THE OFFICIAL DREAM THEATER DISCUSSION THREAD
- Thread starter progmetaldan
- Start date
- Status
What Kenneth has to realise is that regardless of what anyone thinks, himself included, there is no such thing as a right or wrong when it comes to musical preference. Music is not like maths in the sense that if you follow the correct procedure you will get the right answer. Different people will find different aspects of music appealing to them, and each is entitled to appreciate what they find to be musically satisfying. The fact that there are so many genres of music out there is testament to this fact. So to argue the correct approach to soloing/over-soloing is a complete and utter waste of time as there is simply no correct answer. If someone finds endless shredding to be satisfying to them, no amount of smug counterpoint on an internet message board is going to change their opinion (and rightly so! 
)
)
Ascension
New Metal Member
Hell NO! I reserve that classification for PoS fans!
OMG...l'm a PoS fan...but dammit the last 2 releases have just plain sucked the suck outta suck. See...l'm no lemming.
PoisonSeed
Grin
nah, the early releases were good stuff. the rest are shit...
and I'll use my sig to piss you off
and I'll use my sig to piss you off
Kenneth R.
Cináed
lmao. see, this is exactly my point. you aren't debating music at all, you're just picking a fight because you're bored on the internet.
1. "What's the debate anyway?" Exhibit A. You don't even know what the hell is being discussed, you just reply ceaselessly with your quip jokes in some kind of attempt to make yourself feel good.
2. Seriously entering the debate: Provide logical reason as to why, objectively, excessive guitar wankery is in fact better on an album than absent on it.
same goes to reide and ascension. you seem to think I am arguing my opinion is right. Not at all. This is completely absurd, but it seems I must once again explain my position to those who are unable to pay attention: I am arguing that objectively (something difficult to understand, I know, since everything ultimately is shy of it - perhaps substitute the word 'logically') the use of excessive soloing and showoffery is extraneous to the creation of music.
Now, You all are ranting the opposite. The difference is, your support for your statements are oneliner jokes and poor attempts at intellect. In other words, you have nothing to back it up but your own opinion and strong bias (against me, no less, nothing to do with the topic at hand. Poor argumentative skills). I request instead you present something like this-
Just a few of the reasons I argue that showoffery is unnecessary:
Although technical proficiency is essential to the creation of good music, it is not the sole component. This is evident in that, if someone had zero skill, they would not be able to play anything at all, however, having immense skill does not mean they should be assumed to know what to do with it. Having a great deal of skill can be thought of as similar to having a lot of money. You have more options and more power. It doesn't mean you're any good at what you do, but that you have a high potential. So, what one must then acquire or somehow innately have is the ability and vision to use those skills/that money/those tools - to craft something beautiful. The gross error you are all making is equivocating the tool with the art it creates. Surely one can make a beautiful hammer, but in general, hammers are used to create grander things. Music is one of those grander concepts. Important to good music are the tools with which to create it, and the imagination and creative wit to use those tools to build a powerful castle of meaning. If one instead built themselves a dwelling made solely of tools, they seem to be missing the point. You can call it personal preference, I have already identified it as equivocation. You may enjoy technical showoffery all you wish, I argue that it adds zero to the musical meaning and thus is extraneous. If it were writing, we call it fluff or B.S.
PoisonSeed
Grin
PoisonSeed
Grin
1-Do you know how to process the english language? I didn't say I didn't know what was being discussed, I only questioned what the debate was. Why? Because there is no debate here. The topic at hand isn't something that's debatable. You don't like excessive displays of technicality in music. Nobody is saying you should and nobody cares. Your opinion is anything but objective. Learn to live with the fact that even music you don't like is still music.
2- Again, do you know how to read? PLEASE show me where I said that the presence of "excessive guitar wankery" in music is better than it's absence. I never said that and I can't imagine many situations where I would. There are many songs/artists that I think go overboard with it, but that's my opinion and I would be making a complete jackass of myself if I were to make ridiculous claims that what they make isn't music and has no artistic value. I'm simply pointing out the FACT that there isn't a loss of artistic value in a piece of music just because it contains "technical showoffery", it's just a different means of expression. There's no more merit in that than if I were to start ripping on bands because don't play fast solos or have intricate instrumental passages in every song.
I'm not saying that it shouldn't or that it doesn't affect yours, mine, or anyone elses opinion as to whether or not they enjoy that music. I'm simply saying that you really should learn to separate your opinions from facts.
You must have some serious problems if you are so paranoid as to think people on the internet are out to get you. Believe me, as much as I think you're a complete jackass on this forum, it's your posts that responding to...not you as a person. Sorry to hurt your feelings.
PoisonSeed
Grin
Now, wait. I'll have to point out that you are showing inconsistency here. You throw this at Kenneth:
Then one page later write:
What you just stated there is, without doubt, a personal opinion. Not a fact.
I'll ask, if all types of sounds organised in a specific or varying timeframe are accepted as music as long as there are people enjoying it -or not- (the music), then, shouldn't we learn to accept every genre available? Cos I don't. There is a difference between various sounds organised in a way to cause simple euphoric or dysphoric states and true music that is able to challenge you mentally and reach into your subconscious.
Well, everything comes down to modern society.. Fast pace, egocentrism and the admiration of everything extreme. It's absolutely logical to see that mentality reflect itself in the most important form of expression, music.
Then one page later write:
What you just stated there is, without doubt, a personal opinion. Not a fact.
I'll ask, if all types of sounds organised in a specific or varying timeframe are accepted as music as long as there are people enjoying it -or not- (the music), then, shouldn't we learn to accept every genre available? Cos I don't. There is a difference between various sounds organised in a way to cause simple euphoric or dysphoric states and true music that is able to challenge you mentally and reach into your subconscious.
Well, everything comes down to modern society.. Fast pace, egocentrism and the admiration of everything extreme. It's absolutely logical to see that mentality reflect itself in the most important form of expression, music.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
Tubbs
Bi-weekly top album:
Perhaps my wording wasn't the best for that......what I was getting at was that it's a FACT that music is open to interpretation and that the artistic value doesn't diminish (though one's enjoyment of it might). As far as accepting all genre's of music as having artistic value and being music.....yes, you should. Accepting something and liking/enjoying it are two entirely different things. If you don't like *insert genre, artist, and/or song* then that's fine. Trying to degrade it, accuse it of being non-musical, claiming it has no artistic merit, etc. are all jackass moves though. There is absolutely no backing (unless you're Kenneth apparently) for those claims other than personal taste.
Taliwakker
.....
Kenneth wrote
call it what you want....nobody can truely understand the "musical meaning" of any piece of music other than the one/ones who created it. What you deem unneccesary they may deem necessary.
The one rule of music i teach all my students is that if it sounds good to you then it is good...and nobody can tell you differently.
Its all opinion...no amount of debate or verbal "wankery" will change this.
call it what you want....nobody can truely understand the "musical meaning" of any piece of music other than the one/ones who created it. What you deem unneccesary they may deem necessary.
The one rule of music i teach all my students is that if it sounds good to you then it is good...and nobody can tell you differently.
Its all opinion...no amount of debate or verbal "wankery" will change this.
- pure gold, yet the absolute truthOn a side note i listened to your Autumstone project yesturday Kenneth and things became oh so clear...
Kenneth R.
Cináed
cute, more personal attacks, and no debate. you guys really exemplify everything wrong with modern politics - lots of bs, and nothing to say. i'd also put forth extreme caution to anyone claiming to know of absolute truth of any kind when agreeing to a statement that a particular thing is subjective. you realize you're creating a contradiction?
- Status
Similar threads
