THE OFFICIAL DREAM THEATER DISCUSSION THREAD

[Meedleyx10]

Be careful man.....he might just add you to the "ignore" list if you keep disagreeing with him.

 

[Kenneth R.]

An ingredient, that, since you missed my point, I will now fully elaborate one.step.at.a.time: it's an ingredient but if you put too much, you get watered down piss. Get the point?

You are basically saying "If you like it it's good, if you don't like it, it's not good." The motivation behind the writing is NOT at stake here. I do NOT claim to know such things. However, the communicative effectiveness IS at stake here and is an objective thing. Consider the band a transmitter. Consider yourself a receiver. The receiving end (this just got dirty ) is subjective since there are many different kinds of receivers. I am NOT arguing that, so STOP bringing that shit up again and again. However, since there is one band, this single transmitter is, when compared to others, more or less effective. How hard is this to comprehend? Some bands make you go, wtf are they talking about? Some bands make their message clear. You might remember a particular band for being skilled, but will history remember any of their songs, or what those songs are ABOUT, or just that the band was particularly skilled but contributed absolutely nothing meaningful? As in the Beatles example, I DON'T CARE if you like them or not. They connected to millions of people. They're DEAD now and they STILL connect to millions of people. They've been DEFUNCT for decades. This is OBJECTIVELY A BAND WITH MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION than some one hit wonder who maybe had mad chops.

I realize this is a prog forum. But seriously people, this is absolutely pathetic that I should even have to bring any of this up.

EDIT: Arguing against the abuse of tasteless shred on a prog forum is like arguing the existence of a spherical world to classicalists.

 

[Setsu]

Kenneth you are the king shit disturber.

All hail, the almighty, all knowing, "Kenneth R."!

I've seen the wrong in my ways and will now only listen to music Kenneth likes, because he obviously knows the difference between "bad" and "good". If I disagree he will attempt to flee from the topic in various ways including vocabulary "wanking". Therefor since my opinion is that Kenneth sucks at talking, no one should listen. My opinion is fact. I am the forum king.

Signed,

Sheep

 

[Kenneth R.]

Congratulations, you just got on the "missed the point" bus too.

once again for the apparently unintelligent: LISTEN TO WHATEVER YOU LIKE. GO AHEAD. YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET VALIDATED. GOOD LORD.

However, the pathetic cop-out argument "well it's all subjective, there are no good or bad bands" is IDIOTIC. Some bands ARE better at COMMUNICATING IDEAS than others. I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO LIKE SUCH BANDS.

seriously, just when I'd complimented this forum for having a higher intelligence average than UM Philosophy, this thread changes my mind.

 

[reidie]

II cant believe this is still going - looks like there is only one way to settle this argument once and for all.... Cage Fight at dawn!

But in all seriousness - to use your latest analogy, yes there are different receivers and transmitters and yes, transmitters such as the Beatles are the most widely accepted by society. Their music is uncomplicated and most of their "greatest hits" are about emotions and experiences everyone can relate to, Love, relationships etc. This is undeniable. Their music is highly digestible for the masses. But I think it is important to acknowledge that not all receivers like it missionary!

I don’t listen to music because of lyrical or emotional sentiment. Granted, there are some exceptions, but as the whole im a grooves, riffs and solo’s person. The Beatles, while I acknowledge that for their time were revolutionary and collectively are perhaps some of the greatest song writers we will ever see; for the most part do nothing for me. I suppose it comes from studying and playing music that I find virtuosity to be favorable to my ears. There is no emotion attached to this sentiment, just a pure awe that someone has mastered their instrument to such a high level. So for some receivers such as myslef, out and out “musical masturbation” can add to my enjoyment of the music. Is it helping convey any emotions or sentiment? Not really. Is it trying to? For the most part its irrelevant to me. Of course as with all things a compromise has to be met, but some level of technical proficiency has to be met to keep me interested – and I’m sure as metal fans we can all agree on at least this point!

 

[Kenneth R.]

oh, and another thing. The cop-out argument is all fuzzy and friendly, to each his own, let's all get along- but that doesn't make it the truth. Honestly it's uncomprehensible as to why people would choose ignorance consciously. Heads-in-the-sand INDEED.

So there it is. I've stated my position at least 20 different ways, and met with very little opposition, and a great deal of bullshit. Commence whatever "ownage" on the internet you wish, so that you may "win" this. I have the comedic view that even if you feel satisfaction at "dissing kenneth r." you've only disrespected your own intelligence. It's beyond ironic when such people as these point the finger at me and use words like "pretentious" and "ego". Feel free to lay it on thick, since I have no dillusions of grandeur and care nothing for 'winning' on the internet. I don't need you to agree to make me feel good .If I meet only insults and childish games, then it is only you that I could possibly feel sorry for. And I don't.

 

[reidie]

ignorence is bliss

 

[Tubbs]

Correct spelling is bliss.

EDIT: rofl, that was really mean sry ill spelle things rong then

 

[Meedleyx10]

Seriously though......that last Kenneth post quite possibly holds less water than any previous ones. He still doesn't realize that nobody is arguing in favor of the presence of what he calls "wankery". His "argument" is contingent upon there being a means of quantifying the quality of music and there there is a universally accepted scale by which music can be rated. Basically what he is saying as that people who enjoy music that (in this fictional world he's created) is not "good" are either A) wrong or B) intentionally listening to music that they know isn't good and, thus, don't actually enjoy. The Beatles example is true in the sense that they did have a permanent and widespread impact on music. All that says is that they are popular. It doesn't say anything about the music itself other than a lot of people like it. The quality of that music is still completely 100% subjective. Music is not some form of democracy in which the artist with the most fans "wins" and is declared the better and more meaningful than all others.

The "wine analogy" is even more inneffective. (and no it has nothing to do with me not "getting it" as Kenneth would probably jump at the opportunity to proclaim). In that example, the more water you put into wine, the worse the wine gets. Get it to the point where you have 100% water and no wine. You'd be left with horrible wine, right? WRong.....you'd be left with water, which plenty of people enjoy. Obviously if you pick up a glass for a sip expecting to get wine you'll be very displeased when you get a mouthful of water, and the same holds true for the guy expecting water picking up a glass full of wine. This comes back to my first (i think it was the first) post I made in this ordeal. You can't hold the same standards to two different kinds of music. Otherwise you end up with "Dream Theater is the absolute worst jazz quintet I have ever heard in my life" or "Segovia!? That guy can't hold a candle to Coltrane!".

There IS NO objective point in Kenneth's argument, and that's the point that several of us are trying to make.

 

[Anonymous]

I get a good laugh every time I enter this thread

 

[Kenneth R.]

So do I. I think I have a new signature. I've blocked the blathering kids, but I had to see what Tubbs was referring to above, and it's gold.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

I love this thread. and i've only read the last like 5 posts and skimmed meedly's long ass one. I roll eyes at all of you who are nerds who argue over silly shit.

wait... did i just roll my eyes at myself?

 

[reidie]

wow im honored that the almighty one has chosen my typo to be apart of his signature. To be put up on a pedestal along with music of the caliber of Autumnstone is just flattering....

 

[Tubbs]

This thread should be put on a list of the most hilariously predictable arguments.

ARGUEMNTS ABOUT TECHNICAL WNAKERY ON PROG FORMUS NEVAR GO ANYWHERE GUYZ JEEZ

 

[progmetaldan]

II cant believe this is still going - looks like there is only one way to settle this argument once and for all.... Cage Fight at dawn!

I don’t listen to music because of lyrical or emotional sentiment. Granted, there are some exceptions, but as the whole im a grooves, riffs and solo’s person. The Beatles, while I acknowledge that for their time were revolutionary and collectively are perhaps some of the greatest song writers we will ever see; for the most part do nothing for me. I suppose it comes from studying and playing music that I find virtuosity to be favorable to my ears. There is no emotion attached to this sentiment, just a pure awe that someone has mastered their instrument to such a high level. So for some receivers such as myslef, out and out “musical masturbation” can add to my enjoyment of the music. Is it helping convey any emotions or sentiment? Not really. Is it trying to? For the most part its irrelevant to me. Of course as with all things a compromise has to be met, but some level of technical proficiency has to be met to keep me interested – and I’m sure as metal fans we can all agree on at least this point!

Agreed.

The "wine analogy" is even more inneffective. (and no it has nothing to do with me not "getting it" as Kenneth would probably jump at the opportunity to proclaim). In that example, the more water you put into wine, the worse the wine gets. Get it to the point where you have 100% water and no wine. You'd be left with horrible wine, right? WRong.....you'd be left with water, which plenty of people enjoy. Obviously if you pick up a glass for a sip expecting to get wine you'll be very displeased when you get a mouthful of water, and the same holds true for the guy expecting water picking up a glass full of wine. This comes back to my first (i think it was the first) post I made in this ordeal. You can't hold the same standards to two different kinds of music. Otherwise you end up with "Dream Theater is the absolute worst jazz quintet I have ever heard in my life" or "Segovia!? That guy can't hold a candle to Coltrane!".

There IS NO objective point in Kenneth's argument, and that's the point that several of us are trying to make.

I'd definately rather drink a cup of water than any wine...

And what r u talking about Meedley???? Coltrane sucks at the kazoo!!!

 

[Taliwakker]

You are basically saying "If you like it it's good, if you don't like it, it's not good." The motivation behind the writing is NOT at stake here. I do NOT claim to know such things.

Well by using terms like "technical showoffery" and "wanking" you are implying that the artist is serving themselves and not the song/music....so you kind of are claiming to know know such things.....for the 50th time

the communicative effectiveness IS at stake here and is an objective thing. Consider the band a transmitter. Consider yourself a receiver. The receiving end (this just got dirty ) is subjective since there are many different kinds of receivers. I am NOT arguing that, so STOP bringing that shit up again and again. However, since there is one band, this single transmitter is, when compared to others, more or less effective. How hard is this to comprehend? Some bands make you go, wtf are they talking about? Some bands make their message clear. You might remember a particular band for being skilled, but will history remember any of their songs, or what those songs are ABOUT, or just that the band was particularly skilled but contributed absolutely nothing meaningful? As in the Beatles example, I DON'T CARE if you like them or not. They connected to millions of people. They're DEAD now and they STILL connect to millions of people. They've been DEFUNCT for decades. This is OBJECTIVELY A BAND WITH MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION than some one hit wonder who maybe had mad chops.

I'm sure connections are more easily made when the signal is distributed widely and constantly.
And there have been plenty of bands/musicians throughout history who have been able to play technically proficient music that has been very meaningful and will be remembered fondly by history.....maybe not to the extent of the Beatles...but thats not really the point.

How effective was Rimsky in portraying The Flight of the Bumblebee?....so how how is technical proffency extraneous in the creation of music in that case Kenneth as that was your argument/statement?
I'm not sure if 3 chords and some vocal harmonies could do a better job in that case.

 

[Ascension]

This thread should be put on a list of the most hilariously predictable arguments.

ARGUEMNTS ABOUT TECHNICAL WNAKERY ON PROG FORMUS NEVAR GO ANYWHERE GUYZ JEEZ

Absolutely. Thoughts on the matter is based on personal preference and very subjective. There has been NO OBJECTIVITY involved here. If you don't like overt technical proficiency in music...you don't & no amount of argumentative debate, no matter how flowered the dialogue, will win the day for you. The same holds true for those that enjoy hearing & seeing artists stretch themselves with their technical prowess and write music to do so. And the artist that can fill a space with 2-3 well placed & phrased notes is just as good IMO as an artist that can do it with 100. Both make their contributions to a media they love & do it as they see fit. The listeners hears both and some decide they like one over the other. ALL SUBJECTIVE & ALL VALID. That's the way it is. Of course, all this has been overstated again & again of why... and examples have been provided that extreme technicality in music has it's place & has been validated. But, there are those that let their personal preference & opinion cloud their small closed minds. Thus, the debate continues in circles with no end. "Wankery" ,as it has been termed, exists in prog...always has, always will. And, the success of it cannot be denied.

BTW - Tubbs you can't spell for shit either

 

[Setsu]

This is hilarious. *rides the missed bus all the way to happy town*

 

[Wander]

I've listened quite a lot of Dream Theater, but I don't have any of their Cd's (real copies). Could anyone recommend which one would be the best one to get for my music collection?

 

[Phanto]

images and words, scenes from a memory