Dream Theater

JudasMyGuide said:
Is it even possible to alt-pick at such speeds? Not being a guitarist myself I remember reading somewhere that from a certain point, even the best players are forced to go sweep or hybrid or economic. But maybe it's just nonsense.

I mean, Petrucci must be able to do that, he merely does not want to. Am I right, Saap? :D
Click to expand...
I'm sure he's sweep picking that part. It's to fast and and requires some really perfect and accurate picking to pick every single note.

In other news I learned the very first part of the solo. However I'm tapping like on Paschendale and spreading my fingers half way across the neck
 
I guess this lick is sweep picked and provides too big of a challenge for Petrucci to consistently play flawlessly. Petrucci isn't too good with sweep picking anyway, that's why he utilises alternate picking so much.
It wouldn't be the first time that he's nailed something in studio and struggled with it live. Same thing goes for the ending of the solo of Constant Motion, for example - mindblowing licks on album, but slightly messy live. As Mosh pointed out, played at the normal tempo, Petrucci might actually be able to play the arpeggios pretty damn well.
 
I remember reading somewhere about him insisting it was alt-picked on the studio recording, but again, my sources fail me.
 
Well, that is also possible. He might have delivered the studio version by pushing his alternate picking skills to the limit. Once live, Portnoy sped up too much, Petrucci thought: "Oh shit" and had to get by with sweep picking (as well as he could) because it was simply too fast to alternate pick.
 
From what I've seen, he is hybrid picking live, not straight sweeping. So he's alt picking where he can. It's not so much that it's impossible to alternate pick at that speed, the real challenge is staying consistent when switching strings. It's definitely possible and he's clearly alt picking everything in the recording.

He insisted on alt picking in the studio because the part was originally written on keyboards by JR (it appears in the first prechorus IIRC) and JR plays it staccato. So to properly play that on guitar it needs to be alt picked. So it wasn't so much that JP was testing his limits or trying to show off as much has he was maintaining consistency in the music. It's an intense part that doesn't come across the same way when sweeped or even hybrid picked.

BTW this is probably the song that taught Petrucci to alt pick:
 
Mosh said:
He insisted on alt picking in the studio because the part was originally written on keyboards by JR (it appears in the first prechorus IIRC) and JR plays it staccato. So to properly play that on guitar it needs to be alt picked. So it wasn't so much that JP was testing his limits or trying to show off as much has he was maintaining consistency in the music. It's an intense part that doesn't come across the same way when sweeped or even hybrid picked.
Click to expand...

That's a very cool info! Thank you! :ok:
 
Oh god... the ghosts, the piranha plants... it's killing me. And Petrucci's solo is nothing but super stars... I can't stop laughing. The shyguys really add that extra layer to the neoclassical part, too.


This one's not as good but is equally as hilarious. Just wait for the big mushroom drum fill and the "wall of enemy" bass clangs...
 
Last edited:
Considering the fact DT are the band that gets most slammed by the "wankery" tag around here (since we don't usually discuss Animals as Leaders or Planet X), here's one interesting opinion I've read just now regarding that...

(it's from a Reddit thread about why do people hate Satch and Vai so much)

"I find this attitude most common from students and players who aren't interested in either the style of music that requires technical skill or just aren't willing to spend a lot of time practicing. Calling them "wankers" indiscriminately is a bit of a cop-out, there are plenty of shredders who do just wank most of the time, Vai and Satch just happen to be two of the most famous. Ask the same people what they think of Tony MacAlpine or Chris Impellitteri and you'll probably get blank stares. It isn't the dislike that I'm bothered by, it's the negativity towards them and the style that gets to me. Learning an instrument is hard enough without people trying to convince others that they only need to learn six chords and a blues scale and that anything more than that is wankery. I've had so many students quit because "my friend said guitar was easy" and dismissing those who have fully mastered the instrument just perpetuates that."

I'm not saying I agree 100 %, but since I've seen so much of DT hate around the net regarding that particular topic, and also since I've read so much crap piled upon DT in particular by the same people who praise "the feeling" and "the songwriting" and go lick Nirvana's boots instead, it's kind of my own personal berserk button.

And yes, I use the word too, but almost exclusively in a positive way. :D
 
Meh. Most people who accuse shredders of wanking respect the technical prowess involved so I don't think that's a good point at all.
 
Well, in my opinion (that is, one from a person that is originally more "song oriented" than "instrument oriented"), DT used to be good because they could combine technical command AND songwriting ability. If I was only interested in the former part, I would listen to Michael Angelo Batio.
 
The Flash said:
Meh. Most people who accuse shredders of wanking respect the technical prowess involved so I don't think that's a good point at all.
Click to expand...


Most people here, I agree. The countless reviews deriding technically proficient bands for being exactly that might say otherwise. Then again, there seems to be this weird atmosphere in rock criticism (mostly the professional one) that seems to paint the punkers (and post-punkers, "indie" etc) as the real artists and anything slightly more technical/prog-like as self-centered assholes. It just really smells of a Tall Poppy Syndrome to me, but I admit that might be just my completely irrational idea.

There's also the question whether you really respect the prowess if you're willing to call it "wankery", right?

Black Bart said:
DT used to be good because they could combine technical command AND songwriting ability
Click to expand...

That's interesting, because much of the latter songs sound to me better written than the earlier ones - I love Metropolis 1 or Scarred dearly, yet I could see where some might see those as slightly incoherent mess while thinking Blind Faith or Misunderstood or Endless Sacrifice or Looking Glass are superbly written songs. Point is, while we can somehow objectively assess instrumental proficiency, can we do so with songwriting? Using the classical theory (Composition etc.)? Or is there any other way?
 
Last edited:
JudasMyGuide said:
I'm not saying I agree 100 %, but since I've seen so much of DT hate around the net regarding that particular topic, and also since I've read so much crap piled upon DT in particular by the same people who praise "the feeling" and "the songwriting" and go lick Nirvana's boots instead, it's kind of my own personal berserk button.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm all about "feeling" and "songwriting" and I hate Nirvana, so I don't count. :D

Black Bart said:
Well, in my opinion (that is, one from a person that is originally more "song oriented" than "instrument oriented"), DT used to be good because they could combine technical command AND songwriting ability.
Click to expand...

I love a lot of newer Dream Theater, especially the post-Portnoy era, but there was an obvious twist towards technicality over songwriting at some point during the middle Rudess years.

JudasMyGuide said:
Most people here, I agree. The countless reviews deriding technically proficient bands for being exactly that might say otherwise. Then again, there seems to be this weird atmosphere in rock criticism (mostly the professional one) that seems to paint the punkers (and post-punkers, "indie" etc) as the real artists and anything slightly more technical/prog-like as self-centered assholes. It just really smells of a Tall Poppy Syndrome to me, but I admit that might be just my completely irrational idea.

There's also the question whether you really respect the prowess if you're willing to call it "wankery", right?

That's interesting, because much of the latter songs sound to me better written than the earlier ones - I love Metropolis 1 or Scarred dearly, yet I could see where some might see those as slightly incoherent mess while thinking Blind Faith or Misunderstood or Endless Sacrifice or Looking Glass are superbly written songs. Point is, while we can somehow objectively assess instrumental proficiency, can we do so with songwriting? Using the classical theory (Composition etc.)? Or is there any other way?
Click to expand...

I think everyone should be as technically proficient as they need to be to write the songs that work for them. The argument (that I also hear often) that "simple = better" is not true. Better = better. However, being a "better" musician does not always make you a "better" songwriter.

Everything that you put into a song should service that song. It's as simple as that. If you are writing a song, you should be seeking a complete melding of melody, tone, lyrical content, etc. Wankery occurs when the technical ability overshadows the overall purpose of the song. Unfortunately, this happens on a lot of later Dream Theater albums.

I want my mind to be blown by technical proficiency when I listen to artists that are capable of it. But I want you to blow my mind without pulling me out of the concept of the song. But if you're just doing it to it, then you're providing a disservice to the song and it becomes wanking. Musical wanking, aka showing off, takes me out of a song as much as an inconsistency in vocal approach. For instance, growling upbeat or quirky lyrics like "By the good grace of God, everyone survived" or "All the finest wines improve with age" over a very heavy musical section in a song that has shown no intent of being ironic shows that you, the songwriter and performer, do not understand the concept of your song. You wrote lyrics, you wanted a growling part there, and then you growled those lyrics even though they do not really fit. Likewise, putting 3-4 solo duels in a row just because you can play really well even though the song concept does not justify it shows that you don't understand the tone of your song, you just wanted to play cool solo duels over cool riffs.

Everything should be in service of the song, not the player. The best musicians serve both and succeed equally.
 
Hmm... I guess you're correct, but then - who decides what serves the song itself?

Compare Met 1 and Outcry - the songs have very similar structures and their second halves are shameless "wanking" - yet even most of the DT fandom loves the first one and dislikes the second, or so it seems (yes, there are other issues at hand, originality, Portnoy etc, but still).

I wanted to keep this until we get to ToT in the survivor, but what the hell... Take Endless Sacrifice. I have heard (well, read) many times over how the instrumental part is an unnecessary wankery, mindless self-indulgence and it takes away from a great song. I'm sorry, but similarily to Sacrificed Sons or Ministry of Lost Souls, the song would not work otherwise! The song is a buildup of tension and desperation of a very emotionally attached bloke caused by the fact his significant other is far away. The final climax and the final chorus should be the "boiling point", so to speak. In this song (and in those other two, for example) that is achieved by the fact the song returns to familiar themes with increased intensity, but returns from where? I mean - you have to have a digression to appreciate the return, but what should such a digession be? It should be probably heavier than the early part and it should be different enough - the passage they've chosen sounds excellent to me in that regard (apart from the fact I like the King Crimson shout-out there). Ministry - again, the final chorus and Petrucci's amazing solo would have much lesser impact for me if there was no "chug section" or what is the denigrative term the haters use for the song to return from. I take those (any many others) songs as a journey - to me DT is a band that does a lot of detours, but that's also one of the reasons I love them so much. Take these detours away from these two songs and you'll have somewhat simplistic sappy ballads - good on their own, but not excellent, because those would be too focused on the final "goal". To quote Princess Irulan:

"Any road followed precisely to its end leads precisely nowhere. Climb the mountain just a little bit to test that it's a mountain. From the top of the mountain, you cannot see the mountain."

To me it's much easier to appreciate the song from within, if you know what I mean. From the very first moment I heard Close to the Edge by Yes I loved that chorus... and I was waiting the whole "I Get Up" section to get back to it... and it was amazing. To take away the "complication" would be to diminish the song itself.

On the other hand, for example the blatant wankery of Blind Faith is probably the most wonderful part of the song and even the Jordan bashers usually highlight his piano interlude there. Let alone the unison section. And that's one of the sections I admit don't have that common with the rest of the song, yet I still think the song is written in an excellent way, because the ideas flow into each other with ease, the song is very catchy and I remembered it very well after the very first listen. Though nowadays I might prefer Scarred, I could not say anything such about that one.

Also

MrKnickerbocker said:
you just wanted to play cool solo duels over cool riffs
Click to expand...

As long as they're so good at both the solos and the riffs and as long they keep the songs so ridiculously catchy, there's just nothing wrong with that, any philosophy be damned :D
 
Endless Sacrifice's instrumental has grown on Mr over the years. There are still bits I could do without but overall I enjoy it, especially toward the end.

The Get Up section of CTTE leading up to the organ solo is a highlight of the genre.
 
Again... I'm not saying you must prefer the same songs as me, but whatever is your definition of the word, their "songwriting" has hardly gotten worse... Your personal preferences might be one thing, but their songs sound more cohesive and unified and less like a hodge-podge mess of various ideas (Surrounded, Scarred, Under a Glass Moon) nowadays... By the way, I may strongly dislike The Astonishing for various reasons, but songwriting-wise, it's a motherfu**ing masterpiece.

The "wankery", if you're willing to call it that way, was always there. In fact, the last two albums might be the least "wanking" ones, IMHO. Unless you prefered only FII or the Rush-like atmosphere of WDaDU, I don't see how you could "fall off" so suddenly. Don't understand and probably never will.

Also, call me crazy and I don't have this really supported by anything except for the bare instinct (I did no relistens for this purpose), but I think that before Jordan there was never as many actual piano passages, now were there?
 
@JudasMyGuide
I am not sure you were replying to me or to another member but just in case... ;)
JudasMyGuide said:
I think that before Jordan there was never as many actual piano passages, now were there?
Click to expand...
I would say "Anna Lee" and, to a lesser extent because it was synthesizer sounding like piano, "Wait for Sleep". However, the piano break on "Blind Faith" (now with Jordan) is among my favourite moments of the band's whole career.

JudasMyGuide said:
Unless you prefered only FII or the Rush-like atmosphere of WDaDU, I don't see how you could "fall off" so suddenly. Don't understand and probably never will.
Click to expand...

I am not a big fan of WDADU, mainly because of the voice but I was also less fond of the songs themselves, but it is true that Falling into Infinity is among my favourite albums as a unit.

The thing is I have not fallen off "suddenly" at all, but rather progressively (how could it be otherwise with DT? :D ). Although elements of SFAM surprised me in the wrong way, I still like the album a lot and I love most of SDOIT but the latter is truly the last one I can listen to effortlessly: I found Train of Thought too dark and one-dimensional (including the lyrics, particularly of "In the Name of God") whereas Octavarium spanned a whole catalogue of random influences, sometimes in too obvious a way, but without producing -in my opinion- any truly good song apart from the title-track. "Sacrificed Sons", and on the next effort "Ministry of Lost Souls", have not succeeded in moving me whatsoever.

I won't go album by album because it might be a bit long but basically, although DT's live career clearly gained momentum with Jordan Rudess (although the 1997-1998 years were, to me, very interesting), they have tried too hard on the studio side (4 albums between 2002 and 2007!!!) and have more or less burnt out, which resulted in 1) putting a stop to doing interesting tours (no more real setlist changes since the promotion of SC) 2) Portnoy leaving.

Technically speaking, although -as you rightly stress it- all eras have showcased technical "wankery" in one form or another, the balance has evolved in a way I have not been content with. I think that what bothers me in the end with DT's evolution throughout the noughties is that they have tried to merge the band with Liquid Tension Experiment (which they did, person-wise) but, in my opinion, not as successfully as I hoped: I would take LTE2 and the first two Transatlantic albums over anything released by DT since SDOIT (excluded) although The Astonishing itself is in a way more "song-oriented" (except I don't like the songs).

I am totally with you on your last point: what else apart from "bare instinct" (including I guess personal history, that is in what context we discover the music) should dictate our assessment of music? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top