Dream Theater

Squonk

I have tried yet again to understand Dream Theater and all things Petrucci!

Watching Live DVD Metropolis 2000...

Brilliant musicians, especially the Bassist, but even that's a bit unfair as they are all exceptional. What I can't get is the Lead Vocalist and the the song constructions. Some hectically brilliant prog rock pieces until the vocals start, to me there seems to be no creativity whatsoever with the melodies that the vocalist sings.

And I comment from being a huge Prog Rock Fan, If you have to listen to Porcupine Tree, and I also can't handle Steve Wilson's vocals but there is creativity in their Songs.

To me they would be better as an Instrumental band, but they would have work on a bit more variety.

What else must I listen to to understand this Band?

arjunmenon

Squonk, me thinks you got to start with Images & Words.
In your favour though, I would have picked Geoff Tate to replace James LaBrie

Clint-Green

I must agree with both of the original post and the one after; not a big fan of James LaBrie myself, he is definitely their Achille's heel. To me it always sounds as though he's pushing his voice outside of it's comfortable range which doesn't sound great at all. And I consider myself a pretty big DT fan but that's mainly because Petrucci is god! haha

AlanRatcliffe

+1 on Images & words. It all got a bit bombastic later.

Agree on the Porcupine Tree thing, but I can look beyond Wilson's voice with them, especially for Darkwing(and remember, Wilson basically is PT).

Averatu

Squonk wrote: I have tried yet again to understand Dream Theater and all things Petrucci!

Watching Live DVD Metropolis 2000...

Brilliant musicians, especially the Bassist, but even that's a bit unfair as they are all exceptional. What I can't get is the Lead Vocalist and the the song constructions. Some hectically brilliant prog rock pieces until the vocals start, to me there seems to be no creativity whatsoever with the melodies that the vocalist sings.

And I comment from being a huge Prog Rock Fan, If you have to listen to Porcupine Tree, and I also can't handle Steve Wilson's vocals but there is creativity in their Songs.

To me they would be better as an Instrumental band, but they would have work on a bit more variety.

What else must I listen to to understand this Band?

I cant stand them. There are elements that I like, but to me it seems constructed in a poppy jazz fusion'ish manner (that I hated in the 80's, like when Rush suddenly had all those cheesy keyboards). And I agree they'd be better as an instrumental band.

majestikc

I never liked them much except the Awake album, don't like John Petrucci either, too much of a Vai/Satriani rippoff (plus he's no Dan Patlansky.....couldn't resist). Jordan Rudess is the only guy worth checking out.

21Fretter

majestikc wrote: don't like John Petrucci either, too much of a Vai/Satriani rippoff (plus he's no Dan Patlansky.....couldn't resist). J

Not sure if you are trolling but thank the lord he isn't like Dan Patlanksy. I am pretty sure Vai, Petrucci and Satch all arose at the same time. I personally think they are nothing alike each other either, I could easily tell an instrumental song by each of them blindfolded, all got very distinct sounds especially in their song writing as well.

majestikc

21Fretter wrote:
majestikc wrote: don't like John Petrucci either, too much of a Vai/Satriani rippoff (plus he's no Dan Patlansky.....couldn't resist). J
I personally think they are nothing alike each other either, I could easily tell an instrumental song by each of them blindfolded, all got very distinct sounds especially in their song writing as well.

That's fair enough, they do, but you have to agree that they repeat themselves a LOT, which is not a bad thing, AC/DC has been releasing the same album since the 70's.

It just get's a bit "expected" which eventually makes it boring, plus as soon as John Petrucci or whoever pulls something even remotely Vai'ish is just sounds the same, especially after hearing Steve Vai do the same sort of thing a 1000x

Malkav

21Fretter wrote:
majestikc wrote: don't like John Petrucci either, too much of a Vai/Satriani rippoff (plus he's no Dan Patlansky.....couldn't resist). J
Not sure if you are trolling but thank the lord he isn't like Dan Patlanksy. I am pretty sure Vai, Petrucci and Satch all arose at the same time. I personally think they are nothing alike each other either, I could easily tell an instrumental song by each of them blindfolded, all got very distinct sounds especially in their song writing as well.

This man speaks sense ? They're all very different in very obvious ways, and whether people want to admit it or not he has become as big an influence in the world of guitaring, especially metal, as those two. He's got like 7 different variations on his signature model or something crazy like that and it is pretty much Music Man's most popular model these days.

Averatu wrote: And I agree they'd be better as an instrumental band.

So just listen to Liquid Tension Experiment, for those who don't know of it they're basically Dream Theater line-up with the legendary Tony Levin on bass as opposed to John Myung and it was back when Portnoy was still their drummer and they're instrumental.

=

Arjun Menon wrote: In your favour though, I would have picked Geoff Tate to replace James LaBrie

Clint Green wrote: I must agree with both of the original post and the one after; not a big fan of James LaBrie myself, he is definitely their Achille's heel. To me it always sounds as though he's pushing his voice outside of it's comfortable range which doesn't sound great at all.

I disagree with this personally, prog bands generally have kinda odd sounding singers with a love/hate appeal. Geddy Lee isn't exactly a "textbook" brilliant singer but that's what makes Rush unique, James Labrie is much the same, it's not a voice everyone would enjoy but he's the "chosen" voice of Dream Theater, I personally couldn't imagine them without him ? His voice is actually quite good on the new album though, check it out:

=

Clint Green wrote: Petrucci is god! haha

Something like that I guess ?

Arjun Menon wrote: Squonk, me thinks you got to start with Images & Words.

Alan Ratcliffe wrote: +1 on Images & words. It all got a bit bombastic later.

Agreed that Images & Words is a fantastic album, not so much agreed on the later ? You may also really enjoy the albums Octavarium, Six Degrees Of Inner Turbulence and Awake, they're the least "metal" in the catalogue I guess ?

majestikc wrote: It just get's a bit "expected" which eventually makes it boring, plus as soon as John Petrucci or whoever pulls something even remotely Vai'ish is just sounds the same, especially after hearing Steve Vai do the same sort of thing a 1000x

I don't really get this, they don't really phrase in similar ways at all... ??? Their preferred techniques are also very different... To top it all off their guitar tones are like night and day different... ???

21Fretter

I won't lie though, I dislike the approach Dream Theater has taken in 3 of their most recent albums; A Dramatic Turn of Events, Systematic Chaos, Black Clouds (..). There are a few songs I still like but the albums do share a lot of the same ideas and sound (production wise as well) which I'm not the biggest fan of unlike their earlier albums which are all sooo distinctive imo i.e. Scenes from a Memory from Train of Thought to Six Degrees etc.

Dingwall

Squonk - they are a great covers band tho' - this is my favourite album:

I totally agree on both bands. I keep coming back to DT every few years like you, but not quite seeing the magic yet! Even Petrucci who is obviously ridiculously technically good, just doesn't grab me! Would even possibly save Vai or Satriani from the burning house than Petrucci! (to keep the theme)

I went to see Porcupine Tree with two of my friends who were huge fans. We had excellent VIP tickets and great seats at the 02. I can remember about 10 minutes of it, the rest of the gig I was asleep! I am not joking people - I fell into a deep sleep and missed the entire thing!

Suffice to say these mates don't exactly invite me to gigs anymore....

arjunmenon

majestikc wrote: I never liked them much except the Awake album, don't like John Petrucci either, too much of a Vai/Satriani rippoff (plus he's no Dan Patlansky.....couldn't resist). Jordan Rudess is the only guy worth checking out.

I'm with 21Fretter & Chad on this one.
By the same measure you're implying that, because they all play blues licks, guys like Robert Cray, Muddy Waters, Hubert Sumlin, Eric Clapton, (Insert favourite guitar player) etc etc are updated rip-offs of Robert Johnson and, before i forget, Patlansky a rip-off of Hendrix ???
And who are we kidding here, Patlansky is a wanker of note (pun intended)!

Chad Adam Browne wrote:
Arjun Menon wrote: In your favour though, I would have picked Geoff Tate to replace James LaBrie

Clint Green wrote: I must agree with both of the original post and the one after; not a big fan of James LaBrie myself, he is definitely their Achille's heel. To me it always sounds as though he's pushing his voice outside of it's comfortable range which doesn't sound great at all.
I disagree with this personally, prog bands generally have kinda odd sounding singers with a love/hate appeal. Geddy Lee isn't exactly a "textbook" brilliant singer but that's what makes Rush unique, James Labrie is much the same, it's not a voice everyone would enjoy but he's the "chosen" voice of Dream Theater, I personally couldn't imagine them without him ? His voice is actually quite good on the new album though, check it out:

? Ok, you win. And to a large extent i agree with you. However, based on the interviews in the 20th Anniversary DVD The Score, when Charles Dominici left the band, they were looking for someone who could sing like Geoff Tate. Hence my comment.

Clint-Green

Chad Adam Browne wrote:
Clint Green wrote: I must agree with both of the original post and the one after; not a big fan of James LaBrie myself, he is definitely their Achille's heel. To me it always sounds as though he's pushing his voice outside of it's comfortable range which doesn't sound great at all.
I disagree with this personally, prog bands generally have kinda odd sounding singers with a love/hate appeal. Geddy Lee isn't exactly a "textbook" brilliant singer but that's what makes Rush unique, James Labrie is much the same, it's not a voice everyone would enjoy but he's the "chosen" voice of Dream Theater, I personally couldn't imagine them without him ? His voice is actually quite good on the new album though, check it out:

I dunno, I personally think that Geddy Lee has a really cool, unique voice much like Ozzy Osbourne. Ozzy's not by any stretch of the imagination a "brilliant" singer technically but he manages to convey a certain mood that no other singers can pull off. James LaBrie on the other hand sounds like a million other power metal singers but doesn't do it very well. Again, my opinion, many will probably disagree and that's totally cool ?

Clint-Green

majestikc wrote: I never liked them much except the Awake album, don't like John Petrucci either, too much of a Vai/Satriani rippoff (plus he's no Dan Patlansky.....couldn't resist). Jordan Rudess is the only guy worth checking out.

Sorry, I don't hear the "Vai/Satriani ripoff" in his playing; Steve Morse maybe. In fact that's what originally got me into his playing...I've been a huge Morse fan for years and when I first heard JC I immediately picked up on that influence. It was confirmed when I watched "Rock Discipline" where one of the first of his favourite players he mentions is Steve Morse. I was like, "Jeez, John, ya don't say!"... ?

Check it out:
[/url]=[/url]

Plus JP started endorsing EBMM guitars some years back which happens to be Steve Morse's weapon of choice. Coincidence? Maybe.... 8)

Squonk

All good comments

My main post was not about their merits as musicians or vocalists but rather their lack of creativity in songwriting.

I dont have a problem with Labrie's voice, I have also done some research and he doesn't appear to have much to do with writing material.

There are just so many instances of a great intro and then this bland tune that is sung over the song with not much character in the vocalists voice to carry the tune. Geddy Lee is leagues ahead of him IMO. But this is not the point, someone else, Petrucci or the Keyboardist must be writing the melody, so it can't be entirely Labrie's fault for these well played songs that are not great songs.

I lent XRB a Gordon Giltrap DVD and his comment was " A great guitarist but his songs are not great"

I wonder if this is the case with Dream Theater? Maybe they need a Geddy Lee or a Steve Wilson who can compose good songs.

Just my opinion, They are great musicians and I can sense a bit of a 80's Rush Influence and Clint, I also can get Petrucci's Steve Morse influence. Portnoy is an incredible drummer.

It's just the songs

Clint-Green

Squonk wrote: All good comments

My main post was not about their merits as musicians or vocalists but rather their lack of creativity in songwriting.

I dont have a problem with Labrie's voice, I have also done some research and he doesn't appear to have much to do with writing material.

There are just so many instances of a great intro and then this bland tune that is sung over the song with not much character in the vocalists voice to carry the tune. Geddy Lee is leagues ahead of him IMO. But this is not the point, someone else, Petrucci or the Keyboardist must be writing the melody, so it can't be entirely Labrie's fault for these well played songs that are not great songs.

It's just the songs

I agree to a certain extent regarding the songs. They do have a great deal of really good songs (Another Day is a prime example) but a lot of them are kind of boring.

I dunno, it seems to be a general Prog Rock thing though, where bands often try to fit too many ideas into a song. For example, you'll be listening to a song and there'll be a melody which sounds really cool (could certainly be considered a hook) but they move away from it too soon and never revisit it again. That kind of bums me out because they have this cool hook which they could have built a great song around but instead it's presented as a short bridge or something like that. But then again the songs do grow on you. I will admit that it took me a while to get into them and bands like Queensryche and even Opeth because of this but as a musician what kept me coming back was the level of musicianship. I call myself a fan but I still can still only handle them in relatively small doses. Keen to check out Liquid Tension Experiment though, I think I may enjoy that a whole lot more.

evolucian

Arjun Menon wrote: ...etc etc are updated rip-offs of Robert Johnson and, before i forget, Patlansky a rip-off of Hendrix ???
And who are we kidding here, Patlansky is a wanker of note (pun intended)!

Lol, now you've gone and done it. Get your flame shield on cos ICM is coming for you now.

But on a lighter note... I've lost my appeal for DT. Not even Tate can save them now. And I do so luuuurrrrrve me some Queensryche! DT on Dramatic turn of events returned to their former glory, like they do whenever a new member joins. They were genii, and they still pay homage to all the prog bands that came before them and best of all, Mr Zappa is paid homage to a lot. Buuut, it has just lost it for me.

Six Degrees is a brilliant album... even my mom enjoyed it (seriously!). Petrucci used to be my hero... and then I heard warm up routines in solos. His solo's on Awake were stellar, as they were on Metropolis pt 2. His solo album sucked donkey nuts... I prefer Neal Schon's solo album (melody, vibrato and all yummy things well written). But thats just me.

Systematic Chaos was terrible. Their songwriting just wasn't there... too much Meshuggah wannabe there. But kudos to them for their rhythms they accomplished on it. Like with 99% of bands and musicians, there are only a few gems of songs I really really like. One or two songs per every three albums turns out to be a masterpiece... but that makes their odds diminish quite a lot with songwriting so I'll have to go with Squonk on this one and agree.

Dingwall

Has anyone heard 'Flying Colours' yet - here we have Mr Morse and Mr Portnoy, Dave Larue plus a pop vocalist......

=

Bob-Dubery

Clint Green wrote: I agree to a certain extent regarding the songs. They do have a great deal of really good songs (Another Day is a prime example) but a lot of them are kind of boring.

Well in general I think we have to accept a bum album every now and then. Bands are signed to contracts which bind them, amongst other things, to deliver so many albums in such-and-such a time (though the cycles are longer now than they once were) and it must get to a point where they HAVE to release an album even if they don't have a good set of songs or half-finished songs.

It's easier if you don't write your own material or have an audience that will not have a knee jerk rejection of material from elsewhere (Clapton, for example, can choose material from all over the place and put his own personal stamp on it).

There are artists who have long runs of creativity with loads of strong songs, but they're exceptional enough that it's remarked upon.

With everything else that goes on, the touring, the practising on one's instrument, all the aspects of a professional music career, the need to have an actual life, the demands on having records out in sufficient quantity and at the required times it's not easy to sustain compositional excellence. I think it may be harder in a band where everybody wants to have their 5c worth and so compromises may be necessary.

I dunno, it seems to be a general Prog Rock thing though, where bands often try to fit too many ideas into a song. For example, you'll be listening to a song and there'll be a melody which sounds really cool (could certainly be considered a hook) but they move away from it too soon and never revisit it again. That kind of bums me out because they have this cool hook which they could have built a great song around but instead it's presented as a short bridge or something like that.

Yeah, but the point of prog rock, or A point, is to have the complex riffs and lots of changes and interesting sounds. If a band just writes great melodies with good lyrics (did I say "just" ?) and plays for the song then they're not prog rock really.

Clint-Green

X-rated Bob wrote:
Clint Green wrote: I dunno, it seems to be a general Prog Rock thing though, where bands often try to fit too many ideas into a song. For example, you'll be listening to a song and there'll be a melody which sounds really cool (could certainly be considered a hook) but they move away from it too soon and never revisit it again. That kind of bums me out because they have this cool hook which they could have built a great song around but instead it's presented as a short bridge or something like that.
Yeah, but the point of prog rock, or A point, is to have the complex riffs and lots of changes and interesting sounds. If a band just writes great melodies with good lyrics (did I say "just" ?) and plays for the song then they're not prog rock really.

Absolutely yes, but I still believe that a good band or songwriter should recognize good hooks in songs and utilize them. I'm not saying write a hook-laden verse-chorus-verse pop song, but if you want your listeners to stay interested, emphasise the really good melodies instead of just keeping them as a passing thought.

I know it's easy to sit and commentate from the sidelines so again, this is what I personally would prefer to hear and what I would do when writing prog. Lots of ideas, interesting melodic and timing changes = prog for sure, but too much and it just becomes boring IMO...