer. Queen was somewhat original for their time, but Dream Theater is a band that i consider to be one of the most creative ever despite the lack of creativity in the later two albums. |
Queen II is far more creative than all the Dream Theater catalogue combined.
Dream Theater are many things, but original is not really one of them - now let's be honest here. Where are the borrowed riffs in any of Queen's material?
And hand-in-hand with originality goes creativity. And the scope of Queen's work is phenomenal - practically unmatched by any band.
I could start with the unparalleled vocal harmonies and go from there...
|
That's quite unfair. Queen II was written in the early 70s, Dream Theater started in the 90s. When I listen to 80s Queen I hear a LOT of borrowed riffs. And even in their 70s work there are MANY concepts they took from 20s/30s/40s music.
BTW: It's funny ... I saw that you had posted in this thread and knew EXACTLY what you had posted.
|
i totally disagree, maybe if you were to say that Queen II is more creative than a single Dream Theater album, you might have a fair position. You error in saying that it's more creative than the entire Dream Theater discography. Let me reminded that this discography spans from a hair metal progressive album with Charlie Dominci on When Dream and Day Unite to Progressive Thrash Metal on Train of Thought. This alone means that Dream Theater has had a varied career. Going further into creativity, how can you doubt a band that makes a song like Dance of Eternity, a straight ahead tech song and throws a ragtime piano solo in the middle, or the brilliance of Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence, which i consider to be a musically flawless albums, especially after studying it.
|
Your post doesn't have anything to do with mine. The highlighted statement couldn't be more far from the truth ... it's obvious that you intended to answer to Certif1ed's post.
Let me summarize my post in simple words:
- I don't think that Queen are better than Dream Theater.
- I don't think that Queen II is better than any of the Dream Theater masterpieces ... it MIGHT be better than WDADU.
- The bands are not really comparable anyway.
-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: October 20 2005 at 07:31
Its bloody daft comparing these bands as most prog metal fans will vote for DT and non prog metal fans will vote for QUEEN...anyways ye keep bringing up this one album that queen has released...and QUEEN bores me to tears with their boring and non inspired melodies
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif -
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 20 2005 at 07:35
Actually, there are some pretty divine melodies on Queen II ... Fairy Feller, White Queen, Ogre Battle, Black Queen ... and on their other albums as well. IMHO one might even say that Queen are one of the ten bands with the best sense for melody.
-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: October 20 2005 at 07:37
|
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Actually, there are some pretty divine melodies on Queen II ... Fairy Feller, White Queen, Ogre Battle, Black Queen ... and on their other albums as well. IMHO one might even say that Queen are one of the ten bands with the best sense for melody. |
Master of melody=Iron Maiden...listen to Sign of the cross...nobody is better in terms of timechanges
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif -
|
Posted By: Fraja
Date Posted: October 20 2005 at 07:51
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
AtLossForWords wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
AtLossForWords wrote:
There is no way i would ever consider Queen to be better than Dream Thetaer. Queen was somewhat original for their time, but Dream Theater is a band that i consider to be one of the most creative ever despite the lack of creativity in the later two albums. |
Queen II is far more creative than all the Dream Theater catalogue combined.
Dream Theater are many things, but original is not really one of them - now let's be honest here. Where are the borrowed riffs in any of Queen's material?
And hand-in-hand with originality goes creativity. And the scope of Queen's work is phenomenal - practically unmatched by any band.
I could start with the unparalleled vocal harmonies and go from there...
|
That's quite unfair. Queen II was written in the early 70s, Dream Theater started in the 90s. When I listen to 80s Queen I hear a LOT of borrowed riffs. And even in their 70s work there are MANY concepts they took from 20s/30s/40s music.
BTW: It's funny ... I saw that you had posted in this thread and knew EXACTLY what you had posted.
|
i totally disagree, maybe if you were to say that Queen II is more creative than a single Dream Theater album, you might have a fair position. You error in saying that it's more creative than the entire Dream Theater discography. Let me reminded that this discography spans from a hair metal progressive album with Charlie Dominci on When Dream and Day Unite to Progressive Thrash Metal on Train of Thought. This alone means that Dream Theater has had a varied career. Going further into creativity, how can you doubt a band that makes a song like Dance of Eternity, a straight ahead tech song and throws a ragtime piano solo in the middle, or the brilliance of Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence, which i consider to be a musically flawless albums, especially after studying it.
|
Your post doesn't have anything to do with mine. The highlighted statement couldn't be more far from the truth ... it's obvious that you intended to answer to Certif1ed's post.
Let me summarize my post in simple words:
- I don't think that Queen are better than Dream Theater.
- I don't think that Queen II is better than any of the Dream Theater masterpieces ... it MIGHT be better than WDADU.
- The bands are not really comparable anyway.
|
Queen II is definetly better than WDADU!!!!!!!!
|
Posted By: porter
Date Posted: October 20 2005 at 09:22
maidenrulez wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Actually, there are some pretty divine melodies on Queen II ... Fairy Feller, White Queen, Ogre Battle, Black Queen ... and on their other albums as well. IMHO one might even say that Queen are one of the ten bands with the best sense for melody. |
Master of melody=Iron Maiden...listen to Sign of the cross...nobody is better in terms of timechanges
|
don't make me laugh
-------------
"my kingdom for a horse!" (W. Shakespeare, "Richard III")
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 20 2005 at 09:24
maidenrulez wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Actually, there are some pretty divine melodies on Queen II ... Fairy Feller, White Queen, Ogre Battle, Black Queen ... and on their other albums as well. IMHO one might even say that Queen are one of the ten bands with the best sense for melody. |
Master of melody=Iron Maiden...listen to Sign of the cross...nobody is better in terms of timechanges
|
Again it's difficult to compare ... I still think Queen outgun most other bands in terms of melody.
BTW: Timechanges don't have anything to do with melody.
-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Phil
Date Posted: October 20 2005 at 09:25
Posted By: Cygnus
Date Posted: October 20 2005 at 10:35
|
King of Loss wrote:
^ Yea, either people really suck or just are close-minded elitsts |
Or they have different taste...
|
Posted By: Fraja
Date Posted: October 20 2005 at 10:57
maidenrulez wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Actually, there are some pretty divine melodies on Queen II ... Fairy Feller, White Queen, Ogre Battle, Black Queen ... and on their other albums as well. IMHO one might even say that Queen are one of the ten bands with the best sense for melody. |
Master of melody=Iron Maiden...listen to Sign of the cross...nobody is better in terms of timechanges |
What????????????Are you serious??????????
|
Posted By: Flip_Stone
Date Posted: October 20 2005 at 12:56
|
What's the deal with constantly comparing various bands to Dream Theater? They aren't very good.
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 20 2005 at 16:42
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
AtLossForWords wrote:
There is no way i would ever consider Queen to be better than Dream Thetaer. Queen was somewhat original for their time, but Dream Theater is a band that i consider to be one of the most creative ever despite the lack of creativity in the later two albums. |
Queen II is far more creative than all the Dream Theater catalogue combined.
Dream Theater are many things, but original is not really one of them - now let's be honest here. Where are the borrowed riffs in any of Queen's material?
And hand-in-hand with originality goes creativity. And the scope of Queen's work is phenomenal - practically unmatched by any band.
I could start with the unparalleled vocal harmonies and go from there...
|
That's quite unfair. Queen II was written in the early 70s, Dream Theater started in the 90s. When I listen to 80s Queen I hear a LOT of borrowed riffs. And even in their 70s work there are MANY concepts they took from 20s/30s/40s music.
BTW: It's funny ... I saw that you had posted in this thread and knew EXACTLY what you had posted.
|
Maybe, because at a subconscious level, you know I speak the truth
I don't hear many borrowed riffs in Queen's 1980s material - but then I'm not really keen on that era of Queen.
To use concepts from 20s/30s/40s music is arguably more progressive than using excerpts from 1700s/1800s/1900s music, as so many other Prog bands did in the 1970s (before c18. in some cases - e.g. Gentle Giant).
Using concepts is one thing Queen did in an exemplary way in the 1970s - they were and remain a benchmark that has yet to be surpassed. Taking actual musical ideas without actually progressing them, as Dream Theater (still) do is another - they seem to see other bands' benchmarks as goals yet to be achieved.
|
Posted By: DT_bast
Date Posted: October 20 2005 at 16:47
As always, I vote for DREAM THEATER, one of the best bands ever!
They rule, but I do like some songs from Queen, my favorite being the very popular Bohemian Rhapsody.
|
Posted By: AtLossForWords
Date Posted: October 20 2005 at 19:32
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
AtLossForWords wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
AtLossForWords wrote:
There is no way i would ever consider Queen to be better than Dream Thetaer. Queen was somewhat original for their time, but Dream Theater is a band that i consider to be one of the most creative ever despite the lack of creativity in the later two albums. |
Queen II is far more creative than all the Dream Theater catalogue combined.
Dream Theater are many things, but original is not really one of them - now let's be honest here. Where are the borrowed riffs in any of Queen's material?
And hand-in-hand with originality goes creativity. And the scope of Queen's work is phenomenal - practically unmatched by any band.
I could start with the unparalleled vocal harmonies and go from there...
|
That's quite unfair. Queen II was written in the early 70s, Dream Theater started in the 90s. When I listen to 80s Queen I hear a LOT of borrowed riffs. And even in their 70s work there are MANY concepts they took from 20s/30s/40s music.
BTW: It's funny ... I saw that you had posted in this thread and knew EXACTLY what you had posted.
|
i totally disagree, maybe if you were to say that Queen II is more creative than a single Dream Theater album, you might have a fair position. You error in saying that it's more creative than the entire Dream Theater discography. Let me reminded that this discography spans from a hair metal progressive album with Charlie Dominci on When Dream and Day Unite to Progressive Thrash Metal on Train of Thought. This alone means that Dream Theater has had a varied career. Going further into creativity, how can you doubt a band that makes a song like Dance of Eternity, a straight ahead tech song and throws a ragtime piano solo in the middle, or the brilliance of Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence, which i consider to be a musically flawless albums, especially after studying it.
|
Your post doesn't have anything to do with mine. The highlighted statement couldn't be more far from the truth ... it's obvious that you intended to answer to Certif1ed's post.
Let me summarize my post in simple words:
- I don't think that Queen are better than Dream Theater.
- I don't think that Queen II is better than any of the Dream Theater masterpieces ... it MIGHT be better than WDADU.
- The bands are not really comparable anyway.
|
Isn't it quite evident that i agree with you?(mikeenregalia) I did mean to debate Cert1fied. I agree comparing these two bands is useless, but it seems whenver Dream Theater is in a poll it has to be a useless comparison to a band like Van der Graaf Generator. Sorry for the quote error.
-------------
"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls."
|
Posted By: Legoman
Date Posted: October 24 2005 at 21:25
|
Queen isn't EXACTLY prog but Dream Theatre pisses me the f**k off. I vote QUEEN!
|
Posted By: Legoman
Date Posted: October 24 2005 at 21:25
|
And JESUS! What a flame war you guys have going on there!
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: October 24 2005 at 21:28
Ah, two of my very favourite bands. With DT being the overall favourite, I'll have to go with them here.
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 25 2005 at 03:36
|
Legoman wrote:
And JESUS! What a flame war you guys have going on there! |
Don't be fooled by the mass of quotes - it's just different styles of discussion, and it's actually quite a good way of keeping tag on where the discussion came from in the first place.
You'll notice the complete absence of terms such as "Muppet", "Moron" or worse, and the ever-lengthening justification as people rationalise their thought processes to strengthen their arguments. This is good and shows that there is a level of intellect at work rather than random flaming and baiting.
Compared to many other sites, actual flame wars are very rare here - but the discussions can and do get very hot and intense (some might say silly) sometimes! But we're all friends really. 
|
Posted By: Manunkind
Date Posted: October 25 2005 at 03:46
Certif1ed wrote:
Silly poll - apples vs aardvarks, but no contest; Queen have it completely sewn up - they're one of the best bands in the archives (at their best, that is...).
As for "pop rock", that statement clearly comes from someone who has never heard Queen II.
|
And this is the point - Queen have one excellent album, whereas DT have at least four.
-------------
"In war there is no time to teach or learn Zen. Carry a strong stick. Bash your attackers." - Zen Master Ikkyu Sojun
|
Posted By: CrazyDiamond
Date Posted: October 25 2005 at 04:12
|
How can you compare these two bands?
No loser and no winner
___BYE___
-------------
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 25 2005 at 07:20
Manunkind wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
Silly poll - apples vs aardvarks, but no contest; Queen have it completely sewn up - they're one of the best bands in the archives (at their best, that is...).
As for "pop rock", that statement clearly comes from someone who has never heard Queen II.
|
And this is the point - Queen have one excellent album, whereas DT have at least four.
|
I don't think that's true - Queen have 4 excellent albums, some good albums and a couple of naff albums, while DT have only naff albums.
|
Posted By: ColonelClaypool
Date Posted: October 25 2005 at 08:52
Queen for me, it's the first band I can remember listening to as a kid, and that I still listen to.
Dream Theater.. Got a few of their albums, mostly listen to 'Six Degrees...'. Talented musicians, no doubt, but I feel their songs aren't quite up to par. Too much focus on technique, rather than making memorable songs. It gets tiresome after a while.
-------------
With magic, you can turn a frog into a prince.
With science, you can turn a frog into a Ph.D. and you still have the frog you started with.
|
Posted By: AtLossForWords
Date Posted: October 25 2005 at 15:25
Certif1ed wrote:
Manunkind wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
Silly poll - apples vs aardvarks, but no contest; Queen have it completely sewn up - they're one of the best bands in the archives (at their best, that is...).
As for "pop rock", that statement clearly comes from someone who has never heard Queen II.
|
And this is the point - Queen have one excellent album, whereas DT have at least four.
|
I don't think that's true - Queen have 4 excellent albums, some good albums and a couple of naff albums, while DT have only naff albums.
|
Your posts show one of two things. One, you're a Queen fanboy, or two, you just really hate progressive metal. 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.
-------------
"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls."
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 25 2005 at 15:36
AtLossForWords wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
Manunkind wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
Silly poll - apples vs aardvarks, but no contest; Queen have it completely sewn up - they're one of the best bands in the archives (at their best, that is...).
As for "pop rock", that statement clearly comes from someone who has never heard Queen II.
|
And this is the point - Queen have one excellent album, whereas DT have at least four.
|
I don't think that's true - Queen have 4 excellent albums, some good albums and a couple of naff albums, while DT have only naff albums.
|
Your posts show one of two things. One, you're a Queen fanboy, or two, you just really hate progressive metal.
You like to draw conclusions based on trivial evidence then?
Queen did some good stuff, but their music is not as original as everyone puts it up to be.
Oh yes it is.
Can you actually say why it isn't?
Queen was different for their time.
...and different <> original?
They didn't sound like the typical hard rock band from late '70s. They sounded more influence by '40s jazz.
Er... how so? And isn't that extremely progressive?
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.
That's not a reason - that's your opinion. Squeaky clean virtuosity with no actual compositional skills vs over average playing with exceptional compositional skills. I guess Queen win that one actually. Sorry to break it to you, like.
John Myung has talent that is so far beyond John Deacon,
Possibly, but I bet John Myung would get bored doing JD bass lines. JD did what was right for Queen, just as Ringo Starr did what was right for the Beatles. I doubt very much that Mike Portnoy could have ever replaced Ringo. It's a silly comparison, as I said.
Rudess is a full time keyboardist as opposed to the spoofs Mercury did on piano,
Mercury's "spoofs" were often inspired and full of great humour and drama, and showed musical education - as you said, sometimes the music sounded like it came from a bygone age - now that's skill. Rudess, well, I'll reserve my opinions on his playing for when I can be bothered, but his choice of sounds sucks donkeys!
but i will say Petrucci and May would be a good comparison in creativity and skill.
Hahahahahaha! Nice one! Comparing Ocelots and Oranges - what's the point?
How about Mercury versus LaCheese? You left that one out. I wonder why
Insturmentally, Dream Theater rapes Queen.
That's so sick, dude.
And unsupported opinion too. Opinions are like, well, you know... |
|
Posted By: Manunkind
Date Posted: October 25 2005 at 15:41
AtLossForWords wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
Manunkind wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
Silly poll - apples vs aardvarks, but no contest; Queen have it completely sewn up - they're one of the best bands in the archives (at their best, that is...).
As for "pop rock", that statement clearly comes from someone who has never heard Queen II.
|
And this is the point - Queen have one excellent album, whereas DT have at least four.
|
I don't think that's true - Queen have 4 excellent albums, some good albums and a couple of naff albums, while DT have only naff albums.
|
Your posts show one of two things. One, you're a Queen fanboy,
No, he isn't.
or two, you just really hate progressive metal.
No, he doesn't.
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.
That would make them quite original for their time, wouldn't it?
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.
And why do you have to resort to the technique argument? It doesn't prove anything, and the might of DT lies in their intelligent, charismatic and witty compositions, not in their technique.
|
EDIT: Seems Cert responded before I could post my answer.
-------------
"In war there is no time to teach or learn Zen. Carry a strong stick. Bash your attackers." - Zen Master Ikkyu Sojun
|
Posted By: Citanul
Date Posted: October 26 2005 at 04:01
AtLossForWords wrote:
Insturmentally, Dream Theater rapes Queen. |
I have to take issue with your choice of words. Rape is an act
that involves a conscious decision to assault and violate a
person. It's completely inappropriate to talk about Dream Theater
"raping" Queen.
-------------
Be or be not. There is no question. - Yoda, Prince of Denmark
|
Posted By: dr_shoganai
Date Posted: October 26 2005 at 04:10
Queen without a question
-------------
Air, fire, earth and water
Balance of change
World on the scales
On the scales.
|
Posted By: AtLossForWords
Date Posted: October 26 2005 at 12:56
Certif1ed wrote:
AtLossForWords wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
Manunkind wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
Silly poll - apples vs aardvarks, but no contest; Queen have it completely sewn up - they're one of the best bands in the archives (at their best, that is...).
As for "pop rock", that statement clearly comes from someone who has never heard Queen II.
|
And this is the point - Queen have one excellent album, whereas DT have at least four.
|
I don't think that's true - Queen have 4 excellent albums, some good albums and a couple of naff albums, while DT have only naff albums.
|
Your posts show one of two things. One, you're a Queen fanboy, or two, you just really hate progressive metal.
You like to draw conclusions based on trivial evidence then?
Queen did some good stuff, but their music is not as original as everyone puts it up to be.
Oh yes it is.
Can you actually say why it isn't?
Queen was different for their time.
...and different <> original?
They didn't sound like the typical hard rock band from late '70s. They sounded more influence by '40s jazz.
Er... how so? And isn't that extremely progressive?
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.
That's not a reason - that's your opinion. Squeaky clean virtuosity with no actual compositional skills vs over average playing with exceptional compositional skills. I guess Queen win that one actually. Sorry to break it to you, like.
John Myung has talent that is so far beyond John Deacon,
Possibly, but I bet John Myung would get bored doing JD bass lines. JD did what was right for Queen, just as Ringo Starr did what was right for the Beatles. I doubt very much that Mike Portnoy could have ever replaced Ringo. It's a silly comparison, as I said.
Rudess is a full time keyboardist as opposed to the spoofs Mercury did on piano,
Mercury's "spoofs" were often inspired and full of great humour and drama, and showed musical education - as you said, sometimes the music sounded like it came from a bygone age - now that's skill. Rudess, well, I'll reserve my opinions on his playing for when I can be bothered, but his choice of sounds sucks donkeys!
but i will say Petrucci and May would be a good comparison in creativity and skill.
Hahahahahaha! Nice one! Comparing Ocelots and Oranges - what's the point?
How about Mercury versus LaCheese? You left that one out. I wonder why
Insturmentally, Dream Theater rapes Queen.
That's so sick, dude.
And unsupported opinion too. Opinions are like, well, you know...
|
|
First off, i said Queen was different for their time, not different in the whole spectrum of music. Just because you're influenced more by Glenn Miller than Rush dosen't mean you're a more original or progresssive band.
Dream Theater has some of the greatest compositional skills of any band. As evidence of their great compositional creativity let's take a song like Metropolis Part I, the arpeggitated section ending the insturmental section is sheer genius, not only is the arpeggio cycle brilliant writing, it shows amazing technique while the insturmentalists stay away from open strings. More evidence would be Learning to Live where Petrucci does so many different layers of guitar harmonies giving the song the most grandiose of a feel. What about the Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence epic? The 42 minute masterpiece is amazing from the first not of Overture to the final chord of Losing time. Petrucci's solo in Goodnight Kiss shows incredible feel for his guitar. Soliatry Shell has bright atmosphere and sets up About To Crash (Reprise) perfectly. What about Scenes From a Memory, Overture 1928, Dance Of Eternity-One Last Time, and Finally Free are nothing less than brilliiant composition.
I hope you didn't say that Freddie Mercury has more musical education than the piano phoenomenon that attended Juliard at the age of nine. Jordan Rudess would fit perfectly on keys for almost any band. You don't like Rudess's synths? I think Rudess has done an excellent job straying from the typical analog synth sounds. Rudess uses synths that sound closer to insturments than the simple analog fuzz. Rudess's Kurzweil also has the most authentic orchestral synths i have ever heard. I was shocked when i couldn't find orchestra credits anywhere in the Six Degres Of Inner Turbulence album.
-------------
"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls."
|
Posted By: Wolf Spider
Date Posted: October 26 2005 at 13:00
Stupid poll - DT is far more better than queen
-------------
http://www.lastfm.pl/user/tomash33 - Last.fm
|
Posted By: Ed_The_Dead
Date Posted: October 26 2005 at 15:00
I love it when peple flame...
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/ed_the_dead/?chartstyle=asimpleblue5">
|
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: October 26 2005 at 15:07
Oh,this is unbelievable!!of all the bands,you found these!!
boo to both!
-------------
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 26 2005 at 15:13
AtLossForWords wrote:
Dream Theater has some of the greatest compositional skills of any band. As evidence of their great compositional creativity let's take a song like Metropolis Part I, the arpeggitated section ending the insturmental section is sheer genius, not only is the arpeggio cycle brilliant writing, it shows amazing technique while the insturmentalists stay away from open strings.
Anyone can write a cycle of arpeggios - you're talking pure technique here, as you underlined in that last sentence - not skill in composition. Skill in composition is not about playing technique. At all. I reviewed "Images and Words", and "Metropolis Part 1" impresses me not one iota, as far as composition goes - it's decidedly below average IMHO.
More evidence would be Learning to Live where Petrucci does so many different layers of guitar harmonies giving the song the most grandiose of a feel.
Brian May was doing guitar layers (and more of them - also backwards) looong before Petrucci. Petrucci sticks with very safe harmonies and precise "following" movement - he clearly hasn't got a clue about counterpoint or any real compositional technique.
What about the Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence epic? The 42 minute masterpiece is amazing from the first not of Overture to the final chord of Losing time.
Not in my opinion it isn't - I think it's awful.
Petrucci's solo in Goodnight Kiss shows incredible feel for his guitar.
Not to me it doesn't - it sounds calculated, clinical and decidedly unfeeling.
Soliatry Shell has bright atmosphere and sets up About To Crash (Reprise) perfectly.
Define "perfectly" - it sounds perfectly dreadful to me.
What about Scenes From a Memory, Overture 1928, Dance Of Eternity-One Last Time, and Finally Free are nothing less than brilliiant composition.
Not in my opinion, and I'd bet that if I analysed the composition I'd find very simple structures and probably stolen riffs.
I hope you didn't say that Freddie Mercury has more musical education than the piano phoenomenon that attended Juliard at the age of nine.
Where did I say that? What difference does it make to Rock music anyway?
Jordan Rudess would fit perfectly on keys for almost any band.
I doubt it very much!
You don't like Rudess's synths?
No - the sounds he chooses suck worse than a sucking thing in Suck Street, Sucksville.
I think Rudess has done an excellent job straying from the typical analog synth sounds. Rudess uses synths that sound closer to insturments than the simple analog fuzz.
They sound like a digitized nightmare to me. Give me authentic analogue every time.
Rudess's Kurzweil also has the most authentic orchestral synths i have ever heard.
You're joking, right? I spotted them straight away!
I was shocked when i couldn't find orchestra credits anywhere in the Six Degres Of Inner Turbulence album.
I wasn't.
And none of this answers any of my questions, or helps the debate one iota, except to prove that you have a lot of opinions.
Which is fair enough - but try not to present them as some kind of fact, unless you have actual evidence to back it all up, OK?
|
|
Posted By: AtLossForWords
Date Posted: October 26 2005 at 16:19
Certif1ed wrote:
AtLossForWords wrote:
Dream Theater has some of the greatest compositional skills of any band. As evidence of their great compositional creativity let's take a song like Metropolis Part I, the arpeggitated section ending the insturmental section is sheer genius, not only is the arpeggio cycle brilliant writing, it shows amazing technique while the insturmentalists stay away from open strings.
Anyone can write a cycle of arpeggios - you're talking pure technique here, as you underlined in that last sentence - not skill in composition. Skill in composition is not about playing technique. At all. I reviewed "Images and Words", and "Metropolis Part 1" impresses me not one iota, as far as composition goes - it's decidedly below average IMHO.
More evidence would be Learning to Live where Petrucci does so many different layers of guitar harmonies giving the song the most grandiose of a feel.
Brian May was doing guitar layers (and more of them - also backwards) looong before Petrucci. Petrucci sticks with very safe harmonies and precise "following" movement - he clearly hasn't got a clue about counterpoint or any real compositional technique.
What about the Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence epic? The 42 minute masterpiece is amazing from the first note of Overture to the final chord of Losing time.
Not in my opinion it isn't - I think it's awful.
Petrucci's solo in Goodnight Kiss shows incredible feel for his guitar.
Not to me it doesn't - it sounds calculated, clinical and decidedly unfeeling.
Soliatry Shell has bright atmosphere and sets up About To Crash (Reprise) perfectly.
Define "perfectly" - it sounds perfectly dreadful to me.
What about Scenes From a Memory, Overture 1928, Dance Of Eternity-One Last Time, and Finally Free are nothing less than brilliiant composition.
Not in my opinion, and I'd bet that if I analysed the composition I'd find very simple structures and probably stolen riffs.
I hope you didn't say that Freddie Mercury has more musical education than the piano phoenomenon that attended Juliard at the age of nine.
Where did I say that? What difference does it make to Rock music anyway?
Jordan Rudess would fit perfectly on keys for almost any band.
I doubt it very much!
You don't like Rudess's synths?
No - the sounds he chooses suck worse than a sucking thing in Suck Street, Sucksville.
I think Rudess has done an excellent job straying from the typical analog synth sounds. Rudess uses synths that sound closer to insturments than the simple analog fuzz.
They sound like a digitized nightmare to me. Give me authentic analogue every time.
Rudess's Kurzweil also has the most authentic orchestral synths i have ever heard.
You're joking, right? I spotted them straight away!
I was shocked when i couldn't find orchestra credits anywhere in the Six Degres Of Inner Turbulence album.
I wasn't.
And none of this answers any of my questions, or helps the debate one iota, except to prove that you have a lot of opinions.
Which is fair enough - but try not to present them as some kind of fact, unless you have actual evidence to back it all up, OK?
|
|
Not everyone can write a cycle of arpeggios, in fact most bands do not write cycles of arpeggios. Metropolis is special because it isn't just some guitar virtuoso showing off how fast he can play a E minor arpeggio. Metropolis is special because the arpeggios are constantly modulating in a Bach fashion that it is impossible to write any key signature for this part. On top of that, playing those arpeggios in a signature other than 4/4 is an excellent composition technique. Adding an extra beat to a phrase in a signature like 5/4 instead of 4/4 or 7/8 instead of 6/8 makes a band a more enjoyable listen.
I see no flaws in Petrucci's counterpoint. Now maybe Petrucci isn't an 18th Century Couterpoint musical genius, but most of his guitar composition surpasses 19th Century Counterpoint which is really quite simple.
On Goodnight Kiss, you just debated that Petrucci has not a clue about counterpoint, but now your saying that the solo is entirely calculated. Dream Theater is a band that must be perfect on studio recordings, or else the band could not survive. I wouldn't doubt for a second that the solo is calculated notation wise, but it has the flow of an improvised solo. Especially the rythmn where Petrucci is really feeding off of the drums.
Solitary Shell is a perfect prelude to About To Crash (Reprise), because it is a constant build in tonality. The song starts off quite soft and "poco a poco" crescendos to the climax that About To Crash (Reprise) is. Then About To Crash (Reprise) falls slightly and then crescendos to the true climax of the piece, Losing Time.
As for Scenes From a Memory, the structure of the songs (especially the ones i mentioned earlier) is nothing short of excellent. Overture 1928 constains great trades off melody between all the insturmentalist, a technique perfect by Brittish compoers like Gustav Holst. Dance Of Eternity is technical brilliance and saying something like technical skill is not part of composing is a slam to brilliant composers like John Cage. As for the structure of the song, the cycle of time signature is very impresive and few parts are repeated. The creativity of Jordan Rudess rag time interlude is something that i never saw coming. One Last Time is incredibly simple compared to it's scene partner Dance Of Eternity, but i find it to be a great way to end the scene. Finally Free, i mean come on. Hating this song is just bigotry, it goes through so many tones and emotions. There is something in this song that anyone can appreciate.
With regards to Mercury and Rudess on the piano you slammed Rudess's sound and supported Mercury's piano spots as dramtic, humorous, and musically educated. I say that Mercury's musical education does not hold a candlestick to Rudess's. In support of Rudess, i use evidence of his studying at Julliard and his career being one of length and versitility first playing in a band like the Dixie Dregs and then later joining Dream Theater. Rudess is a first class musician.
It's ridiculous to slam Rudess's choice of synth sounds in a battle of creativity. I say Rudess is creative because he uses most unconventional synth sounds and you defeat them because of tastes. Maybe you don't like Rudess's sounds, ok that's fair, but that does not reduce his skill or creativity.
Maybe Rudess's synth sounds in Losing Time, but Overture has brilliant authentic orchestral sounds. Many keyboardists lust over the technology Kurzweil has in their synths.
-------------
"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls."
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 27 2005 at 03:36
AtLossForWords wrote:
Not everyone can write a cycle of arpeggios, in fact most bands do not write cycles of arpeggios.
It's not hard, and Deep Purple did it. Among many others. Yngwie Malmsteen, for example. Not everyone does it because ultimately it's boring.
Metropolis is special because it isn't just some guitar virtuoso showing off how fast he can play a E minor arpeggio. Metropolis is special because the arpeggios are constantly modulating in a Bach fashion that it is impossible to write any key signature for this part.
No - it's not impossible. One thing I've really noticed about Dream Theater is that they stick to safe tonalities, simply using modal scales and arpeggios to try to hide this fact.
And modulating in a Bach fashion is not only not impossible, but part of every Secondary school music pupil's basic education - you have to learn how to harmonise and modulate in the style of J. S. Bach before you can learn more advanced techniques.
I once wrote a computer program (back in 1991) that automatically harmonises melodies in the style of Bach, recalculating for modulations as necessary  .
On top of that, playing those arpeggios in a signature other than 4/4 is an excellent composition technique. Adding an extra beat to a phrase in a signature like 5/4 instead of 4/4 or 7/8 instead of 6/8 makes a band a more enjoyable listen.
To you, maybe. It's all academic - and merely a technique that's based in mathematics, not composition.
I don't find it's a more enjoyable listen because of polyrhythms - music is greater than the sum of its parts.
I see no flaws in Petrucci's counterpoint.
You know, I didn't think you would somehow...
Now maybe Petrucci isn't an 18th Century Couterpoint musical genius, but most of his guitar composition surpasses 19th Century Counterpoint which is really quite simple.
Oh yes?
Care to give an example of so-called "simple" C19 counterpoint and where Petrucci surpasses it?
You haven't answered any of my other techical questions so far, so it's a safe bet that you can't.
On Goodnight Kiss, you just debated that Petrucci has not a clue about counterpoint, but now your saying that the solo is entirely calculated. Dream Theater is a band that must be perfect on studio recordings, or else the band could not survive. I wouldn't doubt for a second that the solo is calculated notation wise, but it has the flow of an improvised solo. Especially the rythmn where Petrucci is really feeding off of the drums.
Calculated does not mean skillful counterpoint, so that point is moot.
Being "perfect" on studio recordings is meaningless unless the music is good too - you're still talking about execution, not composition.
You think a particular solo (you don't say which) has the flow of an improvised solo - I'd like to hear that particular solo, as that is one feature that is distinctly missing from most of Petrucci's soloing - it all sounds pre-calculated so that all notes fit the harmony mathematically - almost as if a computer had worked out where the notes should be and where the columns of vertical harmony should slot in like pre-fabricated blocks.
Solitary Shell is a perfect prelude to About To Crash (Reprise), because it is a constant build in tonality.
How? You make these statements as if they're fact, but do not have any evidence to back them up! I do not hear this "constant build in tonality" (whatever that is) of which you speak. Please elaborate, as I don't understand what you mean.
The song starts off quite soft and "poco a poco" crescendos to the climax that About To Crash (Reprise) is. Then About To Crash (Reprise) falls slightly and then crescendos to the true climax of the piece, Losing Time.
So it gets louder and quieter? Am I missing something?
As for Scenes From a Memory, the structure of the songs (especially the ones i mentioned earlier) is nothing short of excellent. Overture 1928 constains great trades off melody between all the insturmentalist, a technique perfect by Brittish compoers like Gustav Holst.
What does this mean? "trades off melody"?
I hear nothing that puts me in mind of Holst.
Holst's approach was strongest in harmonic textures - none of which I hear in Dream Theater, who always seem to choose the safe option rather than get experimental with harmonic textures.
Dance Of Eternity is technical brilliance and saying something like technical skill is not part of composing is a slam to brilliant composers like John Cage.
How so? Please bring some facts to your statements - this is meaningless drivel otherwise.
John Cage did not sweep pick arpeggios and scales to the best of my knowledge - indeed, a lot of Cage's approach was in philosophy.
As for the structure of the song, the cycle of time signature is very impresive and few parts are repeated. The creativity of Jordan Rudess rag time interlude is something that i never saw coming.
It sounds awful to me - that's one part I particularly dislike, as it has no grounding in actual ragtime - it's more like a lazy impression of what it might sound like.
As for "cycles of time signatures", it's meaningless unless the music is somehow inproved by it.
One Last Time is incredibly simple compared to it's scene partner Dance Of Eternity, but i find it to be a great way to end the scene. Finally Free, i mean come on. Hating this song is just bigotry, it goes through so many tones and emotions. There is something in this song that anyone can appreciate.
Hmm. Have to agree to disagree there - you cannot make such broad statements as if they're truth, as no two people appreciate music in the same way, as you seem to think.
With regards to Mercury and Rudess on the piano you slammed Rudess's sound and supported Mercury's piano spots as dramtic, humorous, and musically educated. I say that Mercury's musical education does not hold a candlestick to Rudess's. In support of Rudess, i use evidence of his studying at Julliard and his career being one of length and versitility first playing in a band like the Dixie Dregs and then later joining Dream Theater. Rudess is a first class musician.
You miss the point entirely. Mercury's style shows education - but not necessarily musical education! It's absolutely clear where the music is grounded, and it's also clear that Mercury was hyper-inventive and of the type of person that played with music - improvised and created rather than painstakingly calculated the life out of.
Academic musical education has very little to do with rock music - in fact, it's probably better in most cases that rock musicians do not have too much of it or they go thinking they're something special - which shows in the music, which ends up sounding, well... academic.
It's ridiculous to slam Rudess's choice of synth sounds in a battle of creativity. I say Rudess is creative because he uses most unconventional synth sounds and you defeat them because of tastes. Maybe you don't like Rudess's sounds, ok that's fair, but that does not reduce his skill or creativity.
Not really - timbre is one fifth of what makes music.
If I don't like Rudess' sounds, then that lessens his skill to my ears, by one fifth.
All music boils down to taste eventually - which is what you seem to be forgettting. You're presenting everything as if it's some kind of fact, which is why I'm picking up on it and wondering where your statements come from.
If it was just your opinion, I couldn't argue with it, could I?
Maybe Rudess's synth sounds in Losing Time, but Overture has brilliant authentic orchestral sounds. Many keyboardists lust over the technology Kurzweil has in their synths.
Rudess invented those sounds, did he?
All in all, very unconvincing - but please don't stop trying to convince me - unless you think that somehow I'm being unfair or worse, plain ignorant. Arrogant and patronising I can live with
|
|
Posted By: AtLossForWords
Date Posted: October 27 2005 at 12:49
Certif1ed wrote:
AtLossForWords wrote:
Not everyone can write a cycle of arpeggios, in fact most bands do not write cycles of arpeggios.
It's not hard, and Deep Purple did it. Among many others. Yngwie Malmsteen, for example. Not everyone does it because ultimately it's boring.
Metropolis is special because it isn't just some guitar virtuoso showing off how fast he can play a E minor arpeggio. Metropolis is special because the arpeggios are constantly modulating in a Bach fashion that it is impossible to write any key signature for this part.
No - it's not impossible. One thing I've really noticed about Dream Theater is that they stick to safe tonalities, simply using modal scales and arpeggios to try to hide this fact.
And modulating in a Bach fashion is not only not impossible, but part of every Secondary school music pupil's basic education - you have to learn how to harmonise and modulate in the style of J. S. Bach before you can learn more advanced techniques.
I once wrote a computer program (back in 1991) that automatically harmonises melodies in the style of Bach, recalculating for modulations as necessary .
On top of that, playing those arpeggios in a signature other than 4/4 is an excellent composition technique. Adding an extra beat to a phrase in a signature like 5/4 instead of 4/4 or 7/8 instead of 6/8 makes a band a more enjoyable listen.
To you, maybe. It's all academic - and merely a technique that's based in mathematics, not composition.
I don't find it's a more enjoyable listen because of polyrhythms - music is greater than the sum of its parts.
I see no flaws in Petrucci's counterpoint.
You know, I didn't think you would somehow...
Now maybe Petrucci isn't an 18th Century Couterpoint musical genius, but most of his guitar composition surpasses 19th Century Counterpoint which is really quite simple.
Oh yes?
Care to give an example of so-called "simple" C19 counterpoint and where Petrucci surpasses it?
You haven't answered any of my other techical questions so far, so it's a safe bet that you can't.
On Goodnight Kiss, you just debated that Petrucci has not a clue about counterpoint, but now your saying that the solo is entirely calculated. Dream Theater is a band that must be perfect on studio recordings, or else the band could not survive. I wouldn't doubt for a second that the solo is calculated notation wise, but it has the flow of an improvised solo. Especially the rythmn where Petrucci is really feeding off of the drums.
Calculated does not mean skillful counterpoint, so that point is moot.
Being "perfect" on studio recordings is meaningless unless the music is good too - you're still talking about execution, not composition.
You think a particular solo (you don't say which) has the flow of an improvised solo - I'd like to hear that particular solo, as that is one feature that is distinctly missing from most of Petrucci's soloing - it all sounds pre-calculated so that all notes fit the harmony mathematically - almost as if a computer had worked out where the notes should be and where the columns of vertical harmony should slot in like pre-fabricated blocks.
Solitary Shell is a perfect prelude to About To Crash (Reprise), because it is a constant build in tonality.
How? You make these statements as if they're fact, but do not have any evidence to back them up! I do not hear this "constant build in tonality" (whatever that is) of which you speak. Please elaborate, as I don't understand what you mean.
The song starts off quite soft and "poco a poco" crescendos to the climax that About To Crash (Reprise) is. Then About To Crash (Reprise) falls slightly and then crescendos to the true climax of the piece, Losing Time.
So it gets louder and quieter? Am I missing something?
As for Scenes From a Memory, the structure of the songs (especially the ones i mentioned earlier) is nothing short of excellent. Overture 1928 constains great trades off melody between all the insturmentalist, a technique perfect by Brittish compoers like Gustav Holst.
What does this mean? "trades off melody"?
I hear nothing that puts me in mind of Holst.
Holst's approach was strongest in harmonic textures - none of which I hear in Dream Theater, who always seem to choose the safe option rather than get experimental with harmonic textures.
Dance Of Eternity is technical brilliance and saying something like technical skill is not part of composing is a slam to brilliant composers like John Cage.
How so? Please bring some facts to your statements - this is meaningless drivel otherwise.
John Cage did not sweep pick arpeggios and scales to the best of my knowledge - indeed, a lot of Cage's approach was in philosophy.
As for the structure of the song, the cycle of time signature is very impresive and few parts are repeated. The creativity of Jordan Rudess rag time interlude is something that i never saw coming.
It sounds awful to me - that's one part I particularly dislike, as it has no grounding in actual ragtime - it's more like a lazy impression of what it might sound like.
As for "cycles of time signatures", it's meaningless unless the music is somehow inproved by it.
One Last Time is incredibly simple compared to it's scene partner Dance Of Eternity, but i find it to be a great way to end the scene. Finally Free, i mean come on. Hating this song is just bigotry, it goes through so many tones and emotions. There is something in this song that anyone can appreciate.
Hmm. Have to agree to disagree there - you cannot make such broad statements as if they're truth, as no two people appreciate music in the same way, as you seem to think.
With regards to Mercury and Rudess on the piano you slammed Rudess's sound and supported Mercury's piano spots as dramtic, humorous, and musically educated. I say that Mercury's musical education does not hold a candlestick to Rudess's. In support of Rudess, i use evidence of his studying at Julliard and his career being one of length and versitility first playing in a band like the Dixie Dregs and then later joining Dream Theater. Rudess is a first class musician.
You miss the point entirely. Mercury's style shows education - but not necessarily musical education! It's absolutely clear where the music is grounded, and it's also clear that Mercury was hyper-inventive and of the type of person that played with music - improvised and created rather than painstakingly calculated the life out of.
Academic musical education has very little to do with rock music - in fact, it's probably better in most cases that rock musicians do not have too much of it or they go thinking they're something special - which shows in the music, which ends up sounding, well... academic.
It's ridiculous to slam Rudess's choice of synth sounds in a battle of creativity. I say Rudess is creative because he uses most unconventional synth sounds and you defeat them because of tastes. Maybe you don't like Rudess's sounds, ok that's fair, but that does not reduce his skill or creativity.
Not really - timbre is one fifth of what makes music.
If I don't like Rudess' sounds, then that lessens his skill to my ears, by one fifth.
All music boils down to taste eventually - which is what you seem to be forgettting. You're presenting everything as if it's some kind of fact, which is why I'm picking up on it and wondering where your statements come from.
If it was just your opinion, I couldn't argue with it, could I?
Maybe Rudess's synth sounds in Losing Time, but Overture has brilliant authentic orchestral sounds. Many keyboardists lust over the technology Kurzweil has in their synths.
Rudess invented those sounds, did he?
All in all, very unconvincing - but please don't stop trying to convince me - unless you think that somehow I'm being unfair or worse, plain ignorant. Arrogant and patronising I can live with
|
|
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.
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.
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?
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.
With Mercury being someone that just improvised and such, is it safe to say that Queen lacks the execution of Dream Theater? Maybe Queen is on a slightly higher level of creativity than Dream Theater, but does creativity equate musicianship? 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?
Maybe you're looking at what i'm trying to say differently then i wish. I'm not going to debate what i think is good in Dream Theater's music. I'm going to say pieces that i think support my overall thesis of Dream Theater's music. I have better things to do in with my time than study every piece from their discography and say "in 48 of_____ there is a brilliant harmonic change from a parallel minor to a 5th of 5th chord".
And don't think i'm that stupid to think Rudess invented Kurzweil's sounds...
I don't even know why we're going to keep debating, neither of us are going to change our opinions anyway. Maybe if you were more clear on what techincal question you want me to answer and how you want them answered i might have a shot at answering them.
-------------
"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls."
|
Posted By: Catholic Flame
Date Posted: October 27 2005 at 13:01
|
FragileDT wrote:
Why are we comparing the most random bands and making polls about
them? Dream Theater and Queen are not related and are nothing like each
other. They are not comparable. |
Good point. Lets compare DT to the Monkees.
I vote The Monkees.
-------------
“Great things are not accomplished by those who yield to trends and fads and popular opinion.”
~Jack Kerouac
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 27 2005 at 15:58
AtLossForWords wrote:
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.
|
And you still haven't explained how Queen sound like 1940's jazz, in what way Dream Theater score a victory, except through execution, which, as I've explained, is not even necessary to write a good piece of music.
Maybe you're looking at what i'm trying to say differently then i wish. I'm not going to debate what i think is good in Dream Theater's music. I'm going to say pieces that i think support my overall thesis of Dream Theater's music. I have better things to do in with my time than study every piece from their discography and say "in 48 of_____ there is a brilliant harmonic change from a parallel minor to a 5th of 5th chord".
The whole point of this thread is to debate what is so good about one band or the other, and you started picking me up on points, remember? Not the other way around.
I think you're finally admitting that you cannot possibly prove anything other than you like Dream Theater, and you admire their execution skills - which is fair enough.
But don't try telling me that Dream Theater are more creative than Queen, because they quite simply are not.
And don't think i'm that stupid to think Rudess invented Kurzweil's sounds...
The implication was there - I'm not serious all the time, you know... this is fun to me
I don't even know why we're going to keep debating, neither of us are going to change our opinions anyway. Maybe if you were more clear on what techincal question you want me to answer and how you want them answered i might have a shot at answering them.
My technical questions are perfectly clear.
I've stated them once, and I shouldn't have to repeat myself to someone who's supposedly been following the arguments and keeping up.
I don't like repeating myself.
Unless I've been eating beans. |
|
Posted By: porter
Date Posted: October 28 2005 at 07:08
^Certif1ed, I wish I was you 
-------------
"my kingdom for a horse!" (W. Shakespeare, "Richard III")
|
Posted By: Citanul
Date Posted: October 28 2005 at 07:43
^ Why would anyone want to be Certif1ed?
-------------
Be or be not. There is no question. - Yoda, Prince of Denmark
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: October 28 2005 at 07:44
Dream theater in the lead
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif -
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 28 2005 at 07:45
Posted By: Citanul
Date Posted: October 28 2005 at 08:04
maidenrulez wrote:
Dream theater in the lead |
But not by a statistically significant amount.
-------------
Be or be not. There is no question. - Yoda, Prince of Denmark
|
Posted By: AtLossForWords
Date Posted: October 28 2005 at 12:23
Certif1ed wrote:
AtLossForWords wrote:
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.
|
And you still haven't explained how Queen sound like 1940's jazz, in what way Dream Theater score a victory, except through execution, which, as I've explained, is not even necessary to write a good piece of music.
Maybe you're looking at what i'm trying to say differently then i wish. I'm not going to debate what i think is good in Dream Theater's music. I'm going to say pieces that i think support my overall thesis of Dream Theater's music. I have better things to do in with my time than study every piece from their discography and say "in 48 of_____ there is a brilliant harmonic change from a parallel minor to a 5th of 5th chord".
The whole point of this thread is to debate what is so good about one band or the other, and you started picking me up on points, remember? Not the other way around.
I think you're finally admitting that you cannot possibly prove anything other than you like Dream Theater, and you admire their execution skills - which is fair enough.
But don't try telling me that Dream Theater are more creative than Queen, because they quite simply are not.
And don't think i'm that stupid to think Rudess invented Kurzweil's sounds...
The implication was there - I'm not serious all the time, you know... this is fun to me
I don't even know why we're going to keep debating, neither of us are going to change our opinions anyway. Maybe if you were more clear on what techincal question you want me to answer and how you want them answered i might have a shot at answering them.
My technical questions are perfectly clear.
I've stated them once, and I shouldn't have to repeat myself to someone who's supposedly been following the arguments and keeping up.
I don't like repeating myself.
Unless I've been eating beans.
|
|
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.
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?
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.
-------------
"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls."
|
Posted By: porter
Date Posted: October 29 2005 at 09:41
|
EXACTLY
(but only when it comes to take Queen's defenses....)
-------------
"my kingdom for a horse!" (W. Shakespeare, "Richard III")
|
|
Spare no one!