Talk:Dream Theater/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The Theater

The theater was in Monterey, California at Prescott and Lighthouse. It was torn down about 5 years ago because repairs would be too costly. Mike Numerous sites say a theater in California, not New York.

Removed sentence

I just removed the following, contributed by Coburnpharr04: "Evry [sic] letter in Dream Theater can be found in the [Majesty] symbol". It's a myth and there is no evidence that it was intended to contain the letters of Dream Theater (it is, after all, based on another symbol completely unrelated to the band). Besides, just looking at the symbol tells you that it's not true. Thanks for the contribution Coburnpharr04, but we're trying to keep away from fancruft if possible. plattopus (talk) 05:54, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Let's get this article featured

Round one

The article looks great after the overhaul. I haven't read through every section yet, but what I have read looks very thorough. I have been wondering for a while, and especially now: has anyone here ever worked on a Featured Article for Wikipedia? Even if not, I think it would be a fun project to get all the DT fans on Wikipedia together to try and get this article up to featured status. If successful, it would provide some great publicity for DT, especially with their new album coming out in a couple of months.  :) --Durga2112 21:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've worked on a few, and so will suggest a few things that need to be done:

• The lead needs expanding to summarise who DT are

Is the lead summary to everyone's liking so far? plattopus (talk) 19:11, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it would be nice, if the abilities of the band members would be mentioned somewhere. Not necessarily in the lead section, but some people listen to DT because they admire the playing skills of the members. Of course it will be hard to express it in a NPOV way, but it could be added. --Jannex 19:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Definitely would be hard to do with NPOV... I tried in my original re-write but couldn't come up with anything that didn't scream 'fanboy'. But is definitely worth a mention, since many DT fans are primarily fans of one of the members first. plattopus (talk) 20:04, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• There should be more talk of their style of play, influences and if possible those they have influenced

With regard to influences, there are a lot of great quotes from the band on their DVD commentaries. e.g. "To Live Forever" being influenced by U2 (after they watched Rattle and Hum, if I'm not mistaken), and the band's comments about being a heavier version of Yes, with the same instrumentation, etc. If someone could collect quotes like that and add them to the article, that would be great.  :)

Also, any bands that they have covered could also be cited as influences, and possibly ranked in order of how many times they have covered them (Metallica, Iron Maiden, and Rush being perhaps the biggest). --Durga2112 14:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The reference should be dated as to when it was cited, and more references added if possible
• More images! This one might be difficult (copyrights) but is not really necessary

Shouldn't be a problem at all really. DT have quite a number of promotional images that are free for use, and there would be many live photographers who would allow use of their photos on here, as long as they're credited. --plattopus (talk) 12:20, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of images, take a look at the Beatles article. They have a picture at the beginning of almost every section; most of them are of one of the band members, with a little blurb about that member in the caption. Perhaps something like that could be done here - in fact, the way the article is currently organized would make it natural (for the most part) to put images of LaBrie, Rudess, etc. in their respective sections. Anyone know where to get ahold of free promotional images of each band member? --Durga2112 20:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Not many red links. At least stubs should be written of all the albums and videos. --Jannex 20:46, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, all of the albums and videos now have their own pages, so the only red links in this article are for things that are not strictly DT-related. --Durga2112 14:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is now only one red link (Roseland Ballroom) and two stub links. I don't know anything about the Roseland other than seeing Pat throw a basketball onto its roof on Letterman, so someone else can develop that article :D --plattopus (talk) 16:06, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

When those have been done I reckon it should pass as a FAC. violet/riga (t) 21:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think we have a HUGE way to go before we even consider nominating the Dream Theater page for FA... little things like inconsistant usage of US/British English is probably the biggest problem, since it looks quite unprofessional at the moment (and by the way, I take full responsibility for most of them!). I have a friend whose girlfriend is a copyeditor, so I will get her to go over it as an impartial reader. Anyway, I don't pretend to have great command over the English language, so some of the sentences read strangely... but if we get enough collaboration all these issues can easily be addressed. We just have to prove how dedicated DT fans can be! :D --Plattopus 11:47, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Some featured articles in the music category (specifically, artists and bands):

• The Beatles
• Bob Dylan
• Roy Orbison
• Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

So yeah, we still have a long way to go based on those articles, but I honestly think it could be done.  :) --Durga2112 14:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Round two

OK, we've come about a million miles since my first re-write. Congratulations and thanks to everyone who contributed... there is now only one red link, plenty of images, description of their style of play, and a great lead section, so most the bases brought up by violet/rigs have been covered. Now I think the only two major issues we have are:

• References, quotes, etc
• Those darn sub-headings

I suggested below that we go with 19xx-19xx style headers, but so far haven't had any responses... so let's put our heads together and think of some appropriate sub-heading titles. We're ever so close to being ready for FAC, so let's give it one final push :D --plattopus (talk) 18:05, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

We should probably try Peer review before nominating for a featured article, as people often give very helpful suggestions there. Is there anything to be done here before that? --Jannex 11:52, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, peer review is the obvious next step, we're probably ready for it now. Tonight I will be scouring my old DTIFC mags for some quotes and references, so asking for review should be done ASAP.

So... is a person (e.g. me) allowed to Support a FAC (e.g. this article) if they have worked on it themselves? Obviously I'm not going to Object to it, but I wonder if there is an etiquette, or even a policy, for that type of thing. --Durga2112 17:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea... but I don't see how you should be any less entitled to a vote. Since I nominated it, my vote would probably be frowned upon, but for anyone else I don't see a problem with it. Besides, there would be millions of minor edits Wikipedia-wide that would have normally precluded people from voting on an article they had no real impact on. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 18:04, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well done, everyone who contributed to this article.  :) --Durga2112 02:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, jolly good effort everyone. -- plattopus^{is this thing on?} 03:21, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

So, do we actually get a say as to when the article should appear on the front page? This page seems to indicate that that can be done. If so, what would be a good day for that to happen? With Octavarium right around the corner, this has the potential to give DT some major promotion - maybe we could try to come to a general consensus and then one of us could make the suggestion on that page. --Durga2112 14:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess it's just up to someone to request that it go into contention. It's an FA so it's not as if anything would need to be majorly changed for it to appear on the main page... thoughts? -- plattopus^{is this thing on?} 17:42, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've put it on the requests page... I guess it's up to Raul now. If it flops we can always try again. -- plattopus^{is this thing on?} 18:58, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Individually

"During the break they also worked individually on some compositions for their upcoming writing sessions."

Is this meant to say that each member was working individually on their own material? Either way, I think this sentence needs to be clarified a little.  :)

--Durga2112 01:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I've heard they all came up with some ideas for songs (e.g. John P, John M and Mike came up with riffs, vocal melodies, lyrics, etc). From what I recall, when they demoed material before Desmond entered the picture, they already had some material written. --plattopus (talk) 12:47, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I just went and clarified that line. --Durga2112 06:12, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lead section

The way it currently reads, the additions of Yes and Rush to the influences makes it sound like they were 80s metal bands. When I originally wrote it, I meant to say that they blended progressive rock (with no examples) with their direct Metallica/Iron Maiden influence. The stress on the progressive metal, therefore makes it read like Yes and Rush are 80s metal bands (perhaps vaguely true for Rush, but certainly not for Yes). Anyway, I will try to re-word it so Yes and Rush are credited as "old school prog" influences, and Metallica and Maiden are credited as "modern metal" influences. --plattopus (talk) 14:40, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I see where you were coming from. I just think that the progressive side of DT is worth emphasizing as well, especially given their comments about being a heavier version of Yes on the 5YIALT DVD (I'd still love to get a direct quote of that). So yeah, reword it any way you see fit; a lot of things are going to get edited, moved, etc. as we improve this article - may as well start small.  :) --Durga2112 15:25, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely they deserve a mention, that's why I said I think we should mention their two distinct groups of influence... 'old school prog' and 'modern metal'. But as it stands now, it looks like Yes are a metal band. --plattopus (talk) 15:32, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

OK I've re-worded it now, hopefully it's a bit less ambiguous now. There's still a bit of tweaking to do (such as adding some info about who DT have influenced), so I'm doing that now. --plattopus (talk) 15:50, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute, when did Rush, Yes and Genesis meet their demise? I guess you could argue that after the 70s their styles became less "progressively" oriented, but I think that definitely needs to be reworded.  :) --Durga2112 19:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was going for 'met the demise of their progressiveness', but it obviously didn't come through. Re-wording definitely needed! plattopus (talk) 20:04, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I think it is a litle closer to that intended meaning now, but it runs on a little too much for my taste. I also don't know if "genre leaders" is a good term to use. --Durga2112 21:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, one other thing I'm a bit iffy about... should there be that section that says "The current line-up consists of..."? What is the convention for other band-related articles? Is there any policy on how these types of things should be set out? To me, it doesn't look ideal. plattopus (talk) 14:22, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

It looks like one popular convention is to list the members under a "current members" heading. See the Pearl Jam article. I'll go ahead and make the change, see what you think of it. DaveTheRed 18:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but after my original re-write (which had the personnel in their own section) someone changed it to what it is currently. plattopus (talk) 19:01, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

OK, that's much better now. One problem, though, is that now it accentuates how long the lead section is. Does anyone see that as a problem? plattopus (talk) 19:18, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Should Chris Collins be on the list of Former members? --Jannex 13:19, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

If I had a vote, I would vote no. He didnt appear on any albums, and if we were to include everyone who was "in" the band for any amount of time regardless of input we'd have to include Hendricks, Stone, etc etc. The members list is near the top of the article so IMO needs to be kept to a bare minimum. plattopus (talk) 13:32, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

And also, you wouldn't think Collins would have his own Wikipedia article, so there's no real point in having his name there (because he's mentioned in the actual text). If, some time in the future, someone comes along and creates articles for Collins, Stone, Hendricks, etc, then there would be a reason to include them in the former members list. plattopus (talk) 13:42, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Chris Collins should NOT be listed as former member of Dream Theater because he has never been in Dream Theater. He might be listed as a member of the former band Majesty if he is to be listed somewhere. F15x28 18:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

TOT reverted

The Train Of Thought information got chopped off when the OSI info was moved... someone re-wrote it but I have put my original version back in because the writing style fits better with the rest of the article.

Subheadings

I like the idea of the current subheadings but think it is a little misleading at the moment. It sounds that, for example, the "LaBrie era" ends and the "Sherinian era" takes over, almost implying that the person named in the era is the most important aspect of the team. Can we think of another way of wording them? violet/riga (t) 21:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a Deep Purple-style "Mark I", "Mark II", etc would be best? --plattopus (talk) 21:36, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking about something like "Formation", then Domicini-era would be "Difficulties in the beginning", LaBrie-era "Rise to fame", Sherenian-era "A Change of Keyboardists" and the last one would be "Recent events" or something like that. Comments?

OK, I've had a good think about it, and the problem is that 90% of the article is the "History" section, which is chronological. Everything flows together as one connected piece, whereas other articles often have themselves divided up into sections of individual subjects. Since most of the DT article is chronological, the headings can't simply be things like "Commercial success" or "Rise to fame", because that section doesn't ONLY describe the successes DT have had through their career. Similarly, if I saw "A change of keyboardists" in the TOC, I would assume that section only dealt with a single personnel change, when in fact it would cover most of Derek's time in the band. So for that reason, I think that years would be the best bet for section headings. If anyone can come up with something better, I'm happy to use it... but due to the nature of the history section, I think they're pretty much required. --plattopus (talk) 15:35, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - go for it! Great job so far on everything else. violet/riga (t) 18:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, done... but if anyone has ANY suggestions for better headings, please let them be known. :) --plattopus (talk) 18:55, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

It would be very nice to get pictures of the IAW/LATM flaming heart and the LSFNY "flaming apple" to post side-by-side in the relevant section.

Done. --plattopus (talk) 11:24, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Also, what does "flame of passion" mean? --Durga2112 06:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Song-oriented"? (re: 6DOIT)

In the 6DOIT section. What exactly does "song-oriented tracks" mean? Also, saying that the tracks on disc 1 are "short(er)" doesn't really say anything, as first of all, they average about 10 minutes each, and secondly, shorter compared to what? (Yes, I know it is meant to convey that they are shorter than the title track, but that is not immediately apparent from the way it reads. I think that entire paragraph needs some work).

One other thing from that paragraph: first it mentions a 42 minute title track, but at the end it says that the melodies from the overture were expanded into "full songs". Now, I know the exact nature of the second disc (i.e. song or suite) is a controversial subject among DT fans, but perhaps we shouldn't get into that here.  ;) Mike has said that it is a single song, so I think that is the interpretation that we should stick with. That quote from his website could even be referenced here - can anyone find it?

Done. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 11:56, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, last thing about 6DOIT for tonight - I promise! "Six Degrees ended up being received incredibly well by critics and the press. It was, and probably still is, the most publicised of Dream Theater's albums with the possible exception of IAW." That is just begging for some verifiable references - anyone want to volunteer one or some? --Durga2112 06:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully most of this information is now cleared up. I cannot seem to find a Billboard chart from when SDOIT was released, but I'm 100% sure it debuted in the 40s (I'm pretty sure 42), I just need a source. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 11:56, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Clean up

I did an extensive clean up of this article, NPOVing it and making it generally more professional. I still believe there are some parts of this article that need work:

• In the intro it says that Tool owes part of its success to DT. This seems like a fairly large exageration to me. Tool's success owes more to the alternative revolution then to DT.

Perhaps it is a stretch, maybe we should replace it with another well-known band who is directly influenced by progressive metal? For example, The Mars Volta? plattopus

It would make more sense to use Muse (band)

(talk) 19:24, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

• As mentioned above, I'm lukewarm on the era headings. The articles on Deep Purple and Pink Floyd don't have anything like it. I'm temped to get rid of it, or maybe create headers by album instead of by era.
• At over 31K, this article is too long. It contains a lot of trivia that could probably be either eliminated or condensed.

Any help in implementing these changes would greatly contribute to this article. DaveTheRed 01:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You've done a very good job copyediting the article. The headings are the best we've come up with so far - splitting it by albums had been too restrictive. As for the size of the article I don't think it's a problem at all, especially given the latest view of article size limits. violet/riga (t) 01:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

References needed

There are some statements in this article that I think should be properly referenced, or else removed from the article if they cannot be verified. Since it's late right now (and I have work to do ;)), the only one I can think of at the moment is this one:

• "Mike Portnoy has said that he has three more cover shows planned, but refuses to reveal when they will occur, or what albums will be covered."

I will add to this list as I get time; please feel free to help track down references for statements like that one. --Durga2112 06:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can personally verify that he has mentioned this on more than one occasion, either in his forum or in interviews (one of which was in Theater of Dreams). When I have time I will track down the exact quote. --plattopus (talk) 09:40, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

OK I found an entry in the MPFAQ that says "as you know, there are five planned"... it doesn't mention that MOP and NOTB count as two of those, but it's as good as I could find. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 12:05, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Octavarium

Okay, speculation about the title Octavarium has begun to creep into this article. While it is nice to speculate, I really don't think it has a place in an encyclopedia article - for one thing, it's hardly NPOV. I was going to just remove it, but I thought I'd post this notice first to see if there are any objections. --Durga2112 20:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd delete it unless we can find a source from the band that says what they meant by the title. DaveTheRed 20:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good point - let's delete it UNTIL we find a source from the band confirming the meaning of the title, if they ever do that. --Durga2112 21:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added it myself, and created the Octavarium page. It's a fair point, although I didn't say at all that it was a fact - it is clearly speculation. So, I've created a 'Speculation' heading on the Octavarium page, which I think is more necessary than simply putting it into the main information heading, for the time being. Dav 19:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Added some images

I just added some images to break up the vast amounts of solid text. If anyone has any more to add, please do. --plattopus (talk) 11:37, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

DT albums and discography

OK, I just spent the last few hours putting Infoboxes into all the pages for DT albums, and cleaned them all up. Most of them are still pretty stub-ish, but there's really not much you can say about them. Anyway, I'm not sure what to do for the videos (LIT, 5YIAL, Met00)... should we use the Album infobox template or something different?

I have been wondering about that too. Best bet would be to find some artists that have a lot of videos (maybe Metallica? I really don't know) and see if people have come up with anything for those videos. Failing that, perhaps you could go with an albumbox, using the colour for live releases. --Durga2112 02:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just checked out Metallica's videos... they've all got Infoboxes, but they contain information about the CD version of the video (see Live Shit, S&M). I guess we can just use the album Infobox, since it has all the needed fields, we can just change the colour or something to differentiate between the albums and videos.

OK, I've just edited Live in Tokyo to include an Infobox, and I changed the colour to Lightblue to differentiate from albums. I don't have time to do 5YIAL and Met00 but if they're not done by the time I get home I'll be doing them tonight. plattopus (talk) 07:06, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Jannex for changing the colours of the Infoboxes... do you know where we can find a style guide on the Infoboxes for music DVDs? plattopus (talk) 18:16, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

When did James LaBrie join the band?

Currently the article says that James LaBrie joined the band in 1992. It used to say in dtfaq.com that he joined in 1991, but the history page is not there any more. Additionally, Images and Words was recorded in December 1991. Did they record it without a singer? --Jannex 17:46, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I hear 1991 and 1992 quoted all the time... kind of like how even the band themselves sometimes alternate in their answers to when they actually came together (either '85 or '86). If IAW was recorded in 91, then I'd put my house on the fact that James joined earlier that year... but a definitive source would be a good find. plattopus (talk) 18:09, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it for now, until we can find a definitive source... although logic says that he was in the band in 1991. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 12:13, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Quoting [1]: "James went in for his audition on January 19th, 1991 and was asked to join the band 3 days later" - assuming he didn't hesitate much, he joined the band in 1991 // Gargaj 02:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Dream Theater

Inspired by the template on all Rush articles, I've created Template:Dream Theater for possible use on all DT-related articles. IMO it'll help grow collaboration on DT articles, which will result in higher quality material, but I want to get some opinions on it first. So does anyone think that such a template at the bottom of all DT pages would be a hinderance (which, by the way, is currently incomplete and just has a mock-up so far)? plattopus (talk) 19:09, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

OK, since noone had any input I've gone ahead and added the template to DT-related articles. It brings up one question though: does Mullmuzzler still exist? Is James' new solo album another MM release (but under a different name, like with MM2), or is it a seperate project?

I added Chris Collins to the template about a month ago. I hope you don't mind, but he was a part of the group, even though not officially as DT.--Splent 00:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Subconscious

There's no mention of Mike Bahr's bootlegs (I still have my copy of Subconscious) nor the massive DT mailing list that I was on in high school at that time. They seem relevant enough to the development of the DT fan culture. Ah well - it's probably best that they be forgotton.  :: sigh :: </Jun-Dai 22:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)>

YJML rates a mention in History of Dream Theater, but it's too far in the periphery for the main article. Subconscious, on the other hand, seems a bit too specific. General mention of the thousands of high quality boots seems appropriate. But then again, if you can mention them in the article without it sounding too rambling, go ahead. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 22:12, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Why not start a separate article about DT bootlegs? --Durga2112 01:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You know, that ain't a bad idea. They'd have one of the more active bootleg communities outside the jamband scene, so I can definitely see the potential for a great article on it. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 06:28, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yup. The only reason I can't start the article is that I'm not much of a collector of bootlegs. I download a lot of MP3s, but it's mainly to hear live versions of as many of their songs as possible, plus things like cover songs and any "historic" performances. But yeah, it could make for a really nice article.

Have a look at Beatles discography... something similar for DT would be a nice addition. Notable bootlegs (Subconscious, Forbidden Dreams, etc) could be expanded upon if needed, so the article won't be specialised to just bootlegs, which would be a bad thing IMO. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 17:04, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Nice! Yeah, DT definitely have enough releases to make a good discography article. I should have some time in a week or so to start an article; or if you or anyone else wants to go ahead and start it, I'll contribute what I can to it. --Durga2112 02:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as the YJML is concerned, what about an article about DT's presence/fan communities in cyberspace? Throw in some information about the history of the official site, various prominent fan sites, MP.com (well, all the bandmembers' websites, but Portnoy's seems to be the most popular), the first Wikipedia featured article for a progressive metal group ;), etc. and it could make for a nice article. --Durga2112 02:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

10 bucks it'll get VfD'd within minutes due to non-notability though. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 17:04, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Forget I mentioned it. --Durga2112 02:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Featured article? A big mistake!

I can formulate at least 2 arguments to remove this article's 'featured' status:

• some pictures are copyrighted
• many sentences do not respect Wikipedia's NPOV principle. Example: In the twenty years since their inception, they have become the most successful progressive band since the height of progressive rock in the mid-1970s, despite being relatively unknown in mainstream pop and rock circles. Says who? A fan, I guess.

It's great to see so many contributors involved, but further clean-up is essential, imho. Fortinbras 06:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Point 1: Tag the offending images. Point 2: That is a fact, not a POV, and is backed up by sales figures. Furthermore it's generally quite nice to be, well, quite nice. violet/riga (t) 09:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The images are either promotional photos (released into the public by the owner for the specific purpose of use in articles like this one), album covers (fair use), or (in the case of the photo of Greg Chick) from the official DT site, therefore presumed to be either promotional or fair use. And about the "most successful" comment, it's true. Do you dismiss someone saying the Beatles are the most successful British group in history as fan-contributed POV? Anyway, if you have these problems, you should have got involved in the FA discussion. plattopus^talk 12:45, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

In the twenty years since their inception, they have become the most successful progressive band since the height of progressive rock in the mid-1970s, despite being relatively unknown in mainstream pop and rock circles: there really is some contradiction here: how can the band be the most successful, despite being relatively unknown? I'm European, and in the Dutch Wikipedia, we are far more strict about these matters. When I wrote a while ago that "Kind of Blue" (Miles Davis) is the finest jazz album ever, I got reprimanded. Just add something like "some believe that" or "according to some critics". About the pictures: you could at least mention the name of the photographer. If it is promotional material, I'm sure the name of the photographer was mentioned somewhere. Again, in Europe, we are much stricter about these matters. Fortinbras 21:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

There's a difference between "the finest" and "the most successful". Describing something as "fine" is an opinion; describing something as successful is verifiable fact. That would be why your Miles Davis contribution would be using weasel words, whereas the Dream Theater article is generally NPOV. "Some believe that" and "according to some critics" are words to be avoided, and we've tried not to use them where possible. Besides, the "relatively unknown" comment is qualified by "in mainstream pop circles". It's fair to say that a vast majority of pop music fans would be completely oblivious to DT, but ask anyone even remotely interested in progressive metal (or even metal in general) and they would have at least heard of DT. It's not a contradiction because it is discussing two seperate sections of music and DT's popularity within each. They are the most successful progressive band since the 70s (on sales), but wouldn't rate in the top 1000 when it comes to all-time sales regardless of genre.

And about naming photographers; have a look at any of the other images that qualify under the promotional image tag (see what links here on the template page) and see just how many name the photographer. Personally I think it would be nigh on impossible to find the photographer of the promotional images used in the article, and its not a requirement of the tag to give credit to the creator.

And finally, not to be rude, but bringing up European Wikipedia policies on here doesn't help much. plattopus^talk 21:27, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

The image problems are a real concern. There are freely-licensed images available, and yet the article is loaded with unfree images. Jkelly 03:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Links added

I have added three links to external websites. Two correspond to independent reviews of albums and the other is an example fan page.

Regarding the external link to a lyrics page. I previously changed the lyricspedia link to this one: http://www.songmeanings.net/artist.php?aid=226 saying that it is far more complete, yet someone has changed it back to the lyricspedia one saying that it isn't. I'd like to understand this... Because the lyricspedia site only shows lyrics from studio albums and the songmeanings one also shows lyrics from the fanclub albums, for lyrics like "Where are You Now", "Raise the Knife", Don't Look Past Me" and several more. It also has lyrics for "You or Me", a previous version of "You Not Me" and so on... In addition to that, the site has added value because you could also comment on the lyrics and share you opinion and etc which I find quite nice. In short, lyricspedia is not the right site here and I vote to change the link. What do you say? -ytsejam

songmeanings.net takes very long time to load and having songs organized by album (on lyricspedia) makes it easier for users to find them.

Okay, true, at times it does load rather slow (but that is to change as a new host and servers are to be added shortly). Also, we can just link to the discography page, for easier navigation: http://www.songmeanings.net/artist.php?action=discography&aid=226 - after that, people could find out about more lyrics.

You can't deny that it far more complete than the lyricspedia page and I remain in my opinion that it should be used. There aren't any valid reasons not to use it... - ytsejam

oh so you are the owner of the site looking for ways to spam? wikipedia isnt about free marketing you know

Do notice that SM is made by users for users - same mantra as the wiki. Also notice that I'm linking to the DT page, nothing else. This is, just for the sake of a more complete list of lyrics despite your suspicious thinking. And I really don't see how this spams the wiki, if only, it just makes it better.

Keyboardist history

The history section makes no mention of Derek Sherinian's, albeit brief, stint in Dream Theater.

Because of their high profile at the time, they had no shortage of musicians to choose from. Jens Johansson, who would go on to become a member of Stratovarius, was among the biggest names to audition, but they did not find anyone suitable for the position until Jordan Rudess was contacted.

I think there should be some mention of Sherinian's performance on A Change of Seasons and Falling Into Infinity.--Yock 17:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the History of Dream Theater article, because that stuff about Jens Johansson was removed from the main Dream Theater one. If you look about two paragraphs down from that section of text, you'll see that there is a lot of mention of Derek, in fact the entire 1995-1998 section is about his time in the band. The part you speak of is from before Derek joined, when Dream Theater tried to lure Rudess in the first place, but were unable to do so. A Change of Seasons and Falling Into Infinity are covered in detail under the 1995-1998 section. plattopus^talk 23:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

JP+JR solo project?

Since the "John Petrucci and Jordan Rudess" pairing contains more than one DT member, I don't see any reason for not including it in the "Solo Projects" section.

The partnership yielded one release, "An Evening With...". Kidburla2002 23:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Liquid Tension Experiment was the second DT side project, not first.

Derek Sherinian released his first solo album, Planet X, to impress the other members of DT. Shortly afterwards, LTE was formed (and shortly after that, Derek was fired.)

Added a "Notes" section to the discography

Because I felt the oddities and parallels between albums and tracks deserved a mention in the main article. I also think a section on riffs borrowed from one song to another (example: "Erotomania" is almost entirely comprised of riffs from other songs) would be merited, but any such list I make would be frustratingly incomplete.

Also, are Dream Theater still the most commercially successful progressive act since the '70s? The Mars Volta may have eclipsed them.Cassandraleo 22:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) next time. Less confusing and whatnot. Anyway, I think some people don't consider TMV progressive rock, considering how they don't exactly fit into a traditional classification. --Dalkaen^T/C 23:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

yar, sorry about that. xD Bleh. People who don't consider TMV prog are silly :pCassandraleo 00:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I would dispute that TMV have eclipsed Dream Theater with only two releases. Someone should find actual numbers though, if it's true then the article will need to be edited. (Although, Tool are certainly more successful than DT, but because they are only borderline prog, they were not counted. I see TMV in the same way.) plattopus^talk 14:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Heh, forgot about Tool. Yeah, I suppose they probably are more commercially successful than DT as well. As for TMV, I know De-Loused sold at least 500,000 copies because it was certified gold, and I believe Frances the Mute has sold even more due to The Widow's frequent radio airplay. I don't consider either group to be as prog as DT, but it seems a little disingenuous to call DT the most commercially successful prog group of the last 25 years when those two have sold as many records as they have. Cassandraleo 16:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I see a distinction in the fact that DT are prog whereas Tool and especially TMV are simply prog-influenced. But if community concensus says otherwise I'm happy to have that statement changed. But we would need concrete sales evidence, I still don't think TMV would have sold as much as DT simply because of the weight of numbers in DT's direction. plattopus^talk 06:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, a search on the RIAA page indicates that all of Tool's proper albums have gone at least double platinum (in Aenima's case, triple platinum) and Opiate has gone platinum. I can't find any information on TMV's sales, but according to the Wikipedia entry on them, De-Loused sold 500,000 copies and I would assume Frances sold more. Of course, no source is listed for that claim.

I think I'm going to edit in a mention of Tool, but note that some people don't consider them fully prog. :p Cassandraleo 00:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"In just three weeks" vandalism?

Various people (or at least various IP-adresses) have been constantly adding to the "Train of Thought" part that it was recorded "in just three weeks". I have been reverting this stuff myself a couple of times. But isn't it more or less a fact that the album was written and recorded in 3 weeks? Perhaps this could be included in the article in less POV wording ... or is it just a rumour? -- Snader 08:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that it was either written OR recorded in three weeks. I didn't think that they did both in three weeks. I could be wrong, though. If I come across the relevant information (it's probably on Portnoy's FAQ, but that thing is a nightmare to navigate) I'll post it in here. But if we include that information for TOT, then it would only be fair to include it for all of the other albums as well (where that information is available). The people who think that TOT was done too quickly would be quite shocked to know that Awake was also written in a period of 3-4 weeks. :p Durga2112 20:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and I'll do the same if I come across any information related to this. If the album was indeed written and recorded in 3 weeks, this will only be worth noting if that period is substantially different from the other albums. Snader 23:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that those differents IP addresses are either a single person or a group of persons with the same intention, to mock this band. At the earlier stage of this vandalism, in addition to the 'three weeks' the guy used to add that the album is 'least melodic'. To my mind, it looks like the intention was to mock the band and just because the more obvious part of vandalism was dropped, it doesn't mean that it is OK to leave the other part. Tomasgra 23:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure, it's probably some people from some forum or irc channel or something. Then again, if the recording / writing process of this album would be really different from previous ones it would still be worth noting. I have tried to get some info on this from various websites but as for now to no avail, FWIW. So we'll just keep reverting the crap for now on i guess. :-) Snader 22:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't written in three weeks - I can remember the band posting video of the writing/rehearsal sessions, and saying that they'd been working on it for a lot longer than three weeks. In fact, I think the writing started while they were still on tour with SDOIT. However, it's possible it was recorded in three weeks... but even so, it's hardly essential information. plattopus^talk 08:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. If you dont believe me, watch this to hear Mike Portnoy saying "we wrote this whole fuckin' album in three weeks" to a surprised John Petrucci who doesn't believe that the whole process was only from March 10th to April 4th, and joking about "don't tell the fans" // Gargaj

Infobox

I'd like to create a band Infobox for this article. Should another picture be added or use the one in the top of the page? --UVnet 15:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

-- Speaking of images, shouldn't the image of the band members at the top be more up to date? The current one is just so archaic. -- FatalDreams.

Indeed, that picture looks like it's from roughly the time of Awake. A new picture might not be necessary, but it would be interesting to see if there's a better, more modern fit. - CorbinSimpson 01:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Awake was released in 1994 - five years before Jordan Rudess (second from the right in the photo) joined the band. The photo is a Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence-era promotional photo. If you can find another/better one then upload it but I see no major problem with the current one. plattopus^talk 05:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The photo is a Scenes from a memory-era promotional photo. Jordan Rudess has a beard at the SDOIT era. Also petrucci already cut his hair during that time. --UVnet 20:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well instead of arguing specifics why don't you do something useful and make the infobox? plattopus^talk 02:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Elektra or Atlantic?

which is it? --UVnet 03:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Elektra is a division of Atlantic, the actual "label" for each release depended on the internal structure of Atlantic at the time of the album's release, so there's a bit of ambiguity. plattopus^talk 07:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Missing Album

When browsing orphan pages, A Sort of Homecoming is listed as a Dream Theater album, but does not appear in the article or template. Does someone familar with the band want to check if this is a valid album? MartinRe 11:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's valid. It was the annual fan club CD for 2004. Not really sure why the article lists it as a bootleg - it's a legitimate release, just very limited. Durga2112 19:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a fan club CD, I wouldn't classify it as a "legitimate album" as I would Images and Words or whatever. It shouldn't be in the template or the article itself IMO. plattopus^talk 07:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup. If someone wants to make an article about the fan club CDs, it would fit perfectly in there. I'm not sure if such a topic would be noteworthy enough for an article, though. Maybe if other bands were included it might make for a decent article - e.g. the Beatles' and Pearl Jam's annual Christmas singles, DT and Marillion's annual CDs, etc. I'd love to read such an article to see who else does that sort of thing, but I definitely don't have the time to start it now.  ;) Durga2112 17:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Some words for super-group Dream Theater

This band is the best band in the world, definetively. Look at the instrumentists, John Petrucci, Mike Portnoy, Jordan Ruddes, John Myung... If someone asks me about favorite musicians for making a super group, i will say again John, Mike, Jordan (I will have just to replace John Myung with Billy Shehan, but John is the best for Dream Theater bassist). Aeternus 18:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Petrit AugustiniAeternus 18:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Concert Reputation

I think the part about Rudess playing "Mary Had a Little Lamb" during "Endless Sacrifice" should be changed. I added Portland, ME (This is where I saw them) right after the Clarkson, MI part, and decided that it would probablt be more accurate to say that Rudess played it at every show that featured "Endless Sacrifice" in the setlist. Jordan 21:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've re-worked that whole section anyway, it seemed a bit all over the place. plattopus^talk 05:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

myung and bily.... they are great but, both of them play their own style <jmx> ina

latest contributions

Although I am not a frequent contributor to this nice (and featured) article, I tool the liberty to reverse quite substantial changes to the article: history diff. Most of those seem quite far fetched and driven by personal opinions of the anon contributor. Please review this revert, since I am not a DT specialist, to see if there is anything valuable in these contributions. Thank you folks and keep up the good work. --Johnnyw 21:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to the "criticism" section, I agree. Also, where are the criticism sections for all the other big artist entries (I don't see any for Metallica, although I'm 100% SURE that many artists and fans and people have made ignorant critical reviews of their music[al style])? And since I respond: "If they worked their ass off every day, for hours, playing, training, and improving their technique, then training some more, every day, for thirty years now, training at their instruments and becoming virtuosos. What now? Mr. Bigshot says they're too good to fully use their technical skills that they worked their ass off on in their songs? Is Mr. Bigshot justified to say it when Mr. Bigshot hasn't done much of technically requiring music himself? I consider bragging and showing off bad if you haven't done work for it (i.e rich by heritage), but damn it if you say that it's showing off technique. The band does not play Yngwie Malmsteen kind of, mostly single-formula based music displaying only technique, but every song is different, in case the critics haven't noticed. Guess what, I've played guitar for only 2½ years now and I can play many of their songs. What the hell?" My argument wins, therefore it should stay like that - removed :p --84.249.252.211 22:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, as well, I just removed it and someone reverted it, telling me to bring it to the talk page. I geuss they haven't seen this over the past few months. - 24.168.10.253 01:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Tool (band) review?

On a different note: I have been working on the Tool (band) article for almost a year now and would appreciate any useful comments or criticism by contributors to excellent articles of other music acts before I submit it to general peer review. The article is not as stable as I'd prefer it to be, due to the fact that a new album will be released this month, so be aware if you choose to review it. Like I said, any comments are welcome. --Johnnyw 21:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)