Has SX hit their creative peak?

[Postulate]

So Symphony X has been a band I have liked for quite a while, and I'm sure most of you have, too...but I got to thinking, and compared to other bands that I also have followed for some time, I feel like SX still has room to grow. I look at bands like Metallica, Dream Theater, and Nightwish that I've liked since I was quite young, and their latest releases, and from them it is clear to me they're past their peaks. DT may iron out some difficulties, but they will never write another Awake - you can just tell. Likewise, Metallica will never write another Master of Puppets and Nightwish will never write another Oceanborn (though I know a lot of you probably don't even like Nightwish's older stuff ). That's not to say they're terrible - just that the innovative spark has been exhausted past its most brilliant moment. They will, in all honestly, most likely never return to prominence, let alone surpass their old selves musically.

But SX? I'm not so sure. I've heard the opinion that V is their definitive classic, but is it really? While I like all of SX's albums to some extent, none of them feels to me like the ultimate expression of what they have to offer. I could be wrong, and they might peter off, but maybe the best is yet to come? PL gives me great hope because of Oculus Inferni and some moments of Domination, Walls of Babylon, and Revelation. I feel if SX could combine their heavier side with their well-orchestrated one they still have a chance to blow their older releases out of the water.

So, what do you think? Has SX already shown us their best? I used to have that feeling, but honestly, they are one of the only metal bands right now whose new releases I am actually looking forward to (and that is not an exaggeration).

Sorry for another topic, it's 2 AM and I'm procrastinating

 

[Wander]

Well, that's actually a good question and with Symphony X, I think it definitely depends on the listener. There are some who think that they've been on a downfall since Divine Wings. But at the same time other's may see PL as the best effort so far.

I personally think they've been very consistent to this day and it's just too early to say where the "peak" is. Some bands can peak a multiple times too, so you know. Maybe we'll know more after the next record? If it's better than PL, then I would have to say that they are still at the top of their game. If it's worse than PL, then they could be past their best days (possibly around V?).

But as I said, I think that right now it's too early.

 

[razoredge]

oh grief

 

[Postulate]

oh grief

I don't know why you hate me so much...have I done something wrong to you?

 

[Phanto]

He's old and grumpy.

They haven't reached their creative peak but they might already have released their best album they will ever make. Or does that contradict what I wrote first...

 

[J-Dubya 777]

Actually, it's a good question. Of course it's based SOLELY on opinion.

I DO get what Postulate is saying. I'll use Steve Vai as an example. Vai is no doubt one of the top guitar talents on the planet, imo. What he lacks is that spark that made him want to be at the top of the pack back in the 80's &
90's. He doesn't seem to be hungry like he used to. It has been only with his latest release that I've enjoyed a disc of his all the way through since the Fire Garden era. Do I still respect him as a player? Yes. I do, however think he may be a bit too complacent. I LOVED hearing him play with fire again when I saw the first Zappa Plays Zappa tour, but when I think of Steve Vai's best stuff, I go back to Call It Sleep, The Attitude Song, and Passion & Warefare (the entire album).

Now Sy-X: I believe there is a lot of wear left on those tires. The band still amazes me with thier offerings. Yeah, PL isn't anything like V, but the same guys did BOTH, and each Sy-X cd has its own merits, even the debut. I'm not concerned whether they toughen up like they did on their last 2 releases, or go do something softer, more elaborate. There isn't a Sy-X cd that I dislike. This is the fan speaking, NOT the quasi-employee. The guys are damned good at what they do, and they aren't going to please everyone all the time, but you know that musically, it's going to be awesome, whether you like the current direction or not. The quality of the musicianship and theme will hopefully remain solid.

Now, whether a band is past their peak, nobdy knows. The next cd could make V take a back seat. We won't know until it comes out. It's pure speulation, and once again, entirely based on opinion.

 

[antonis]

i can't imagine symphony x releasing something that's not awesome, they didn't since rusell got in the band

 

[razoredge]

Yes thay have had their early inspired years go past. The band is 14+ yrs old. The early years are typically the most origional, most inspired, best physical abilities, ect. ect. ect. youth is great treasure it. Sometimes there is something to be said for maturity too when it comes to writting but I dont believe SX showed much of the immature side seen in other styles of music

I cant think of a single occasion of an older established band becoming a new ground breaker. I cant think of a single band that does not become redundant in one way or the other after being around for over a decade and doing 6-7 extensive recordings. I cant think of one band that can record a new album and not get slagged by someone who knows better then the musicians themselves... exactly what it was they should have done instead, what they did wrong, what sucks, whats filler, what has to be quickly removed from the CD player and thrown out the window, running straight to the internet to tell everyone you dont know how much and in what way such and such SUCKS because you know exactly what piece of music is better. So in summary, whatever Symphony X releases next time there is going to be a bunch of whiners that it is not good enough for and others that will accept it as simply another piece of work, and others that will think its the greatest thing since sliced cheese.

 

[Phanto]

I cant think of a single band that does not become redundant in one way or the other after being around for over a decade and doing 6-7 extensive recordings.

Marillion.

 

[razoredge]

I should check them out.

BTW, Im really not trying to be a prick, I just have an adversion to hearing some people pick artistic expression apart when I feel everyone should know everything rarely comes up all roses. Its one thing if a band totally tanks, like picture a graph with a relatively high and even curve that peaks sometime around the middle of a life span as opposed to one that skyrockets quickly and then cliffs off the other side. I feel alot of the bands so heavily critized here have not done that but maintain a relatively flat curve. Prog is tuff music, these guys cover alot of ground in just one song not to mention entire albums so I hate to see them slayed when I can only imagine the work they put into it. Makes me wonder if they should just put out a blues album every once in awhile to just back off the intensity and throw everyone for a loop... because sometimes it seems thats what so many want or expect some great big revelation that throws them for a loop... when these bands have already offered up so many revelations.

So no its not personal Postulate, just cut some slack for artistic freedom, personal expression, valiant efforts, whatever. Try to imagine the work and brain power prog bands put into this stuff, they simply cant always top their best work, doesnt make it all thorns.

 

[Wander]

Scott Walker also started in the early 60s, but did his most ground breaking stuff way later, starting with the first 4 tracks of Walker Brothers - Nite Flights (1978)...

 

[J-Dubya 777]

I'd like to add Frank Zappa to the mix of artists/composers who didn't stagnate over the years.

 

[razoredge]

Does changing young blood, new band members and such have anything to do with these bands evolving ? Not making excuses or even hoping to back my claims, I should have said most instead of none I can think of (which was true) but isnt it still the norm ? I mean I could say Zepp changed significantly over their comparitively short career, Savatage did a few times, Queesnryche did, Fates made one fairly drastic change but overall so many "fans" will boldly state which was great and which sucked or was the fall off. Still not my overall point but rather being happy for those bands that are still going strong, cause frankly I dont like alot of the new directions or trends of metal.

 

[Wander]

But yeah, you are definitely right with most bands/artists. The "magic" is usually lost at some point and never recovered. Well, this of course, once again, varies with the listener, but my basic idea is, that when you are no longer enjoying the new stuff that's coming from a certain band, you should just move on and leave it to those who appreciate it. Bands change, musicians change, the listener changes and at some point it's very likely that the tastes just go different ways.

 

[Phanto]

Marillion switched vocalist in 85 (they started 79), but has since then used the same lineup.

Of course, in the defense of your hypothesis, there's a lot of old silly people who only dig their Fish-era stuff. But even counting as a band from '85 onwards, that's longer than I've been alive.

Edit: But yeah most bands turn shitty unless they split up before that happens.

 

[_Gentleman of_the Snow_]

SX is a band, to me, that will always have the ability to do something fresh, top themselves, and keep me fully captivated. I always look forward to new SX material because I know it will be something great, and creative to themselves, and the musical community.

 

[razoredge]

Well now for me to be a bit critical, but nothing Im bothered about... I would have to disagree to an extent Snowman, they do have their formula and I know I heard some stuff on PL I've heard very similar before. Even a few songs (forget the exact titles) from Atomic Soul had the classic Symphony X feel. Again Im not bothered by it, I accept in most cases that what comes out of an artist is what lays within and everyone has their own traits, signature sound what ever you want to call it.

Phanto : I dont necessarily feel most turn "shitty", yes some do but many just keep doing their thing fairly well, which may get long in tooth after half a dozen albums or more and often less stunning than earlier pieces but a 10 does not make a 7 or 8 bad or not enjoyable to listen too.

Symphony X is but one of my bands that has had plenty of 10's, Im not so hard to please as great critics. I just like to hear what someone is going to do next and try to obsorb and enjoy the direction/mood/feel/message/trip they are offering at the time

 

[Postulate]

I cant think of a single occasion of an older established band becoming a new ground breaker.

I think bitterness and cynicism is something a lot of bands benefit from in their writing as they become older (Fates Warning and Helloween come to mind), something SX has yet to incorporate in their songs, except maybe a touch in Candlelight Fantasia...all of their music has had the same cerebral, aggressive and positive feel to it. I dunno, I think a lot of bands get better with age. As an example that people usually disagree with me on, I feel like the only Metallica album that has any emotion on it is St. Anger, something they would not have written when they were younger (with an exception for to live is to die).

I personally am keeping my hopes up. A whole album written in the vein of Oculus ex Inferni would be perfect, I think.

 

[EyeballKid]

I cant think of a single occasion of an older established band becoming a new ground breaker. I cant think of a single band that does not become redundant in one way or the other after being around for over a decade and doing 6-7 extensive recordings.

Tom Waits. Though not technically a band.

Also, we have to consider the idea of repeating waves as opposed to a simple line. For instance, Joe Satriani seemingly peaked right out of the box with Surfing With The Alien. Then he released some really good albums, some ok albums, maybe a clunker or two, then came Crystal Planet and Strange Beautiful Music (both of which I will defend to the death against Surfing).

So, has Symphony X hit their creative peak? Personally, I don't think so. To those that believe they have, hopefully they are a band riding a wave and will eventually hit another (equally masterful) peak. I agree with whoever said that Symphony X hasn't shown EVERYTHING that they can do yet. V and The Odyssey (the song) have proved their level of craft, composing, and scope. Paradlise Lost has proven their metal prowess.

Razor, I personally disagree with your sentiment that youth results in the best music (though I think you are certainly correct that a lot of bands best work is on their first couple albums). However, I think this is moreso true for those musicians without the perseverance or stamina to really examine their own talent and songwriting ability. I don't care what anyone says, the earlier albums are always immature. The artist NEVER knows exactly who they are and you can hear it in the compositions.

Symphony X's first few albums may have amazing material, and the style may be fresh, but they don't contain the true sound of Symphony X. They are the sound of what influenced Michael Romeo, et al. I think they've found their sound as a band. Now they have to cement that sound.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Marillion.

Hell Yes.