what do so many people have against dream theater or just plain hate them? i was just looking at the 5 worst prog bands and how can people say dream tehater are in there or even close. i know everyone has their own opinion but they are superb musicians and their music is awesome. they have so many different genres all packed into the one band. explain how people can dislike them?

How can anyone dislike any music when it's all only sounds organised in time?

There's no accounting for taste - but I think DT get far too much airtime, and people get fed up with that.

There is also this odd notion that DT are a prog band, when prog metal is but a sibling - a sub-genre of prog proper. All the "Masterpiece" reviews of DTs albums are way OTT - to say that any DT album is as much a Masterpiece of prog rock as ITCOTCK (for example) is laughable, IMHO.

The music is just not as original or progressive as any of the "old school" - DT even use riffs from other bands. I cannot think of a single KC, Genesis, Gentle Giant, Can, Gong or Jethro Tull album where that is the case, and the same goes for the more inventive of the neo-prog bands... and all the other bands I've forgotten to name!

What DT produce is music that is "styled" progressive metal. It has time changes, virtuosic playing and many other prog elements - but I never get the feeling that here is something new,  unique or organic, and I feel that the melodic invention is somewhat sub-par and subservient to the technical virtuosity. It's almost like having a band full of Malmsteens or Satrianis.

Just like you find it hard to understand how someone can hate DT,I find it equally hard to understand how someone can like them! For one thing,they completely lack any kind of subtlety,they were brought up on a steady diet of the worst type of American stadium bands like Boston or (shudder!) Journey and their music is dripping with the same kind of syrupy,cloying sentimentality that always plagued those bands. I have always imagined that if Walt Disney had formed a progressive metal band it would have sounded like Dream Theater. The problem is probably that they are American. American bands,probably because of the AOR connection,have never managed this type of thing very well,they always wind up sounding far too banal. If you want the progressive metal thing done properly,you have to look to Europe. As usual.

I used to like them but now find it hard to listen to their music.It does sound like a lot of typical heavy metal shredding with only some fast keyboard runs to stop you falling asleep.I've also just discovered Tool and they are ten times better IMO.

Pixel Pirate wrote: /edit: If you want the progressive metal thing done properly,you have to look to Europe. As usual.

What, you mean like "The Final Countdown"?

Certif1ed wrote: Pixel Pirate wrote: /edit: If you want the progressive metal thing done properly,you have to look to Europe. As usual. What, you mean like "The Final Countdown"?

You have to sort out your subgenre definitions,young man! Europe were hair metal,a very different thing.

I love them. I don't care whether other people like them or not, it all comes down to opinion, but I think they're brilliant. All five members (including James LaBrie), is a master of what they do. Arguable, yes, but none-the-less it's always the DT haters who make claims like "John Petrucci couldn't play a decent lick if his life depended on it".

Again though, it all comes down to personal taste. I like them. I like their music. Their songs. Their albums. I can play a Dream Theater album and easily get into it. In the end that's what it's all about. It's just not for some people.

 I'm not going to say DT is the best band of all time (it's not), but I would like to know how many DT-haters out there are Arena or IQ fans. I think there are many such people here. Why am I asking this question? Because the latter two bands keep recroding the same old album all over again. DT do not. Say what you like about them, no two DT albums sound the same. And some of you even admit that Dark Matter is the same old IQ music, but it's a good album and IQ are a good band, anyway. How can a band that didn't develop or at least change within the last 15 or so years be good? It's your subjective opinion, realise that, and admit that some bands that don't change AT ALL are sometimes described as amazing and DT are always downtrodden (or overpraised for that matter), no matter whatever they record. Always trying something new is the basis for an artist's being worthy of notice in my book, and settling into a comfortable niche after a one-off success means early death. DT definitely belong to the first category. So have some degree of objectivity, please, when you praise or critisise something and be very careful when assigning extremes of merit or flaw to anything, you just might be missing something important.   

DT getting too much airtime. Wow, I'd love to have access to a radio station where DT got at least a quarter of the airtime you're implying they get. 

A band full of Malmsteens? No, thanks. A band full of Satrianis? Yes, please. Don't compare people like Satriani, Vai or Petrucci to people like Malmsteen or call them 'shredders' it just shows that you've never heard anything by any of these guitarists.

Flashy technique? I can only think of DT instrumentals as somewhat "flashy", but highly musical nevertheless. Virtuosity is present in most of their songs, but it's almost always disciplined and serves the music, not the other way around 

All in all, I will stand by my opinion that DT is a good but flawed band that deserves respect for the sheer wealth of interesting riffs, motives, time signatures etc., but, since it became a little more popular over the years, it just had to become everyone's god/devil.  

So many people hate on Dream Theater because they really don't represent prog music very well.  Even though they are not prog music proper, they are probably the most well known prog band to emerge in the past 20 years.  So, at least for myself, the idea of DT representing progressive music upsets me more than their music. 

So many bands and artists today do not want to be labled progressive today because of what the label now represents to them.  The general public sees prog as adavanced metal, ie DT.  I remember reading so many articles that members have posted on this site where a reviewer would mention prog and shredding in the same sentence.

I really think that people just don't like DT for what they do to the genre of prog.  I have spoken to so many people that think I am into shred metal when I tell them I like progressive music.  For some reason DT's art, prog metal, has come to represent the entire genre of prog.  How this happened, I don't know but I believe a lot of people look to this point and see bands like DT and Savatage as causing the genre more bad than good. The fact is that to the general public progresive rock represents a stale and contrived music and DT is the whipping boy for many fans of the genre.

Dont hate them at all.

Picked up 'Train of thought' from the HMV bargain bin last year. On first listen dismissed it as thrash metal, for which I am far too old. I like peace and quiet at my age, not some thrasher screaming about how tortured his wretched soul is..

On subsequet listens I grew to appreciate what good  musicians they are. Wanted to hear them do something lighter and more thoughtful, so I bought 'Images & Words' I like that album very much, and 'Six degrees..' is now on my 'to get list'

I like 'em, but accept the view that they're not really doing anything groundbreaking.

Lets get this straight - I love Yes/IQ/Genesis/Camel/The Enid/Glass Hammer/Spocks Beard/Transatlantic - These are all melodic prog - Then I heard Dream Theater and they gave me a NEW buzz - I like it - and every bit I've listed to since has hit the spot ! - Compare that with King Crimson - I listened and was I disappointed - Whats the fuss I thought - this has nowt in it special AT ALL !

 I KNOW WHAT I LIKE - And DREAM THEATER - SIX DEGREES TRACK is a MILLION times better than anything on ITCOTCK and that Poseidon jobby - You just cannot compare the two in terms of me liking them - but thats personal taste for you - Some people would love a track where a piece of knicker-elastic is twanged with an echo-effect with the sound of a clock/metronome in the background ala FLOYD or some other weird psychedelic 60's band !

Thats taste....

Swinton:

When did you first hear King Crimson or Pink Floyd? I've no idea how old you are, but if you were 18 in 1969 and were played ITCOTCK for the first time, my hunch is that you'd be blown away forever!!  Nothing like it had ever been done before. Same goes for Floyd. A track with clocks ticking, or bells ringing, or dogs howling or whatever was 'art' in the 70's. If someone done it now, we would all say 'Big deal Floyd done that 30 years ago. So what?'

Dream Theater are a 'good' band, but you have to admit they are working within an established formula. To be honest I'd rather listen to Dream Theater most days than KC, but Dream Theater are not the start of something big, like KC were.

This is a Strange one this is because I was born in 1965, I first heard Genesis as a kid of 9 when my Brother (10 years my senior) was playing Selling England , whilst I was playing with my lego.

I first got into Genesis in 1977 - Seconds out - what an Album and I went to see Genesis in 1977 and was hooked - I bought all the back catalogue in Dec 1977 - and some of it I didn't like at first. Then a friend introduced me to Sabbath/Deep Purple/Hawkwind and I was hooked again and went to see lots of Heavy rock gigs - then I got into Motorhead/Venom/Diamond head / Iron maiden, AC/DC and all that.

In 1985 I got into the new-romantic scene (mainly for the sex with very sexily clad young ladies who were into the new-romantic scene by their thousands) and I loved Ultravox and Numan - I also got into Yes at this time and a bit of Floyd, then Marillion / Twelfth Night / Pendragon and IQ.

About 12 months ago (I was 38) I started collecting prog-again - thats when I listened to KC - Too late I would imagine because I have heard too much other music etc.....

Genesis were my first Love, and then Heavy Metal then New romantic / Yes/Camel and the 80's prog bands then it was catch up in the year 2004.......

Strange eh ?

1. I believe John Myung is an outstanding bassist
2. I also believe Jordan Rudess is an excellent keyboardist
3. Don't like La Brie's voice, but I also don't like Anderson's voice and love Yes, so that shouldn't be a problem.
4. Petrucci is a talented guitar player but nothing special IMO.
5. I find Portnoy highly overrated, of course he's good, but he believes he's better than he really is, again IMO not in the level of Bruford, Palmer, Ehart, Manu Katche, Peart and at least 30 more.

So there should not be a strong reason to dislike Dream Theater, but I hate their music. Most of them are talented but I find no structure in their music, simply not solid, a lot of solos that lead nowhere.

It's really sad, because they are able to play great music, simply they give far more importance for individual showmanship than to team work, they make music only to shine as individual musicians.

Iván

Spartacus wrote: So many people hate on Dream Theater because they really don't represent prog music very well.  Even though they are not prog music proper, they are probably the most well known prog band to emerge in the past 20 years.  So, at least for myself, the idea of DT representing progressive music upsets me more than their music.  So many bands and artists today do not want to be labled progressive today because of what the label now represents to them.  The general public sees prog as adavanced metal, ie DT.  I remember reading so many articles that members have posted on this site where a reviewer would mention prog and shredding in the same sentence. I really think that people just don't like DT for what they do to the genre of prog.  I have spoken to so many people that think I am into shred metal when I tell them I like progressive music.  For some reason DT's art, prog metal, has come to represent the entire genre of prog.  How this happened, I don't know but I believe a lot of people look to this point and see bands like DT and Savatage as causing the genre more bad than good. The fact is that to the general public progresive rock represents a stale and contrived music and DT is the whipping boy for many fans of the genre.

Sparticus probably the only reason that they think that you are into shred metal when you say that is because they got the wrong end of the stick and probably if you told them some bands or even spoke about other bands then they might not make that mistake.

ivan_2068 wrote: So there should not be a strong reason to dislike Dream Theater, but I hate their music. Most of them are talented but I find no structure in their music, simply not solid, a lot of solos that lead nowhere. Iván

NO STRUCTURE? ARE YOU SERIOUS?????

just listen again images & words!

oliverstoned wrote: just listened to one album, and it was already too much for me! i found it binary, boring, poorly skilled musicians... It has nothing to do with real progressive. They know how to play 2 notes, but that's all!

oliver i only no how to play 2 notes and i am 14 so does taht mean i am able to play a DT song? how are they poorly skilled musicians they are alot better than the likes of Robert Fripp or Adrian Belew (King Crimson) IMO.

Gosh.. This was bound to happen!!

dream theatre.. gosh where should I begin?!?!?!? The music of dream theatre isn't a band. It's just an group of one by one good musicians who wants to show their way of playing some stuff that's really hard to do ( once again.. show-off theatre)!! Innovation? something new? NO! boring stuff.. It really is.... The other thing that is bothering me is their fans.. calling this the best prog metal is just plain stupid! take a DEEP look further.. it's just like saying "I love the stuff of Phill Collins! It's the best prog-rock band ever!!" REALLY irritating.. that one!

Swinton MCR wrote: This is a Strange one this is because I was born in 1965, I first heard Genesis as a kid of 9 when my Brother (10 years my senior) was playing Selling England , whilst I was playing with my lego. I first got into Genesis in 1977 - Seconds out - what an Album and I went to see Genesis in 1977 and was hooked - I bought all the back catalogue in Dec 1977 - and some of it I didn't like at first. Then a friend introduced me to Sabbath/Deep Purple/Hawkwind and I was hooked again and went to see lots of Heavy rock gigs - then I got into Motorhead/Venom/Diamond head / Iron maiden, AC/DC and all that. In 1985 I got into the new-romantic scene (mainly for the sex with very sexily clad young ladies who were into the new-romantic scene by their thousands) and I loved Ultravox and Numan - I also got into Yes at this time and a bit of Floyd, then Marillion / Twelfth Night / Pendragon and IQ. About 12 months ago (I was 38) I started collecting prog-again - thats when I listened to KC - Too late I would imagine because I have heard too much other music etc..... Genesis were my first Love, and then Heavy Metal then New romantic / Yes/Camel and the 80's prog bands then it was catch up in the year 2004....... Strange eh ?

I love hearing how people got into prog! Hey I'm only two years younger than you, and my first experience of prog was probably in 1980 - at the age of 11 - with Pink Floyd (The Wall) unless of course you count my run in Jeff Waynes War of the Worlds two years before.

You saw Genesis in '77 - With Hackett??? - I'm not jealous at all!!

I think my problem with KC is that I, too decided to give them a go too late in the day. From my early teens I had been listening to Rush, Genesis, Floyd, Marillion, Led Zep along with a load of heavy metal bands, but had ignored KC, ELP and other key prog acts from the heyday.

I reckon a lot of people who drift away from prog when they're young, or put it on the back burner, return to it when they realise that most other popular music is so inferior to it. I spent half of the 90's sweating my bolloc*s off in raves, going to sh!tty clubs in London back alleys, and going to see floppy haired shoe gazing Indie bands. I soon got tired of that and went back to prog land. Glad I did.

Radioactive Toy wrote:

dream theatre.. gosh where should I begin?!?!?!? The music of dream theatre isn't a band. It's just an group of one by one good musicians who wants to show their way of playing some stuff that's really hard to do ( once again.. show-off theatre)!!

Hey Greenback, this doesn't mean my comment about the lack of structure of Dream Theater is right, but at least means I'm not alone.

I heard Images and Words a lot of times trying to find something in Dream Theater, I bought Metropolis 2000 DVD  without having listened them before, and still I only hear a bunch of very good but poser players trying to show how skilled they are as individual musicians but nothing else.

They are far much better as performers in their respective instruments  (except La Brie) than as a band or composers.

Iván

Well, in my case, the problem isn't Dream Theater...it's Jordan Rudess. Kevin Moore-era DT is great...the Rudess stuff becomes WAY too self-indulgent and unstructured for me. (The exception at this time being Train of Thought, which is decent, but still doesn't measure up to Awake or Images and Words.)[/QUOTE]

I agree.  I find their recent discs pure self-indulgence with little song to support it.  Early DT had songs with fantastic playing supporting it. 

I think they are amazing musicians, and I have great respect for each one of them individually.  I just do not care for the SONGS.  There was a thread a month or so ago regarding skill versus songwriting.  DT are a perfect example of a group of fantastic musicians who have not recently been writing interesting songs.

In the interest of full disclosure, my favorite DT album is "Falling Into Infinity", which is a TRUE DT fan's "sellout" album.  This disc had songs, though.  A perfect example is "Lines in the Sand", where Pettrucci plays a slower solo.  The notes in that solo are perfect for the song.  There are solos in "Train of Thought" where he probably plays 128 notes per beat.  Great musician, but it does nothing to move the song along.

Give me Transatlantic (with Mike Portnoy) or OSI (with Kevin Moore) anyday.

FloydWright wrote: Lark´s Vomit wrote: Noone cares Keep posting needless one-liners like that and nobody will care about your posts either. It's getting old.

Who made you the arbiter of taste around here,Noob?

I only got into DT in Sep 2004 - I bought Scenes on recommendation in this very boutique, and unlike the "Norwegian Blue" I found it wasn't all squawked out at all, it was alive and well and a new type of prog for me to enjoy.

I feel that DT are like a lot of the more "Weird" prog rock acts - You either love em or loathe em - I enjoy the power riffing and La-Brie has grown on me - They are great muscians producing a complicated heavy music which I suppose appeals to the "Metal-Head" in me, if your all lucky? I may post the pictures of me as a New-Romantic, and even my WIFE has never seen them! - The Phil Oakey Flicker is truly so 80's........

Rob The Plant wrote: Dream Theatre is a Metallica, with an even worse singer, and solos that carry out so long, and seem so random that it kills all momentum built up throughout the song.

No -they're not Metallica; they're not inventive or orignal enough, from the little (admittedly) that I've heard.

What Ivan says about structures seems pretty much correct to me - they either stick to a straightforward rock ballad formula, or they ignore all rules of structuring completely. Even Jazz musicians know that structure is the skeleton around which the music is fleshed out. Just moving from one section to another can work as a dramatic event once or twice, but it's not a very good or convicing method of composition.

Somewhat amateurish, I would propose.

arkitek wrote: Spartacus wrote: So many people hate on Dream Theater because they really don't represent prog music very well.  Even though they are not prog music proper, they are probably the most well known prog band to emerge in the past 20 years.  So, at least for myself, the idea of DT representing progressive music upsets me more than their music.  So many bands and artists today do not want to be labled progressive today because of what the label now represents to them.  The general public sees prog as adavanced metal, ie DT.  I remember reading so many articles that members have posted on this site where a reviewer would mention prog and shredding in the same sentence. I really think that people just don't like DT for what they do to the genre of prog.  I have spoken to so many people that think I am into shred metal when I tell them I like progressive music.  For some reason DT's art, prog metal, has come to represent the entire genre of prog.  How this happened, I don't know but I believe a lot of people look to this point and see bands like DT and Savatage as causing the genre more bad than good. The fact is that to the general public progresive rock represents a stale and contrived music and DT is the whipping boy for many fans of the genre.       Sparticus probably the only reason that they think that you are into shred metal when you say that is because they got the wrong end of the stick and probably if you told them some bands or even spoke about other bands then they might not make that mistake.

You may be missing the point. 

Many listeners and musicians are turned off by their perceptions of what prog is and unfortunatly many many people believe that DT is the main representative of prog today.  Progressive music could be much more viable and exciting today if the masses, the press, and musicians did not think that prog was DT music.  This begs the question of what is DT music, I see it as calculated, heartless virtuoso metal light with elements of prog.  Although sometimes I must say the prog comes first but a great piece must be destroyed by a long guitar shred.  Being the main ambassador of prog today is of no fault to DT but it does give an attempt to answer the question at hand.  I really belive this to be the reason why DT is much more polarizing of a band than any other modern prog band today.

[quote]Just moving from one section to another can work as a dramatic event once or twice, but it's not a very good or convicing method of composition.[quote]

As I told you before, in Lima we have an active Prog' group that monthly does a reunion where one member talks about a band, shows some videos and Power Point slideshows with background music.

Cesar Inca is one of the best and well informed hosts I ever heard, some Kansas haters left his clinic about this band admitting they never really gave that band a chance before because of Dust in the Wind, but a couple months ago he gave an excellent clinic about Dream Theater.

Most of the members with whom I spoke during and after the session admitted they were impressed with the skills of the Dream Theater musicians (Specially Myung), but almost no one felt that the band satisfied them.

The common phrase was, "They are incredible players, but they go nowhere, their music tells me nothing" or "When you believe they are doing a great song, they interrupt it with a solo that breaks the atmosphere and after that they don't know how to return"

That's exactly how I felt, one solo once in a while in a middle of a track is great, but a collection of endless solos gets boring after 5 or 10 minutes, somehow as if they were jumping from one side to another without any logic to the point you don't remeber where they started and you can't even imagine where are they trying to go.

Iván

Manunkind wrote:  I'm not going to say DT is the best band of all time (it's not), but I would like to know how many DT-haters out there are Arena or IQ fans. I think there are many such people here. Why am I asking this question? Because the latter two bands keep recroding the same old album all over again. DT do not. Say what you like about them, no two DT albums sound the same. And some of you even admit that Dark Matter is the same old IQ music, but it's a good album and IQ are a good band, anyway. How can a band that didn't develop or at least change within the last 15 or so years be good? It's your subjective opinion, realise that, and admit that some bands that don't change AT ALL are sometimes described as amazing and DT are always downtrodden (or overpraised for that matter), no matter whatever they record. Always trying something new is the basis for an artist's being worthy of notice in my book, and settling into a comfortable niche after a one-off success means early death. DT definitely belong to the first category. So have some degree of objectivity, please, when you praise or critisise something and be very careful when assigning extremes of merit or flaw to anything, you just might be missing something important.    DT getting too much airtime. Wow, I'd love to have access to a radio station where DT got at least a quarter of the airtime you're implying they get.  A band full of Malmsteens? No, thanks. A band full of Satrianis? Yes, please. Don't compare people like Satriani, Vai or Petrucci to people like Malmsteen or call them 'shredders' it just shows that you've never heard anything by any of these guitarists. Flashy technique? I can only think of DT instrumentals as somewhat "flashy", but highly musical nevertheless. Virtuosity is present in most of their songs, but it's almost always disciplined and serves the music, not the other way around  All in all, I will stand by my opinion that DT is a good but flawed band that deserves respect for the sheer wealth of interesting riffs, motives, time signatures etc., but, since it became a little more popular over the years, it just had to become everyone's god/devil.

I don't agree with your comments about IQ at all.They have created original and unique albums and continued to evolve as a band from 'Ever' onwards.Dream Theater have created a lot that sounds very samey to my ears.But then it is all personal taste as you say.

Through Dream Theater, I got into Yes, Rush, Marillion, Genesis, Mike Oldfield, IQ, Spock's Beard, Savatage, Symphony X and Queensryche.

If they can get me into prog, then I'm sure they can get many more people into prog. So let's all be happy that whether they're considered prog or not, they can help influence people's musical prog taste (if that makes sense, you know what I mean).

Valarius wrote: Through Dream Theater, I got into Yes, Rush, Marillion, Genesis, Mike Oldfield, IQ, Spock's Beard, Savatage, Symphony X and Queensryche. If they can get me into prog, then I'm sure they can get many more people into prog. So let's all be happy that whether they're considered prog or not, they can help influence people's musical prog taste (if that makes sense, you know what I mean).

Good point.Some bands can be a crossover to prog and maybe DT are one such band. 

Well, if it wasn't for Dream Theater, I'd still be listening to Thrash Metal, bands like Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, Anthrax, Testament, Iron Maiden amoung other metal bands.

Surely they deserve credit for that.

Valarius wrote: Well, if it wasn't for Dream Theater, I'd still be listening to Thrash Metal, bands like Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, Anthrax, Testament, Iron Maiden amoung other metal bands. Surely they deserve credit for that.

Iron Maiden are allright

Anthrax - is that the band with a guitarist who wears a bucket on his head and calls himelf 'Buckethead'?

richardh wrote: Valarius wrote: Well, if it wasn't for Dream Theater, I'd still be listening to Thrash Metal, bands like Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, Anthrax, Testament, Iron Maiden amoung other metal bands. Surely they deserve credit for that. Iron Maiden are allright Anthrax - is that the band with a guitarist who wears a bucket on his head and calls himelf 'Buckethead'?

Bucket on his head? Is that a joke?

richardh wrote: Valarius wrote: Well, if it wasn't for Dream Theater, I'd still be listening to Thrash Metal, bands like Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, Anthrax, Testament, Iron Maiden amoung other metal bands. Surely they deserve credit for that. Iron Maiden are allright Anthrax - is that the band with a guitarist who wears a bucket on his head and calls himelf 'Buckethead'?

Buckethead? I don't know anything about him except he is/was in Guns 'N Roses. He was never in Anthrax to my knowledge.

I'd have to go with the general consensus in saying that they are very talented. And I do have to say that I enjoy their music and compositions.

What I don't like about the group is that the only people who really get any light shed on them is John Petrucci and Jordan Rudess. I feel that Myung and Portnoy (mainly Myung though) are left out. Petrucci is a great guitarist, but most of his solos follow similar structures. Myung is a powerhouse on bass who really carries the band when everyone else is going all insane. Portnoy is talented yet overrated. And yes their intrumentals are flashy, but who cares?

I am enjoy them even though they have their flaws. I guess it all comes down to choice.

Valarius wrote: richardh wrote: Valarius wrote: Well, if it wasn't for Dream Theater, I'd still be listening to Thrash Metal, bands like Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, Anthrax, Testament, Iron Maiden amoung other metal bands. Surely they deserve credit for that. Iron Maiden are allright Anthrax - is that the band with a guitarist who wears a bucket on his head and calls himelf 'Buckethead'? Buckethead? I don't know anything about him except he is/was in Guns 'N Roses. He was never in Anthrax to my knowledge.

That confirms how little I know about Heavy Metal then

CrimsonTony wrote: But DO NOT compare Petrucci to Fripp, please. Robert Fripp is probably the greatest rock guitarist (with Howe) on earth (technically), and he's an incredible composer. Listen to Fracture= impossible structure and emotion!

This however, is an opinion.

In my eyes, John Petrucci is the best guitarist in the world. Fact? No. Opinion? Yes.

richardh wrote: That confirms how little I know about Heavy Metal then

Don't ask...

ivan_2068 wrote: So there should not be a strong reason to dislike Dream Theater, but I hate their music. Most of them are talented but I find no structure in their music, simply not solid, a lot of solos that lead nowhere.

The repertoire in their first 3 albums is very structured, while on stage they always tend to push the envelope a bit furhter, but anyway, all that additional jamming can only come from their pretentious side and also from their need to express something more than what is merely conteined in the studio efforts. All thorughout the years, DT's music has become increasingly colourful, which means that they are not only interested in keeping a well defined structure in their compositions, but also in enhancing the "epic" stuff. Nevertheless, there is always a structure, a motif or two that defines the basis for a track, a part for some jamming (maybe the interlude, maybe the coda, maybe both), as it is shown in 'Beyond this Life', 'Throough Her Eyes', 'Home' and 'Finally Free' from SfaM, 'Misunderstood' and 'Disappear' from 6DoIT, just to mention a few examples. What is this alleged lack of structure? Definitely I don't see that lackness in 'Light Fuse and Get Away', 'Only a Matter of Time', 'Metropolis Pt. 1', 'Learning to Live', 'Surrounded', 'The Mirror / Lie' or '6:00', just to mention earlier examples.   

Now, we're all expressing opinions based on some facts (which are also observed from a point of view, not with absolute crystal clear objectiveness), but anyway, I wonder how can the songs in 'I&W' and 'Awaken' be considered as lacking structure (back to the earlier examples).

Regards. 

Cesar Inca wrote: ivan_2068 wrote: So there should not be a strong reason to dislike Dream Theater, but I hate their music. Most of them are talented but I find no structure in their music, simply not solid, a lot of solos that lead nowhere.   The repertoire in their first 3 albums is very structured, while on stage they always tend to push the envelope a bit furhter, but anyway, all that additional jamming can only come from their pretentious side and also from their need to express something more than what is merely conteined in the studio efforts. All thorughout the years, DT's music has become increasingly colourful, which means that they are not only interested in keeping a well defined structure in their compositions, but also in enhancing the "epic" stuff. Nevertheless, there is always a structure, a motif or two that defines the basis for a track, a part for some jamming (maybe the interlude, maybe the coda, maybe both), as it is shown in 'Beyond this Life', 'Throough Her Eyes', 'Home' and 'Finally Free' from SfaM, 'Misunderstood' and 'Disappear' from 6DoIT, just to mention a few examples. What is this alleged lack of structure? Definitely I don't see that lackness in 'Light Fuse and Get Away', 'Only a Matter of Time', 'Metropolis Pt. 1', 'Learning to Live', 'Surrounded', 'The Mirror / Lie' or '6:00', just to mention earlier examples.    Now, we're all expressing opinions based on some facts (which are also observed from a point of view, not with absolute crystal clear objectiveness), but anyway, I wonder how can the songs in 'I&W' and 'Awaken' be considered as lacking structure (back to the earlier examples). Regards.

Which goes back to the point made earlier, that Kevin Moore seems to have kept the band on an even (melodic) keel.  The two albums Cesar points to in the last paragraph are from the Kevin Moore days.  Once his influence was gone, the songs became more flash less structure IMO.

When discussing Genesis, many people feel that when Hackett left, Collins' more commercial tendencies changed the band for the worse.  Is it possible that something similar could be said about Kevin Moore leaving DT?   

I respect your oipinion Cesar but still I find that lack of structure and music based in endless solos in which the D&Tmembers try to prove the world how good they are doing hard things.

Have you noticed you're the first one who mentions specific tracks? This isn't strange for me because I know you really know about DT  and other bands so you can find a determined structure that is hidden for the rest of us, but no other fan I seen mentions songs and only a few use one album to explain their point.

This is a symptom about what I said, I'm sure now everybody will mention tracks just to keep their point, but it was not anatural thing, when a fan talks about Genesis, Yes, ELP, etc all of them mention at least Close to the Edge, Supper's Ready or Karn Evil 9, but in the case of DT is different.

Iván

Ivan - I am fairly New to DT - I have been listening to them for six months only (compared to nearly 30 years - Genesis) - However, DT like to intersperse their music with short, speedy and technically wizzy solos, not for them the slow methodical solo of a Hackett/Gilmour - This is what makes it diffrent and refreshing in some ways - I like if for the difference in Genesis/Yes - It takesmy taste into new areas - I'd like to explore more avenues of prog/metal and I probably will.

Peace.

Don't misunderstand me Swinton, I like Prog Metal and simple Metal a lot, UI have very muchrespect for this genres, because back in the very late 70's and early 80's we shared a deep disrespect for Disco Music, so I started ton listen Metal and some metal friends started to listen Prog'.

We made a colorfull but interesting group of people, still I listen some Metallica, Iron Maiden,. etc, so the problem for me is Dream Theater, I dislike the overacted showmanship and the wish to shine above the rest members of the band, I don't find solid group work.

But as Cesar said, this is only my perspective, could be wrong.

Iván

Actually, what I feel is that Sherinian brought somehing more bombastic and explosive into the DT's keyboard department: Sherinian is more into jazz rock and AOR, and that was accurately reflected in his ideas and interventions for the 'FiI' album.

Rudess, like Moore, is more structured and bears a clearer melodic sensitivity, but he is also very bombastic from the Wakeman/Emersonian point of view. So Rudess proved that he should have been Moore's replacement right from the start, because he was authentically progressive and not simply bombastic and hard rocking. You can tell by listening to their solo records: Sherinian is in love with jamming from a few basic ideas, while Rudess is a real symphonic rocker who likes meticulous compositions and also, showing off his skills (nothing wrong with that - we love it from Tarkus, The Six Wives, In the Dead of Night, Relayer,...)

Moore left DT because he grew an interest for ambient-electronic stuff and was less interested in prog or metal prog. It was just a change of heart in his musical mind. Rudess is older and more veteran than Moore, and he was very much into the prog thing even before becoming a DT memeber. His and Myung's input are the most important elements of structure in current DT music. Even both Myung and Rudess are responsible of some of the most beutiful and subtle pieces from DT's latest albums ('Disappear', 'Vacant', some slow parts of the suite '6DoIT') - it's not all flash and pomp in DT's music, and sure you can't properly make a diagnose of what they're about just by knowing 20 % of their repertoire and portions of a 30 %, leaving teh res tas if "oh, it must be all the same, so I won't bother".

Regards. 

Beau Heem wrote: The music (or something resembling music) of DT always reminds me of the hundreds of hours I spent trying to master the etudes of David Popper with my cello. Music composed to develop instrumental skills, not something that should ever be played for an audience. (no need to remind me of Debussy's concert etudes here) Someone wise said a long, long time ago, that if a musical piece sounds difficult to play, it is poorly played. I think that remark isn't far from the truth. Cheers -Beau

Someone wise once composed many brilliant pieces of music that not only sounded difficult to play, but have always been very difficult to play. Who was that now...? Frank Zappa? Gyorgi Ligeti? John Coltrane? Johann Sebsatian Bach? Keith Jarrett? Hmm... all five of them...and probably many more... and a certain tribe of pygmies who don't even know the word 'musicology' and have played their drum music for thousands of years, without even knowing that nearly all professional drummers would sell their kits upon hearing their drumming, and without knowing that according to someone their playing was poor just because their music was complicated.

No offence Beau, but I think that remark you mentioned was made one of these drummers, and that it's very far from the truth.

Manunkind wrote: Beau Heem wrote: The music (or something resembling music) of DT always reminds me of the hundreds of hours I spent trying to master the etudes of David Popper with my cello. Music composed to develop instrumental skills, not something that should ever be played for an audience. (no need to remind me of Debussy's concert etudes here) Someone wise said a long, long time ago, that if a musical piece sounds difficult to play, it is poorly played. I think that remark isn't far from the truth. Cheers -Beau Someone wise once composed many brilliant pieces of music that not only sounded difficult to play, but have always been very difficult to play. Who was that now...? Frank Zappa? Gyorgi Ligeti? John Coltrane? Johann Sebsatian Bach? Keith Jarrett? Hmm... all five of them...and probably many more... and a certain tribe of pygmies who don't even know the word 'musicology' and have played their drum music for thousands of years, without even knowing that nearly all professional drummers would sell their kits upon hearing their drumming, and without knowing that according to someone their playing was poor just because their music was complicated. No offence Beau, but I think that remark you mentioned was made one of these drummers, and that it's very far from the truth.

None taken. But I still believe that remark to be true in all music.

Haven't you ever noticed how the best musicians make the hardest things sound as if it was easy to play? Of course, if one has any knowledge whatsoever of how to play a certain instrument, one has a general view of what is difficult to play with it or not, but the fact that some musical piece is difficult does not mean that it should sound like it was.

Everything sounds difficult to play if the player tries to handle an instrument he/she does not master to the extent needed. But the stuff you mention (Ligety et al.) does not sound difficult, it sounds complex. This is not to say that the music of the aforementioned composers would not be difficult to play - I'm quite sure it is, but when it is properly played it really does not sound taht way.

If i hear a musician playing a piece he/she has difficulties with, he/she is not playing it good enough.

Cheers

-Beau

PS. Playing fast does not equal difficult

Certif1ed wrote: Manunkind wrote:  I'm not going to say DT is the best band of all time (it's not), but I would like to know how many DT-haters out there are Arena or IQ fans. I think there are many such people here. Why am I asking this question? Because the latter two bands keep recroding the same old album all over again. That's not true. DT do not. Say what you like about them, no two DT albums sound the same. Subjective... And some of you even admit that Dark Matter is the same old IQ music, but it's a good album and IQ are a good band, anyway. How can a band that didn't develop or at least change within the last 15 or so years be good? You've started off by asking how many people who dislike DT are IQ or Arena fans, and then continued as if this is an accepted fact. And who's to say IQ didn't change or develop - a lot of people reckon that Dark Matter is about the best they've ever done. How can they not have changed or developed to achieve this? It's your subjective opinion, realise that, Good advice - take it and admit that some bands that don't change AT ALL are sometimes described as amazing and DT are always downtrodden (or overpraised for that matter), no matter whatever they record. Always trying something new is the basis for an artist's being worthy of notice in my book, and settling into a comfortable niche after a one-off success means early death. DT definitely belong to the first category. So have some degree of objectivity, please, when you praise or critisise something and be very careful when assigning extremes of merit or flaw to anything, you just might be missing something important.    Good advice - take it DT getting too much airtime. Wow, I'd love to have access to a radio station where DT got at least a quarter of the airtime you're implying they get.  A point or two missed, I think. A band full of Malmsteens? No, thanks. A band full of Satrianis? Yes, please. Don't compare people like Satriani, Vai or Petrucci to people like Malmsteen or call them 'shredders' it just shows that you've never heard anything by any of these guitarists. No it doesn't. I own albums by most of the shredders - and I'm very familiar with their styles. Flashy technique? I can only think of DT instrumentals as somewhat "flashy", but highly musical nevertheless. Virtuosity is present in most of their songs, but it's almost always disciplined and serves the music, not the other way around  Not what I've heard. But then good music is a matter of opinion. However, weak approaches to composition are factual and not opinion. Standard rock ballad format is not progressive. All in all, I will stand by my opinion that DT is a good but flawed band that deserves respect for the sheer wealth of interesting riffs, motives, time signatures etc., but, since it became a little more popular over the years, it just had to become everyone's god/devil.   You stand by your opinion - this thread is attempting to find out why people dislike DT - we've heard too much from people that do like them - too much airtime in terms of discussion, and too much praising to the skies, when, as you say, they are flawed.  What, would you say, are those flaws?

OK, I knew I shouldn't have posted half-asleep in a room with the heater on at 150% and a crowd of people hanging over my head, just dying to get me off the PC...  I'm not an inmate, it's one of the university rooms.

OK Certif1ed, I agree that my post is chaotic and inconsistent. I hope I can clear things up a little bit. First of all, my answers to what I infer to be your opinions: IQ and Arena do relase different albums - subjective. DT don't - that's not true. Secondly, my assumptions that fans of the former are haters of the latter. I did assume that, stupid memea culpa, I guess I was typing when I should have been thinking, see above for the possible explanation. But again, the reasoning you apply to prove that IQ have developed, can also be applied to DT - since many people believe ToT to be better than SDoIT, for example, DT must have developed and therefore changed.

Thirdly, my saying that "some bands that don't change AT ALL are sometimes described as amazing and DT are always downtrodden (or overpraised,for that matter), no matter what they record". Yeah, rambling squared, but a logical thought runs through it somewhere. To let the "IQ/Arena repeating themselves or not?" controversy aside, I was trying to say that most people don't seem to have an objective enough opinion on DT. They either love them or hate them, and this way DT doesn't get respect from either group (neither extreme nay-saying nor extreme yea-saying are signs of respect in my book). Why do I think neither group is right? I already named DTs assets, now for the flaws: LaBrie gets into this heavy-metal wail all too often, and when the music becomes more introspective, his voice becomes a piece of chocolate cake covered with sweet cream and five layers of sugar. Make it a piece of cheesecake. Rudess sometimes sounds like one of these melodies you get on a CD/cassette that accompanies high-school books for learning foreign languages. This refers to the 'themes' he plays, not the soloing, though. And their albums tend to be uneven, 'Metropolis Pt.2' seems to me to be the best example (although I know I'm in the minority here). My subjective opinion? Of course.

DT getting too much airtime - a point or two missed, I agree, due to my misunderstanding the original statement.

I'll stand by my opinion that Vai, Satch and Petrucci are no shredders, though. I only listened to Satch's and Vai's latest albums yesterday, and the listening session only confirmed my opinion.

"Standard rock ballad format is not progressive" - I thought we were trying to decide whether DT is a good band or not, not if it's a progressive band. "Weak approaches to composition are factual and not opinion" - from your previous posts I've managed to glean that you have some knowledge of the theoretical assumptions underlying music. I don't have any such knowledge. Still, I'm suspicious of your statement. Why? Because the question of what is a good approach to composition is far from answered, an example being the appreciation that Beethoven's Ninth enjoys while at the same time it is bashed by composers/critics like Gyorgi Ligeti as a perfect example of a weak approach to composition. And because from my literary studies I know how harmful such a statement can be. If the "only true and right approach to writing poetry" endorsed and defended by T. S. Eliot (not only a poet, but a VERY influential critic for a few decades) survived his death, we would never have heard of William Carlos Williams and a host of other poets, whose different approach to poetry yielded such beautiful and interesting works. And don't forget that a format/approach to composition is only a vessel to be filled, and I think DT have been making outstanding use of this vessel so far. If DT isn't proof enough for you that a simple form can be filled with rich matter, then maybe the scores of great jazz and blues bands will convince you? 

OK, that's it. Sorry if I offended any IQ/Arena fans or anyone else here, I've had a weird and tiresome last few days. I don't want to keep opening this Pandora's Box; the bottom line is: I like DT and think they're a good band. Not outstanding, but good. And since I get quite a lot from listening to them, I'm really surprised when someone comes along and says they're crap. And since I hear their flaws, too, I'm really surprised when someone comes along and says they're gods. So don't be surprised if I defend their assets and point out their flaws.    

Reed Lover wrote: What assets are those Manunkind?

Hmm, I think I pointed them out before (please excuse my being unfamiliar with music terminology):

- great, juicy riffs (stolen? Like "in the style of" or "calqued"? If it's the former, I don't see any problem; if it's the latter, that's a serious accusation, better have good evidence... but even if the accused are guilty, Led Zep serve as a precedent for DT getting a lenient sentence); 

- spectacular, diverse soloing, no shredding included, not overlong (I once heard John Coltrane play a half-an-hour solo and enjoyed every freaking minute of it; neither Petrucci nor Rudess are Coltrane, but their solos hold the juice for as long as they're played);

- solid, thick (potential ambiguity/joke factor intercepted) and precise drumming;

- a wealth of imaginative motives;

- hard rock, thrash, jazz, oriental, even some avant-garde influences;

- the songs ARE logically constructed (there are no 'jumps');

- Myung does a phenomenal job holding all of it in one piece;

- whacky pace changing; you never know what you'll get hit with next.

 EDIT: Don't read my meanderings, read what Cesar Inca has to say in this thread, now there's a man who really listens to his music

Oh them there assets, sorry Manunkind.

So who are we talking about ?

Reed Lover wrote: Oh them there assets, sorry Manunkind. So who are we talking about ?

Ah... forget it

I've just listened to "Train of Thought" for the first time - Wow - I very impressive metal album, but not as progressive as the two previously released CD's - I am a bit disappointed, I hoped that they would carry on in the same vein as the "Six Degrees....." track , only the last two tracks actually attain previous efforts.

If you listened to this album first - You may indeed be put off listening further - You'd be thinking that DT were a tad too thrash and not enough prog - maybe the next CD will be better ! 

Hangedman wrote: Personally I find them kind of dull... but hey its about opinion. Actually I did say i hated them but only because I wrote an 11 minute song and named it learning to live, then i soon discovered that Dream theater in fact already had an 11 minute song by that name so I vowed to hate them forever.

A case of Great Minds Think Alike eh

(-or fools never differ!!)

LOL

Beleive me, Dream Theater is a great band - And the fact that you wrote a song the same length and name as theirs, please, send me your material - you must be a musical genious!

Cheers

G

Petrucci is technically brilliant but he has none feelings and can't follow in prog rock's wake, maybe a lack a variety in his guitar style and the fact that he dosen't innovate in any genres...moreover his roots are in shred!!

About Symphony X, Labyrinth and others they are clowns of the poor Malmsteen, they just play the same symphonic ludicrous heavy metal in worst!!

Snow Dog wrote: Why should we believe you Geee?

Oh sorry. I thought you liked Prog Metal that's why I said beleive me.  What music are you into then?

I believe that there's a big (roughly generational) divide between fans of classic prog, and fans of "prog metal," and that DT are simply the most popular/visible examples of a music form that many of us are loathe to call "prog."

Many of us -- who were young when prog was young -- grew out of metal to become progressive rock fans, but now metal and its (often younger) vocal fans have followed us to our progressive "oasis," and crashed our cozy, balding, positive-vibes party.

What's more, the satanically-tatooed metalheads brutally rip Close to the Edge out of the stereo, put on something that sounds like stray cats being chainsawed by a raving psychopath on speed, piss and puke in the waterhole, leave their 10% lager cans all over the place, and burn all the lovely date palms for their devil-worshipping rituals!

Peter wrote: I believe that there's a big (roughly generational) divide between fans of classic prog, and fans of "prog metal," and that DT are simply the most popular/visible examples of a music form that many of us are loathe to call "prog." Many of us -- who were young when prog was young -- grew out of metal to become progressive rock fans, but now metal and its (often younger) vocal fans have followed us to our progressive "oasis," and crashed our cozy, balding, positive-vibes party. What's more, the satanically-tatooed metalheads brutally rip Close to the Edge out of the stereo, put on something that sounds like stray cats being chainsawed by a raving psychopath on speed, piss and puke in the waterhole, leave their 10% lager cans all over the place, and burn all the lovely date palms for their devil-worshipping rituals!

Ha ha I agree so much 70's prog rules!!!!     Of course I don't feel "that" way since I am only 17, but I am sure my dad does, which is where I got Yes, J Tull, & ELP from, which is what got me into Prog. 

Progger wrote: I HAVE A LOVE / HATE RELATIONSHIP WITH DT. AT THE MINUTE I HATE 'EM FOR RELEASING 'TRAIN OF THOUGHT'

Hah, a lot of proggies hate that album, but I find that the album really really grew on me. And I listen to not just Prog, but Metal and other musical genres.

I hate go off topic a bit here, but I'd like to get out my opinions on this whole "showing off thing".

I think the whole "all he does is play fast and show off" is a huge pile of bullsh*t. It makes me realise how ignorant prog fans can be... with this whole "we're into prog... DT make metalheads get into prog... our party has been crashed" attitude.

I play guitar. My style is similar to John Petrucci's (Although not as good).

Do you see what I'm saying? Am I showing off? No. John Petrucci has influenced me and my playing in a big way.

Look at some past threads... what bands have inspired me throughout the years? Dream Theater... Metallica... Megadeth... Savatage... Axel Rudi Pell... Iron Maiden... and they all do solos.

And much like DT and John Petrucci, I solo a lot. Am I showing off? Well no (although to everyone here I am). I was bought up on these huge metal bands who played 100 mph solos. Of course I'm gonna wanna play like that. It doesn't mean I'm showing off, it's just what I like.

Now let's take a guitar player from a different music genre and era... Elvis Prestley. Nobody would EVER accuse Elvis of overplaying and showing off. Why? He plays slow? But what's the difference? Apart from the fact that Elvis and Dream Theater are on two totally different ends of the music spectre.

Some of you may argue that soloing is okay, but if it's done constantly like DT it's obviously them trying to prove a point. How so? They enjoy what they do... leave it at that. I play lots of solo's like they do. I'm not trying to show off or prove a point of how good I am... but big widdly solos is what I personally prefer to listen to.

I hope this all makes sense, but at the end of the day, everyone just needs to grow up and except we've all got different tastes and stop whining about things we don't like. DT... Airtime? Like someone else said... DT are never on the radio. Just because they're more commercial doesn't mean they're being jammed down our throats.

Nothing groundbreaking? Is that really an excuse to hate them? Blink 182 have done nothing groundbreaking, and they're pretty famous. Has Stratovarius done anything groundbreaking? No. But they're big too.

God forbid, I despise bands like ELP, Genesis and King Crimson. I own a number of albums from each band and just can't stand them. OH NO!!! But do you hear me diss and sl*g them all day? No. I accept that I don't like them and ignore them. You DT haters should do to.

Valarius wrote: I hope this all makes sense, but at the end of the day, everyone just needs to grow up and except we've all got different tastes and stop whining about things we don't like. DT... Airtime? Like someone else said... DT are never on the radio. Just because they're more commercial doesn't mean they're being jammed down our throats. God forbid, I despise bands like ELP, Genesis and King Crimson. I own a number of albums from each band and just can't stand them. OH NO!!! But do you hear me diss and sl*g them all day? No. I accept that I don't like them and ignore them. You DT haters should do to.

So when a thread asks why we hate DT we should not reply?

DT and ELP fans are the most arrogant,over-sensitive bores on this forum.

We are here to discuss music and have a good time.

This forum would not last six months if it was just a Prog love-in!!

Reed Lover wrote: So when a thread asks why we hate DT we should not reply? DT and ELP fans are the most arrogant,over-sensitive bores on this forum. We are here to discuss music and have a good time. This forum would not last six months if it was just a Prog love-in!!

Don't get me wrong, I've always stated that we're entitled to our opinions and stuff, and that in a thread titled "hating DT" people are allowed to give they're reasons. But when you have to hear the same bullsh*t arguements in every "best guitar thread" or summit... it get's really boring.

Yes, we are all here to discuss music and have a good time.

Yes, we do all have different tastes and this place would be so much more boring if we were all the same.

All I'm saying is that when it's the same arguements over and over again, people need to just move on and accept that we all have different music tastes.

I can understand what you're saying JMCeil, but it's also what I'm trying to prove a point against.

He is one of millions

So why DT also picked out on with comments like "he plays 2 notes", or "He can't play to save his life"?

JMCecil wrote: There are literaly thousands of guitar players who can play those riffs.  I'm not dissing Petrucci even.  He's a great electric guitarist.  But, he is one of zillions.  .

Sure, there are thousands of guitar players who can play his riffs, BUT NONE OF THEM can play The "Hollow Years", "Learning to Live" or "Trail of Tears" solos as emotionally jerking as JP can play them. Someone can play The Fatal Tragedy solo PERFECTLY, BUT JP can sound better than them playing Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, its a matter of taste and tone. I absolutely love John Petrucci's guitar tone and style, but thats just me.

I agree with Kings Of Loss.

It's like... regardless of who the better musicians are, you'd rather see Metallica perform "Enter Sandman" than Iron Maiden... simply because "Enter Sandman" is Metallica's song.

Valarius wrote: I agree with Kings Of Loss. It's like... regardless of who the better musicians are, you'd rather see Metallica perform "Enter Sandman" than Iron Maiden... simply because "Enter Sandman" is Metallica's song.

I agree with that completely. 

My problem is that I disagree that there is any feeling or special tone when JP plays.  He sounds like a boat load of other guys.  And like I said, I don't hear solos, I hear scales.  There is zero finess.  I'll admit that the rectified amp sound just puts me off.  And the fake acoustic sound is getting to me too. I'd rather hear people with a lot more intonation.  JP is the better technician by far but I'd rather hear Jeff Beck play every time, hands down.

lostrom wrote: I just don't like them being called prog, when they aren't prog. Therefore my anger against people who don't like or understand prog, yes, even hate prog, projects to the most famous of bands which has fans who think they "get" prog, but doesn't. They simply provoke and "rape" our terrotory with false "teaching/learning". Prog isn't music, it's religion. Get it? So step out and leave us be, please!

The problem is that THEY ARE PROG. They are infact Heavy Metal/Hard Rock mixed in with some Progressive Rock, at least according to Jordan Rudess. If you want to think one thing, then go for it. 

JMCecil wrote: I have far less hate than Lostrom , but in general I'd have to agree that prog-metal isn't very progish.

It's actually very Proggish, some Prog Metal bands are basically Prog Rock bands that play a bit heavier.

King of Loss wrote: lostrom wrote: I just don't like them being called prog, when they aren't prog. Therefore my anger against people who don't like or understand prog, yes, even hate prog, projects to the most famous of bands which has fans who think they "get" prog, but doesn't. They simply provoke and "rape" our terrotory with false "teaching/learning". Prog isn't music, it's religion. Get it? So step out and leave us be, please! The problem is that THEY ARE PROG. They are infact Heavy Metal/Hard Rock mixed in with some Progressive Rock, at least according to Jordan Rudess. If you want to think one thing, then go for it.

"Heavy Metal/Hard Rock mixed with SOME Progressive Rock...well, it's just not good enough for me...but if it is for you, I'm only happy.

JMCecil wrote: I have far less hate than Lostrom , but in general I'd have to agree that prog-metal isn't very progish.

Yes, sometimes I have alot of hate in me and I'm glad that we agree on this as a whole