Talk:Octavarium

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Octavarium article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Octavarium has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 27, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Metal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles

Progressive Rock High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Speculation[edit]

I'd just like to note that until we get some solid information on what is mentioned in the specualation section, despite the fact that you can speak Latin and know of old books and whatnot, you need to step back and remember that you are posting in the "speculation" section - nothing is fact yet. Let's just leave it at what it might be, not what it is or isn't. Dav

Should we remove these sections now? 80.189.241.114

There's a lot of speculation going around that the time signatures of the songs actually correspond to their track numbers (i.e., track 1 is in 1/8 time, 2 is in 1/4 time, and so on).. however, I can't for the life of me tell. Might somebody be able to verify this?

There are a LOT of things like that going on in the album. I can't go looking for it now, but go into the MikePortnoy.com forum and look for a thread entitled "Octavarium nuggets" or something similar, there are a lot of hidden references and the like all through Octavarium.

plattopus^talk June 29, 2005 23:41 (UTC)

What's interesting is that the title track is only 23:59 seconds long when played in my computer... And I've got the ablum version.

Different computers and different media players/codecs can read track times slightly differently. Offski 14:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1/8...nice joke. the song is 8 minutes long and 1/8...!it must have at least 1600 bars. Leif edling (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is This Notable?[edit]

i Think James LaBrie sings the words 'Nightmare Cinema' on the title track, is this notable at all?

I noticed that too, I think it's worth noting, but doesn't have much relevance to the actual album.

That's all covered in the article for the title track so I don't think it's necessary to add here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erufailon42 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Album numeration[edit]

"It is also interesting to note that Octavarium follows a pattern started in Dream Theater's 6th studio album, Six Degrees Of Inner Turbulence". It sounded wrong, so I tried to count the albums. I came up with number #7 for Six Degrees and #9 for Octavarium. Discrepancy appears because for some reason "A Change of Seasons" is considered to be an EP. This is just plain wrong. By definition, 57 minute long album can't be an EP. Album length takes precedence over the number of tracks. Calling "A Change of Seasons" an EP is just like calling "Animals" an EP. --8.4.80.163 17:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ACOS was released as an EP, is referenced as an EP everywhere, and is considered an EP by the band and the label who released it... so it's an EP regardless of whether or not it conforms to out-dated "rules" that have no real meaning when CDs are concerned.

plattopus^{is this thing on?} 17:55, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Do we have any rules that allow us to distinguish between EPs and studio albums in the post-vinyl era? If we do, I don't see what makes "ACOS" an EP ( other than that it was called an EP when it was released ). It is very similar to both CDs of TransAtlantic, yet we call those studio albums.

If we don't, the division is completely arbitrary, and it does not make any sense to count studio albums and skip EPs. --8.4.80.163 19:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, The Mars Volta's new album was supposed to be five tracks long, but they were forced to split the last song's movements into more tracks, because otherwise it'd have been called an EP. Dav 08:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the fact that the label who released the "EP", and the band who recorded it, all refer to it as an EP, should be the deciding factor. Also the fact that SDOIT had so many references to the number 6, and was said to have such because it was their "sixth album", would have to be pretty conclusive. If the band themselves ignore ACOS when referring to their "studio albums", then I think the pedia should too.

plattopus^{is this thing on?} 19:39, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, ACOS, the track, was recorded in the mid-80's and was never released. The rest of the songs on the album are live recordings of Dream Theater covering songs from artists that influenced them. They are not Dream Theater's own (which I'm sure most of you know). You can't have a studio album when most of the songs on the album were not recorded in a studio. I personally could care less about correllations. I am in love with their music and they are by far my favorite artists on the planet, period. I should also mention you might want to check out the CD cover and look at the titles of all of the songs, specifically 1 and 8. Octavarium (track 8) is broken into 5 parts labelled I through V, and track 1 (The Root Of All Evil) is broken into 2 parts, labelled VI and VII, the last two parts to Octavarium. -- mjxg

Actually, the Root of All Evil is NOT part of Octavarium - it is parts Six and Seven of Mike Portnoy's "AA Saga" (as it is referred to) which also includes The Glass Prison and This Dying Soul. In addition, Octavarium having 5 parts goes along with the themes of 5 and 8 on the album.

To add to this discussion, I concur with the user who stated an album with a 57 minute long release is an LP. If the <8 track formula is used, other releases with large conceptual pieces or instumentals, such as Rush's 2112 (6 tracks @ 38:49) and Moving Pictures (7 tracks @ 39:59), would be considered EP's.Dexta32084 21:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By definition an EP(extended-play) is generally a maximum of 7 songs long while an LP is 8 songs or more(refer to the articles about EP's and LP's on this very site). It has nothing or very little to do with the actual minutes length. However this explanation of the EP status of ACOS does bring into question why Atlantic records chose to call Train of Thought an album since it has only 7 songs.

A Change of Seasons is an EP, because it's just the track, "A Change of Seasons" backed by cover songs. It's not really an official album written by Dream Theater, more like a single actually. And by coincidence, on my iTunes when I looked at the play count of Octavarium, tracks 1-7 had a play count of 5 and the title track had a play count of 8! It's pretty cool.

Track Times[edit]

The track times, posted online by a Berlesman, have been confirmed by the webmaster and moderator of Mike Portnoy's forums. Link: http://mikeportnoy.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=826423&mpage=21

He is very strict, and would never confirm such a thing unless he had permission from Mike himself.

Yes, I have now stopped removing the track times, but originally they were from an unconfirmed, unverified source so there was reason to remove them.

plattopus^talk 21:10, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Chart performance[edit]

I think it's alright to list the chart performance - but the form in which it is listed now is not good enough. For example, which charts are the records on? Should it be displayed in a table? Idono 17:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revision[edit]

I'm overhauling this article, editing it and adding in more information about the concept/music/lyrics/artwork, etc. You can see my work in progress here: User:Enigma00/octavarium

Enigma00 15:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking real good. Keep up the good work - I see nothing but interesting information as it is now!

--Mathew 19:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my change[edit]

I removed this from the "Speculation on the title" section. It appears to me that the sentence was written back when Octavarium wasn't released yet, and as such isn't applicable anymore. If that's not the case, please don't bite :) --qviri ^talk 22:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to their musical style?[edit]

This album sounds like Linkin Park. The sound became very nu-metal and industrial-ish. Was that the band's intention? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesse (talk • contribs) 11:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Are you sure you've got the original "Octavarium"? It hasn't anything to do with Linkin Park, neither with nu-metal nor industrial metal. Maybe Train of Thought sounds a little bit like nu-metal, but Octavarium, no way... --Λeternus 19:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Octavarium is done in the style of bands they like. For example, the start of The Root of All Evil is similar to Pink Floyd's 'Welcome to the Machine'. Never Enough is very similar to Muse's 'Stockholm Syndrome', and unfortunately, I Walk Beside You sounds like U2. 142.68.91.230 (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Dream Theater - Octavarium.jpg[edit]

Image:Dream Theater - Octavarium.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor... or Minor 7th?[edit]

I've got a funny feeling that the songs aren't played in a minor key; as when I was playing Panic Attack on keyboard (assumedly in C minor), I noticed that I was using Bb more than B natural.
This is also present in the lyric booklet of These Walls (A minor (7th)), where the treble clef stave shows no flats or sharps; how could this be A minor if A minor uses G#?
This is also evident in the treble clef stave of Never Enough (C minor (7th)), which uses 3 flats; at A, B and E.
_~~N a N 11:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These Walls is in A minor. A minor is the relative minor of C major and therefore has no sharps or flats in its key signature. Ditto for Never Enough in D minor (relative minor of F major, thus only Bb). Finally, Panic Attack is clearly in C minor (relative minor of E major, so 3 flats), just think of the guitar/bass in the verse. The use of B natural in the melody and occasionally in the harmony is more of a movement thing than anything that ties it to a key. Docta247 (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, these notes belong to a minor scale, but the natural minor instead of the harmonic minor. It's not really unusual for both scales to be used interchangeably. Hetcenus (Talk) 13:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know:

Bb is in the C minor scale.
The A minor scale doesn't use G# nor any other accidental.
Ab Bb and Eb are all in the regular C minor scale.

Offski (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research tag[edit]

The Golden Ration section reeks of original research. It's also a bit WP:NOT#INFO-esque. This section needs secondary sources (simply sourcing the album fails to assert the notability of the section) to back it up. If they don't turn up then the section should be deleted. Una Laguna^Talk 08:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct. Especially when such incorrect statements are made such as the panic attack bass intro having a 5/8 "feel". The intro is in clear 4/4 time, any lay person can listen and interpret this fact. Though this may be an improper reference but highly rated panic attack tabs on guitar tab sites second this fact. Some things in this album may not follow the 5/8 pattern, so there is no point trying to forcibly impose such facts.Leif edling (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a 'citation needed' label to the panic attack statement, as i felt it would probably be improper to remove the line right away; though no site apart from this refers to this song's intro as being in 5/8 time either. Can anybody please suggest if removing the line would be correct(especially because a guitar pro tab reveals quite clearly that the song's intro is in a 4/4 time signature).Leif edling (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's removed the original research tag. The Golden Ratio section now has links to images of the album artwork to back up their claims, but that doesn't stop it being original research. The Speculation on the title is still original research.

I'm removing these sections from the article as they violate basic Wikipedia policy. I'll revert any attempts to re-insert the sections without prior discussion here. Una Laguna^Talk 12:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that my edit has been reverted. I removed the sections once again, because if this information is, as it seems, unsourced (and therefore unreliable and potentially misleading for the reader), then we should not include it in the article until we are sure it is correct and useful. Please discuss hereUna Laguna^Talk 21:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concept Album[edit]

Octavarium is considered by plenty of people as a concept album, the concept being something along the lines of "history moves in cycles". Portnoy's described it as "one big nugget", since the numbers 5 and 8 literally show up through the entire album. Shouldn't Octavarium have some sort of section recognizing this? Perpetualchange (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a section on the 5 and 8 and golden ratio references, but it was removed at it only contained original research (see above). If you can find reliable sources which say that Octavarium was a concept album and that 5 and 8 show up all over the album then we can put it in. If there are no reliable sources, then to add material discussing it would be considered original research, which is a big no-no on Wikipedia. Una Laguna^Talk 17:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what do you think of a source like this? that's about as good as I've got. Perpetualchange (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some things, anyway, like calling it a concept album. I do think there's enough quotations from Portnoy and rest of the band (whether his posts at his forum or otherwise) to justify having a concept section, but I haven't had time to go digging for it all yet. Perpetualchange (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dt.spatang link you gave is a fan site. Fan sites do not count as reliable sources. The other source you put in the article does count as a reliable source, so it's great you found it. However, it only briefly mentions Octavarium so we can only refer to the brief bit it mentions, as you've done. If you can find more reliable sources then feel free to create a section about the album's concept. Una Laguna^Talk 07:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I simply don't get it. Should'nt the images on the album art's be enough? It's a damn solid reliable source! It's like having a book that has 300 pages, but you cant mention that just because is in the book, you have to have the editors letter saying it has 300 pages! It's there, on the work!?! Of course a lot of things are speculations, but we can remove that and keep what we really have. The images on the album showing 5 things of something and 8 of others is a clear shot. There is 2 domino pieces, one with "3+2" and other with "5+3"! I just don't see the problem. At least a single mention to the article MUST be done, even if saying to the side of it "altough nothing can prove it". If wikipedia don't have this, then herself is not reliable or only to a superficial level. Khullah (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell?[edit]

Why did every single review except Allmusic.com get removed? why is this also happening on other Dream Theater articles. Those another reviews have just as much as a right to be listed and it also shows other opinions. why are they getting removed? If you ask me, i think it's stupid. --J miester25 (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this article sucks.[edit]

i just briefly looked over the article. it doesn't tell me a goddamn thing. its a shame. there is so much information out there that we aren't putting on this article. there's nothing about recording sessions, tours, history behind the article, what is relevant about the album, only one professional review NOTHING. come on guys. i thought we were better than this. --J miester25 (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could always be bold and improve the article yourself. Finding reliable sources with which we could expand the article would be very helpful. Una Laguna^Talk 21:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and it continues to get worse and worse. im just gonna sit back and see how bad this article can get. its funny now. im about to laugh my ass off because this article is so fucked up. --J miester25 (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other day I was looking for sources to use to improve this article ([1][2]), but if you're going to hang around this article and be unconstructive then I'll go work on an article where people won't hassle me. Una Laguna^Talk 09:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wwwwwow i go away for a few months and it sucked. now its fuckin awesome --J miester25 (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you approve :) Una Laguna^Talk 09:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about 'the end of several albums cycle'?[edit]

Well, what i mean by this is that initially, all songs of Scenes from a Memory seems 'glued together', i.e., no intervals between. The end of this CD matches with the beggining of the next one, SDOIT. Again this happens with SDOIT and Train of Thought, and with this one and Octavarium. Then, brilliantly, the end of Octavarium matches with itself. Should'nt this be mentioned? Khullah (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's discussed by a reliable source, yes. If not, no. Una Laguna^Talk 09:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: it's mentioned in Lifting Shadows (the DT biography), so I've included it with other information on the album's concept. :) Una Laguna^Talk 10:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Octavarium (album)/GA1

Ratings?[edit]

Can I ask why every time I add Allmusic ratings they get deleted? I think all albums should have some professional review associated with them, so people reading the article have an idea what the album is like.

--Andy (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason your addition keeps on getting deleted is because you are adding information which is already in the article. Look at the Reception section and not just the very top of the article. You will see that Allmusic, along with other reviews, are listed in a template there. Having the review scores at the very top of the article, and the Reception section near the bottom of the article is rather nonsensical. It would mean a reader would have to do lots of excessive scrolling when reading the Reception section. Una Laguna^Talk 09:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Well that's embarrassing for me. --Andy (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, don't worry about it. We all have to learn at some point :) Una Laguna^Talk 19:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Octavarium as sequel to Metropolis pt 2?[edit]

I think Octavarium can be considered a sequel to Metropolis Pt 2. Nicholas is shot in the end of Metropolis pt 2, but instead stays in a coma state. He awakes briefly in Octavarium only to die later, stating he's trapped inside an Octavarium, as he's doomed to reincarnate and be killed over and over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.93.9.192 (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Octavarium (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]