I only shit talk the musically masturbatory part in the middle, which is only a minute or two if I recall correctly. It takes me out of the vibe of the song, and I don’t think it fits. The rest of the song is great, but still not my fave from that album.
I especially picked out that one, because I actually find the song to go through a rather logical, straightforward development, where pretty much every part reacts to the previous one and the song naturally, pleasantly progresses. Even in the middle part, the digression, you can with ease pick up on how each part results into the next one, usually via the similarity of the riff underneath, similarity of the particular mood or something. Also makes meta-sense - I wrote this about five years ago
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.
And then I come across incoherent grab-bags like A Change of Seasons, that follow no internal logic whatsoever and where the journey is completely pointless, with no goal, no return, no resolution ...
and keep hearing about how early on DT were the geniuses of songwriting and how that went to shit with their needless, pointless wankery etc. later on and I go all "what the frig are you guys smoking?".
Songwriting quality is subjective.
Might be, but unless we at least try to get across
why something appeals to us (or, if it speaks in a completely subjective way just to me, then how does it speak and what does it tell?), when it all boils down just to "I like it", then I fail to see the reason for being on a music
forum whatsoever. It's hardly an opinion, then, mostly just a whim that's here and can be gone the next second. I. e. irrelevant.
Hence my push for "criteria". We might differ in our concepts of what is good songwriting, but I'd like to see
a concept at least.
Or, to use a quote from a popular movie:
