JLB: This year, not 2010, is DT's 25th anniversary

[theseoafs]

This reminds me of something -- my University was founded in 1891.  However, the first classes were offered in 1892 -- everything that was done in 1891 was administrative stuff.  Both years are therefore somewhat important, and as a result, funnily enough, you can walk into the University bookstore and pick out one sweatshirt with "1891" written on it and another sweatshirt with "1892" written on it.  The point is that, in any case where an organization convenes to accomplish a goal (whether that goal be to make some prog or to study some math), you encounter different milestones at different times, and different milestones may be differently important to different people.  Whether 1891 or 1892 or 1985 or 1989 is most important doesn't really matter.

[hefdaddy42]

This, and I'm not sure why it took 3 pages to get there.  JLB can think or say whatever he wants, but it doesn't really hold any more weight than the opinion of my mother on this subject, and she doesn't know anything about DT.

Well, that's going a little far. JLB has still been the defnitive vocalist for DT, one who's been around for over 20 years. Just because he wasn't there for the first couple of years when the band was still being developed and trying to gain attention, doesn't mean that his opinion of DT's history prior to him being around is completely insignificant. I think he deserves a little more respect than that. Scratch that, a LOT more respect.

Why?  What could possibly be wrong with what I said?  I said he can think or say whatever he wants, but his opinion doesn't matter that much.   The only ones whose opinion on the subject really matters any more than anyone else's are JP, JM, and MP.  Everything else flowed from them, and everyone else, even KM, are after the fact, and I doubt that KM even cares one way or the other.

So, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the idea that all opinions are equally valid just baffles me.  On this particular subject, there is the opinion of JP, JM, & MP, and then there is the opinion of everyone else.

[King Postwhore]

This, and I'm not sure why it took 3 pages to get there.  JLB can think or say whatever he wants, but it doesn't really hold any more weight than the opinion of my mother on this subject, and she doesn't know anything about DT.

Well, that's going a little far. JLB has still been the defnitive vocalist for DT, one who's been around for over 20 years. Just because he wasn't there for the first couple of years when the band was still being developed and trying to gain attention, doesn't mean that his opinion of DT's history prior to him being around is completely insignificant. I think he deserves a little more respect than that. Scratch that, a LOT more respect.

Wut?! 

You never discount anything in life because you were not around for it.  It's the band's history, not James. 

Hell I married this girl but the kid she had before isn't mine so the kid doesn't count.

[rumborak]

I mean, there' no question that James is the next-closest thing to the triumvirate of JP/JM/MP, but James wasn't gonna be around for another 5 years when this picture was taken:

[KevShmev]

It's no disrespect to James. It's just that he makes judgments on events he wasn't part of.

WTF?  In what way is James "making judgments on events he wasn't part of"?  The man didn't denounce all of Dream Theater history or kick Chris Collins in the balls or anything, he just said that he, personally, tended to count from the release date of the first album when looking at the timelines of bands.  That's a perfectly natural and common way to look at things.  He may disagree with the rest of the band on this.  He may not.  We probably won't know what every band member's opinion on this matter is because it doesn't really matter.

This.  So much, this.

And it's worth mentioning again that most bands do it the way JLB does (in reference to the bolded), so he's not exactly on an island here.

[robwebster]

It's no disrespect to James. It's just that he makes judgments on events he wasn't part of.

Like you don't!

Not just you - that's all anyone on this board does, ever, all day long! God forbid JLB has a go. Crikey!

[425]

It's no disrespect to James. It's just that he makes judgments on events he wasn't part of.

WTF?  In what way is James "making judgments on events he wasn't part of"?  The man didn't denounce all of Dream Theater history or kick Chris Collins in the balls or anything, he just said that he, personally, tended to count from the release date of the first album when looking at the timelines of bands.  That's a perfectly natural and common way to look at things.  He may disagree with the rest of the band on this.  He may not.  We probably won't know what every band member's opinion on this matter is because it doesn't really matter.

This.  So much, this.

And it's worth mentioning again that most bands do it the way JLB does (in reference to the bolded), so he's not exactly on an island here.

Is that really the way most bands do it? I mean, I don't really pay very close attention to when bands consider themselves to have formed, but I don't think it's just an "okay MP does some unusual stuff sometimes" thing to count from the formation of the band. One example that comes to mind is that Metallica celebrated their 30th anniversary in 2011 despite their debut album having been released in 1983.

Edit: For what it's worth, if I formed a band today and we put out our first album in 2016, I would want to celebrate our tenth anniversary in 2024. I wouldn't necessarily say it would be wrong to do it in 2026, but it would make more sense to me to do it the DT way.

[rumborak]

It's no disrespect to James. It's just that he makes judgments on events he wasn't part of.

Like you don't!

Not just you - that's all anyone on this board does, ever, all day long! God forbid JLB has a go. Crikey!

You conveniently must have overlooked the myriad posts that stated that whatever *we* think, just as much as what James thinks, is irrelevant. There are three people on this planet who can make the call on when DT started properly, and they made their opinion rather clear with the release of a DVD. All we're doing here is to defend the decision (one we agree with) with what we perceive as the most likely rationale for their decision.

[Madman Shepherd]

This, and I'm not sure why it took 3 pages to get there.  JLB can think or say whatever he wants, but it doesn't really hold any more weight than the opinion of my mother on this subject, and she doesn't know anything about DT.

Well, that's going a little far. JLB has still been the defnitive vocalist for DT, one who's been around for over 20 years. Just because he wasn't there for the first couple of years when the band was still being developed and trying to gain attention, doesn't mean that his opinion of DT's history prior to him being around is completely insignificant. I think he deserves a little more respect than that. Scratch that, a LOT more respect.

Wut?! 

You never discount anything in life because you were not around for it.  It's the band's history, not James. 

Hell I married this girl but the kid she had before isn't mine so the kid doesn't count.

Another marriage/child analogy!!!!   

[Madman Shepherd]

BTW...

Black Sabbath was just as much Black Sabbath when they were the Polka Tulk Blues band and had a slide guitar and sax player!!!!!!    <-------Green font






 

[TheGreatPretender]

I mean, there' no question that James is the next-closest thing to the triumvirate of JP/JM/MP, but James wasn't gonna be around for another 5 years when this picture was taken:

Yes, and when I look at this picture, what I see is 3 good friends who are musicians that would, in the next couple of years, go on to make a band called Dream Theater.

[rumborak]

Those 3 chums dropped out of college because of the band, and sold more than 1,000 copies of their demo in 1986. Sure, they were just a garage band at that point.
You spoke of respect for JLB; I would say you're showing enormous lack of respect of what those 3 guys achieved before they released WDADU.

[TheGreatPretender]

Hey, I'm not trying to denounce that kind of an accomplishment. But they were still far from being Dream Theater. Like I said, they were still at their caterpillar stage, growing into what DT would eventually become. But at that time, they were still far from it.

[The Letter M]

This is about a stupid of an argument as when Rush's Clockwork Angels was released and it was touted as "their 20th album", which counted their Feedback EP as an "album". To me, CA is their 19th full-length studio album, and not their 20th.

And to me, Dream Theater was established back in 1985.

-Marc.

[rumborak]

Hey, I'm not trying to denounce that kind of an accomplishment. But they were still far from being Dream Theater. Like I said, they were still at their caterpillar stage, growing into what DT would eventually become. But at that time, they were still far from it.

So they were after WDADU.  The "When Dream and Tour Unite" tour had .... 5 concerts. WDADU was essentially no more successful than the Majesty demos. Even less so actually, as they had a pretty solid gigging schedule in 1986 with Chris Collins, with 16 gigs in 5 months.
So, if you want to put some the marker at "where they took off", you have to view IAW as the birthday of DT. The release of WDADU was a complete dud.

[TheGreatPretender]

So they were after WDADU.  The "When Dream and Tour Unite" tour had .... 5 concerts. WDADU was essentially no more successful than the Majesty demos. Even less so actually, as they had a pretty solid gigging schedule in 1986 with Chris Collins, with 16 gigs in 5 months.
So, if you want to put some the marker at "where they took off", you have to view IAW as the birthday of DT.

Look, you keep trying to hammer in that if you take a popular band, even if it goes through member changes, style changes, and name changes, not to mention 4 years of growth, before their first album comes out, that band has technically been around from the moment its very first members said, "Let's make a band together." And I disagree, it's as simple as that. It's different for every band. And personally, that day when MP walked in on JP and JM jamming together, and joined them, and they made the decision to drop out and start a band, that was not enough to mark the official birth of Dream Theater in my eyes.

[Grizz]

But it was enough for the band's eyes, seeing the 20th anniversary tour/show/merch/release and the 25th anniviersary merch.

[TheGreatPretender]

But it was enough for the band's eyes, seeing the 20th anniversary tour/show/merch/release and the 25th anniviersary merch.

And for the third time, I say, I think that's a little pretentious of them to claim. I consider that embellishment.

[Setlist Scotty]

But it was enough for the band's eyes, seeing the 20th anniversary tour/show/merch/release and the 25th anniviersary merch.

And for the third time, I say, I think that's a little pretentious of them to claim. I consider that embellishment.

And as I think as been said umpteen times already, you (and JL) are welcome to your opinions on what you *think* should be the right time (which to me sounds pretentious) as opposed to what the 3 guys who were there right from the start have determined as the beginning of the band that they want to count when doing anniversaries.

[Madman Shepherd]

But it was enough for the band's eyes, seeing the 20th anniversary tour/show/merch/release and the 25th anniviersary merch.

I think MP was a little anniversary happy.  He is just aching to do all these "special" shows.

I mean really, it would have killed him to do a show with an orchestra on the 15th anniversary of the band because Score can also mean 20 so ya gotta do it on 20 so that year was the 20th anniversary of the band even though they weren't in the conscience of 98% of the fans for more than 13 years. 

[Lucien]

This will be a great thread to remember once this pointless argument is locked up and archived.  An extravagant moment in DTF history.

[TheGreatPretender]

And as I think as been said umpteen times already, you (and JL) are welcome to your opinions on what you *think* should be the right time (which to me sounds pretentious) as opposed to what the 3 guys who were there right from the start have determined as the beginning of the band that they want to count when doing anniversaries.

I don't believe so. So far all I've heard was, "You're wrong. I'm right because the band agrees with me."

Here's a hypothetical situation. What if DT did go by JLB's opinion? What if they said, "Well, yeah, we first got together in 1985, but that was technically Majesty, and we didn't release our album until 1989, so that's when we choose to celebrate the anniversary of our band," would you (or rumbroak) just say, "Well, if that's what the band says, then that's what their anniversary should be, even though they've been together since 1985"?

[Grizz]

In that situation, I'd say they've all gone apeshit.

[Invisible]

This, and I'm not sure why it took 3 pages to get there.  JLB can think or say whatever he wants, but it doesn't really hold any more weight than the opinion of my mother on this subject, and she doesn't know anything about DT.

Well, that's going a little far. JLB has still been the defnitive vocalist for DT, one who's been around for over 20 years. Just because he wasn't there for the first couple of years when the band was still being developed and trying to gain attention, doesn't mean that his opinion of DT's history prior to him being around is completely insignificant. I think he deserves a little more respect than that. Scratch that, a LOT more respect.

Why?  What could possibly be wrong with what I said?  I said he can think or say whatever he wants, but his opinion doesn't matter that much.   The only ones whose opinion on the subject really matters any more than anyone else's are JP, JM, and MP.  Everything else flowed from them, and everyone else, even KM, are after the fact, and I doubt that KM even cares one way or the other.

So, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the idea that all opinions are equally valid just baffles me.  On this particular subject, there is the opinion of JP, JM, & MP, and then there is the opinion of everyone else.

Saying the singer of Dream Theater's opinion on a band matter is as valid as your grandmother is a tiny bit disrepectful. He might not have been there, but he's still an essencial member of the band, to me as much as MP, JP and JM. But hey, no big deal.

Anyway this thread have gone sterile, I'll just say that what strikes me the most weird is a band celebrating their 20th anniversary when they had only been around for 13 years, or 15 if you push me, and no matter what any band member say, I will still find it weird. I mean if they made a party celebrating how much time they are together it's one thing, but "20 years of Dream Theater music" concert with their fans is another. It's not a big deal anyway, just a date after all, and we got a great concert out of it so in the end it was all for the better.

[BlobVanDam]

But it was enough for the band's eyes, seeing the 20th anniversary tour/show/merch/release and the 25th anniviersary merch.

I think MP was a little anniversary happy.  He is just aching to do all these "special" shows.

I mean really, it would have killed him to do a show with an orchestra on the 15th anniversary of the band because Score can also mean 20 so ya gotta do it on 20 so that year was the 20th anniversary of the band even though they weren't in the conscience of 98% of the fans for more than 13 years. 

Yes, it was just MP that was anniversary happy. Curse him!



You mustn't have seen this tour's setlist yet.

[KevShmev]

But it was enough for the band's eyes, seeing the 20th anniversary tour/show/merch/release and the 25th anniviersary merch.

I think MP was a little anniversary happy.  He is just aching to do all these "special" shows.
 

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if, following Rush's 30th anniversary tour in 2004, he decided, "Hey, let's do our 20th in 2005!"  If nothing else, it gives the illusion of the band having been around longer than they had, as recording artists.

[Madman Shepherd]

But it was enough for the band's eyes, seeing the 20th anniversary tour/show/merch/release and the 25th anniviersary merch.

I think MP was a little anniversary happy.  He is just aching to do all these "special" shows.

I mean really, it would have killed him to do a show with an orchestra on the 15th anniversary of the band because Score can also mean 20 so ya gotta do it on 20 so that year was the 20th anniversary of the band even though they weren't in the conscience of 98% of the fans for more than 13 years. 

Yes, it was just MP that was anniversary happy. Curse him!



You mustn't have seen this tour's setlist yet.

Oh?  Is the tour named the "Decade Ago (plus another 5) Anniversary Tour of Two Albums Even Though It Only Encompasses 1/3 of Our Show Tour"? or is it just a nice little reminder of some small milestones?

Answer: The latter (although I think my mocking tour title actually has a nice ring to it)

Also, did you guys realizes this thread was created almost three days ago?!?!?! HAPPY ANNIVERSARY!!!!!

[BlobVanDam]

It's celebrating the anniversary of not one, but two albums, and they're doing so at every single show of the tour, rather than just a one off special show. I'd say that's just as "anniversary happy" as what you're mistakenly attributing solely to MP, however you spin it.

But I'm not going to let this ruin the very special 3 day anniversary of this thread. Happy anniversary, guys! I didn't think we'd make it. I was hoping we wouldn't make it.

[billybobjoe1881]

Rush turns 40 in 2014 even though they formed as a band in 1968.  Are they doing it wrong?

[BlobVanDam]

And The Rolling Stones had their 50th anniversary tour in 2012 because they formed in 1962. Are they doing it wrong?

It's up to the band to decide what they consider the "start" of the band, and DT has already made their choice on the matter.

[TheGreatPretender]

And The Rolling Stones had their 50th anniversary tour in 2012 because they formed in 1962. Are they doing it wrong?

It's up to the band to decide what they consider the "start" of the band, and DT has already made their choice on the matter.

Yet here we have JLB saying that in his opinion, it should be something different. Too bad he's not in the band... Oh wait...

Here's, another perspective on the matter, just watch this scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CL7QETJNk0&list=PL5916A644FBC45AD9#t=1277

[Setlist Scotty]

I don't believe so. So far all I've heard was, "You're wrong. I'm right because the band agrees with me."

Here's a hypothetical situation. What if DT did go by JLB's opinion? What if they said, "Well, yeah, we first got together in 1985, but that was technically Majesty, and we didn't release our album until 1989, so that's when we choose to celebrate the anniversary of our band," would you (or rumbroak) just say, "Well, if that's what the band says, then that's what their anniversary should be, even though they've been together since 1985"?

How about we deal with facts instead of a hypothetical situation? Here's the facts (which you can argue that it was just MP, blah blah blah... but it is reality): the band did a tour and released a DVD and CD from said tour that was announced as the 20th anniversary tour. I think that's enough of an emphatic statement that the band considers 1985/1986 to be the official starting point of the band, even if all the members of the band (specifically one who was not an original member) do not agree.
 
 

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if, following Rush's 30th anniversary tour in 2004, he decided, "Hey, let's do our 20th in 2005!"  If nothing else, it gives the illusion of the band having been around longer than they had, as recording artists.

That is a possibility, but personally I find it doubtful.
 
 

It's celebrating the anniversary of not one, but two albums, and they're doing so at every single show of the tour, rather than just a one off special show. I'd say that's just as "anniversary happy" as what you're mistakenly attributing solely to MP, however you spin it.

AMEN!
 
 

But I'm not going to let this ruin the very special 3 day anniversary of this thread. Happy anniversary, guys! I didn't think we'd make it. I was hoping we wouldn't make it.

And AMEN again!
 
 

Rush turns 40 in 2014 even though they formed as a band in 1968.  Are they doing it wrong?

As Blob already pointed out, different bands treat the anniversary differently. And as I already mentioned earlier in this thread, in Rush's case, it makes more sense for them to consider 1974 to be their starting point, since that's when Neil joined the band. For that matter, Neil's joining the band marks the time that they began to go in more of a progressive direction (which Rutsey wasn't into).

Now if you wanna start counting DT's official starting time from the time they added their new drummer, be my guest. We'll just be waiting another 27 years or so until we can celebrate their 30th anniversary...   

[King Postwhore]

Rush's first album, Rush was released in 1974 and that's why they celebrate 40 years together not Neil joining.  Rush went with their first release.

[Setlist Scotty]

Rush's first album, Rush was released in 1974 and that's why they celebrate 40 years together not Neil joining.  Rush went with their first release.

Prove me wrong and I'll admit to being under the wrong impression, but do you have any interviews to point me to that specifically state that they counted 1974 as their beginning point solely because that's when the first album was released? Yes the debut was released in 1974, but as I said, that was the year Neil joined and they became the band that they have been ever since.

[King Postwhore]

I'd have to look but I remember Geddy in interviews stating since their first release.  I'm at work so I'll check it out when I'm at home later today.