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

[rumborak]

Regarding TGP's "that was when the proper lineup was established" argument, it's worth pointing out that DT has changed more *after * that supposedly official birthday than before. To recap, they have lost 1 singer, 2 keyboard players and 1 drummer since that "official" birth.
The longest stable lineup was SFAM to BCSL, so maybe SFAM should be the proper birthday of DT?

[TheGreatPretender]

Regarding TGP's "that was when the proper lineup was established" argument, it's worth pointing out that DT has changed more *after * that supposedly official birthday than before. To recap, they have lost 1 singer, 2 keyboard players and 1 drummer since that "official" birth.

Yes, but like I said, this was all after they've been established as a brand. Obviously, sometimes it's inevitable that members change. But at that point, whatever new band member they get, that band member needs to understand what the band is, and what kind of music, sound and show they're trying to bring to the world.
Before that, it's a different story, because if a band doesn't have a single official release, then I think what they're going to sound like, and be like is completely up in the air. If all of a sudden they decided in 1987, "Let's drop the whole prog thing and be a straight forward metal band," they could do that without alienating anyone, because chances are, at that point, their fanbase is very small, if not nonexistent.

Look, you don't have to agree with me. I'm just saying there are different ways a person could look at it, and JLB's opinion and reasoning are just as valid as yours. Officially, the band has established in the past that "DT has been around since 1985". So at this point, I don't think there's any point in changing that. But personally, I never agreed with it.

[Invisible]

I'm with TGP, but for different reasons. First of all, 90% of the bands I know celebrate their anniversaries based either on their first official album or their first single, or, at the very least, their official lineup formed. None of them applies to Dream Theater. Different names, different singers, they were a work in progress, no matter how much time and effort they spent.

Second, it goes against every historical standard. When do a movie celebrates their anniversaries? When the writers hands over the first script? When they start filming? The first trailer? No, no and no. When it's released. Period. Every historical date or commemoration is done when a significant event happend. All historical events start to take place months or years before the actual anniversary, but it isn't until there is a significant change or event that you start counting. Independences, revolutions, wars, birthdays, weddings... you name it, all start brewing well before they actually start, but it isn't until there isn't a significant and undisputable event that you pinpoint it as the actual start.

"I've been a doctor for 20 years"
"Really, you look so young! When did you graduate?"
"10 years ago "


It's not about not recognizing the actual work that led to the point of their first album, we all know how important that is, as important as all the studying a doctor did, all the events that led to a revolution, all the years dating to a married couple, but when it comes to celebrate an anniversary, all those things don't count, at least by every historical standards. If you want to change that, be my guest, it's not a crime, but when people scratch their heads over that, it's a clear sign that something is off.

BUT, in this case, the band already made that "mistake", call it what you want, so I'll say they pretty much are stuck with it, as weird as it may sound. They released an official material on 2005 saying "20 years of Dream Theater", changing it now would be a little weird, not as weird as celebrating those 20 years in the first place, but still...

I hope I made my point across, sorry for poor word choices, most of you know by now english isn't my first language.

[rumborak]

TGP, actually, the only people who can make the call on when DT started are JP, JM and MP. And the fact that Score happened in the year it happened probably shows that at least JP and MP view 1985 as DT's proper start. It doesn't matter what Jordan or James think when it started; they weren't around, for them it's remote history as much as it is to us.

[Setlist Scotty]

When do a movie celebrates their anniversaries? When the writers hands over the first script? When they start filming? The first trailer? No, no and no. When it's released.

A movie anniversary is equivalent to an album anniversary, NOT a band anniversary.
 
 

TGP, actually, the only people who can make the call on when DT started are JP, JM and MP. And the fact that Score happened in the year it happened probably shows that at least JP and MP view 1985 as DT's proper start. It doesn't matter what Jordan or James think when it started; they weren't around, for them it's remote history as much as it is to us.

He may ignore this point of reasoning, since I already brought it up in my post, and he blew through it without responding. 

[Invisible]

When do a movie celebrates their anniversaries? When the writers hands over the first script? When they start filming? The first trailer? No, no and no. When it's released.

A movie anniversary is equivalent to an album anniversary, NOT a band anniversary.

So you're shrugging off one example, how about the whole point I'm trying to make?

Which in case you missed is this: it doesn't matter how many years in the making something is, it matters when it comes out. By that standard a person is a doctor from the moment he/she takes it's first biology class, and every historical date is not only wrong but also impossible to pinpoint. A band starts, from a historical point of view, when they release something under that name, the first thing Dream Theater released, is When Day And Dream Unite.

[425]

Frankly, I don't give a damn about all this, but officially calling Score the 20th anniversary is binding and there's no way out of it now.

Absolutely. It's fine if James doesn't give a good god damn about what happened 1985-1989, because really why should he, but they already said it was 1985. They said it in 2005 and they said it in 2010. If they do a WDADU anniversary event for 2019, that would be great and everything (I want badly to see OAMOT live), but they're fairly wedded to 1985 at this point as the year of the band's inception.

And you can't even say this is a Mike Portnoy thing, even though I wouldn't doubt it at all if he was the one who first decided that the band formed in 1985. They sell, even now, a t-shirt that says on it "New York 1985." And there's a picture of Mangini on the shirt! Clearly, even though James feels differently (which again is fine because it's not like it's essential that the band agree on this), for all official intents and purposes, Dream Theater founded in 1985. And if the case is that the entire band does approve all official merchandise, then James was willing to approve the shirt that says they founded in 1985.

[TheGreatPretender]

TGP, actually, the only people who can make the call on when DT started are JP, JM and MP. And the fact that Score happened in the year it happened probably shows that at least JP and MP view 1985 as DT's proper start. It doesn't matter what Jordan or James think when it started; they weren't around, for them it's remote history as much as it is to us.

First of all, I don't see why those are the ONLY people. Kevin Moore was a founding member as well, and worked on three of their albums, so if he ever decided to mention the words "Dream" and "Theater" in the same sentence again, I don't see why his opinion of when DT officially started, would be invalid.

As for JP and MP's claim on when DT started, if that's what they want to think, that's fine. But like I said, I think it's pretentious, and I think they only consider it that to make it seem like Dream Theater has been an established brand since 1985, when that's really not the case.
They can say what they want, but if someone told me that a band has been around since 1993 (for example), then I would automatically assume that in 1993, something by the band had been officially released. At the very least an EP of some sort (or in modern times, at least a good quality digital single).

If someone asked me, "How long has DT been around?" I would honestly say, "They released their first album in 1989. But the founding members got together in like, 86."  That way, it'll let people draw their own conclusions of how long the band has been around, based on their own definition. I wouldn't say, "Dream Theater have been around since 1985," because that, to me, implies that they released something in 1985.

So while JLB and JR may not have the official say on when DT was established, they are well within their rights to have their own clear definition of what makes a band complete.

Sorry, Scotty, didn't mean to ignore you!  But I think I addressed most of everything you said in my other posts.

[rumborak]

Given the mediocre popularity of WDADU, and the fact that JLB joined for IAW, I would not be surprised to hear the opinion by someone on here that 1992 was the official birth of DT.
A successful band will have a shit-ton of important milestones. In the end, the most important is when they got together.

[Setlist Scotty]

So you're shrugging off one example, how about the whole point I'm trying to make?

Point taken - was in a hurry when I responded and that just caught my eye. As for more of your post...
 
 

I'm with TGP, but for different reasons. First of all, 90% of the bands I know celebrate their anniversaries based either on their first official album or their first single, or, at the very least, their official lineup formed. None of them applies to Dream Theater. Different names, different singers, they were a work in progress, no matter how much time and effort they spent.
<snip>
"I've been a doctor for 20 years"
"Really, you look so young! When did you graduate?"
"10 years ago "

Interesting comparison with the doctor, but I disagree. Said person was in training over those years and wasn't truly practicing to the fullest extent until he graduated. The band was practicing to the fullest extent that they could by 1986 (recording demos, performing live). Sure they didn't have a record deal nor were they touring the world, but if a record label had approached them in 1986 instead of 1988, perhaps their first album might have Another Won and a few of the other tracks on it and it would've come out in 1986 or 1987.

And as I said in my previous post, the whole argument about band name change and band members changing means nothing since it's still the same band, they continued in the same general vein on music (didn't change direction like Pantera) and never broke up.
 
 

Every historical date or commemoration is done when a significant event happend. All historical events start to take place months or years before the actual anniversary, but it isn't until there is a significant change or event that you start counting. Independences, revolutions, wars, birthdays, weddings... you name it, all start brewing well before they actually start, but it isn't until there isn't a significant and undisputable event that you pinpoint it as the actual start.

I get what you're saying, and in some cases it makes more sense than others. In the case of a *band* anniversary, I disagree. In the case of the band as a professional recording entity, I agree, but that's not what has been specified - simply just the band's existence.

Maybe we're weird this way, but my wife and I acknowledge the date that we met just as much as the day that we got married (and yes, they were on different days).

Now how about addressing some of the points from my other post? 

[Setlist Scotty]

Sorry, Scotty, didn't mean to ignore you!  But I think I addressed most of everything you said in my other posts.

LOL! Well, I'm still waiting for your counter argument on the name thing (which I don't think you responded to in the last thread that discussed this topic).   

[425]

TGP, what you said about releasing a digital single actually brings up a good point. Today, pretty much anyone can get their music out there so long as they have the right computer software and an internet connection. However, that's obviously only been a thing as long as the internet has been a thing. Before then, band had to actually seek a label, and they could have been writing and performing together for far longer than that.

Take as another example, Iron Maiden. Their debut album was released in 1980, but they consider themselves to have founded in 1975. They played their first show in 1976 and basically spent the time 1976-1979 playing small shows in London pubs until they were signed to a record deal and recorded their debut. In the view of situations like this, where a band obviously had music and fans and played shows but had yet to be signed to a record deal, which was at the time the only time they could get music to a considerable audience, I don't think it's at all improper to state the date of their foundation to be some date prior to the release of their first actual album.

[rumborak]

I don't think anyone downplays the momentous occasion that was the release of WDADU, but they had been playing, writing and gigging for 4 years up to that. You can't just write off a span like that.

[TheGreatPretender]

Given the mediocre popularity of WDADU, and the fact that JLB joined for IAW, I would not be surprised to hear the opinion by someone on here that 1992 was the official birth of DT.
A successful band will have a shit-ton of important milestones. In the end, the most important is when they got together.

In terms of their sound, yeah, I would say that Dream Theater as we know them, became what they are after JLB joined the band. His voice has been a major factor in their style and their sound. And frankly, if someone said, "DT without JLB wasn't truly DT" I don't think there's anything wrong with that opinion.
And you, thinking the MOST important is when they got together, that's an opinion too, not a fact.

Sorry, Scotty, didn't mean to ignore you!  But I think I addressed most of everything you said in my other posts.

LOL! Well, I'm still waiting for your counter argument on the name thing (which I don't think you responded to in the last thread that discussed this topic).   

Last thread that discussed this topic? I don't even remember that. Please refresh me?

Take as another example, Iron Maiden. Their debut album was released in 1980, but they consider themselves to have founded in 1975. They played their first show in 1976 and basically spent the time 1976-1979 playing small shows in London pubs until they were signed to a record deal and recorded their debut. In the view of situations like this, where a band obviously had music and fans and played shows but had yet to be signed to a record deal, which was at the time the only time they could get music to a considerable audience, I don't think it's at all improper to state the date of their foundation to be some date prior to the release of their first actual album.

You know, if a band develops a buzz and starts playing shows before their initial release, then yeah, I would say that counts as the band 'existing'. Twisted Sister is the same way, they've been around since 75 as well.
But performing in front of a live audience is another way of putting your product out there. So even though a lot of bands who do that, probably start out rusty with no live chops whatsoever, if they actually start developing a fanbase, then yeah, I'd have to accept that it's a band and they have something real going on. Same would go for Metallica.

But in DT's case, and please correct me if I'm wrong, even with Chris Collins, they weren't playing live shows as Majesty until at LEAST 1986. So 1985 is still not a date that sticks with me, when it comes to DT being a band.

Like I keep saying, I don't think there is a concrete way of establishing when a band is a band, and not just a group of guys who casually jam together. That's why debut album or EP is a great, concrete establishing date of how long a band has been around.

[rumborak]

And you, thinking the MOST important is when they got together, that's an opinion too, not a fact.

What either i or you think is irrelevant. It just happens that my opinion seems to coincide with the opinion of the founding members of DT. They were the ones who dropped out of college to follow that long shot, and labored for four years before you deem them to have properly started.
When in doubt, I would say listen to the guys who were there.

[TAC]

And you, thinking the MOST important is when they got together, that's an opinion too, not a fact.

What either i or you think is irrelevant. It just happens that my opinion seems to coincide with the opinion of the founding members of DT. They were the ones who dropped out of college to follow that long shot, and labored for four years before you deem them to have properly started.
When in doubt, I would say listen to the guys who were there.

Yup.

[425]

@TGP: Well, if they were playing shows in 1986, that means that they were certainly a band as Majesty in the same sense that Iron Maiden was a band in 1976. If that's the case I don't think it's at all weird to say "okay, they made their live debut in 1986, but they got together and started writing music together in 1985, so they founded in 1985."

[TheGreatPretender]

What either i or you think is irrelevant. It just happens that my opinion seems to coincide with the opinion of the founding members of DT. They were the ones who dropped out of college to follow that long shot, and labored for four years before you deem them to have properly started.
When in doubt, I would say listen to the guys who were there.

Yeah, and it seems like because your opinion coincides, that you just dismiss everything else. How do we even know that the whole 1985 thing wasn't purely MP's adamant opinion? What if JP went on an interview tomorrow and said, "Yeah, I agree with James"?

@TGP: Well, if they were playing shows in 1986, that means that they were certainly a band as Majesty in the same sense that Iron Maiden was a band in 1976. If that's the case I don't think it's at all weird to say "okay, they made their live debut in 1986, but they got together and started writing music together in 1985, so they founded in 1985."

I would say that's a stretch. Especially because of the name change, and honestly, I think a name change is definitely a factor. Iron Maiden and Twisted Sister were called just that. But even with a band like Disturbed, as I mentioned, they were a different sounding band with a different name before, but the same core musicians. But it wasn't until they hired the vocalist, Draiman that he suggested they change their name to Disturbed. Personally, I would say that that's when the band Disturbed was established, regardless of when the core musicians originally got together.

[Setlist Scotty]

Last thread that discussed this topic? I don't even remember that. Please refresh me?

Found the thread, but you weren't the one I was arguing with - LOL! Here it is (which is the same topic):
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=41113.msg1786406#msg1786406

Take as another example, Iron Maiden. Their debut album was released in 1980, but they consider themselves to have founded in 1975. They played their first show in 1976 and basically spent the time 1976-1979 playing small shows in London pubs until they were signed to a record deal and recorded their debut. In the view of situations like this, where a band obviously had music and fans and played shows but had yet to be signed to a record deal, which was at the time the only time they could get music to a considerable audience, I don't think it's at all improper to state the date of their foundation to be some date prior to the release of their first actual album.

But in DT's case, and please correct me if I'm wrong, even with Chris Collins, they weren't playing live shows as Majesty until at LEAST 1986. So 1985 is still not a date that sticks with me, when it comes to DT being a band.

You are correct. That said, you still argue for JL's point of 1989 being the official starting point!   

Adding to this discussion is another thought I just had. Instead of comparing the band to a marriage or having children, I think the best way to compare it is to a company, because quite frankly, that's exactly what it is in many ways. Now you take a look at most companies - Apple for instance. Do you think they count their anniversary from the time that they got into a big building? Or maybe the day that the Apple I was sold? No. It was when they first got started. And many other companies are the same way.

[rumborak]

Oh my fucking god, Scotty. I was just looking at the Wikipedia page of the Apple I to make exactly the same argument.

[rumborak]

Yeah, and it seems like because your opinion coincides, that you just dismiss everything else. How do we even know that the whole 1985 thing wasn't purely MP's adamant opinion? What if JP went on an interview tomorrow and said, "Yeah, I agree with James"?

What if the tour bus toilet overrode everyone's opinion?
We can conjure up all kinds of hypothetical scenarios; in the absence of any evidence, we should assume that the band's celebration of their anniversary was at least vetted by the majority of the band.

[425]

I would say that's a stretch. Especially because of the name change, and honestly, I think a name change is definitely a factor. Iron Maiden and Twisted Sister were called just that. But even with a band like Disturbed, as I mentioned, they were a different sounding band with a different name before, but the same core musicians. But it wasn't until they hired the vocalist, Draiman that he suggested they change their name to Disturbed. Personally, I would say that that's when the band Disturbed was established, regardless of when the core musicians originally got together.

I might agree with that if they had changed the name for any reasons other than legal ones. There was no point where they decided anything to the effect of needing a fresh start or wanting a change in musical direction and deciding to change the name for that reason. They only changed the name in order to not be sued. The musical direction for Dream Theater and for the songs written as Majesty is pretty much identical as well, it's just that the Dream Theater songs obviously have more mature songwriting. The name change also did not coincide with a lineup change (at least, Wikipedia says that the name change occurred after they'd hired Charlie; I unfortunately do not own Lifting Shadows).

Keep in mind also that Dream Theater 1986 edition actually had more of their core musicians than Iron Maiden 1976 edition. DT had MP, JP, JM and KM, four out of five from the group of musicians that would record the first three Dream Theater albums. Iron Maiden had just Steve Harris and Dave Murray from the band that would record the debut, and the rest of the band went through several lineup changes, including once Dave Murray being fired for several months. Granted, Steve Harris was at that time far and away the band's primary songwriter (though there is some question as to how many of their early songs were written by other band members and had the rights to them bought or outright taken by Harris during those years, since Harris has a policy of not crediting former band members on songs recorded after they were out of the band [this is tangential, but for anyone who may be interested, it is pretty well documented that Blaze Bayley had a hand in writing at least Dream of Mirrors on Brave New World, but after Bayley was fired Harris bought his share of the songwriting credit]), but the fact still remains that there was a time in the late 70s when Maiden had only one member who would go on to appear on their debut. If you would say they still should get credited with having founded in 1975 in spite of this, I don't see why Dream Theater should lose out on that just because they at one point had to change their name or be sued.

[TheGreatPretender]

You are correct. That said, you still argue for JL's point of 1989 being the official starting point!   

I'm arguing that his opinion is valid if that's how he chooses to justify it. If JLB thinks that all those live shows they did in 86, 87, and 88 didn't count for being a band, well, then he's got a different definition of what makes a band, and I see nothing wrong with that.

If someone chooses to say that they consider "Majesty" to be a different band from "Dream Theater", I'd say that's a valid opinion too.

Adding to this discussion is another thought I just had. Instead of comparing the band to a marriage or having children, I think the best way to compare it is to a company, because quite frankly, that's exactly what it is in many ways. Now you take a look at most companies - Apple for instance. Do you think they count their anniversary from the time that they got into a big building? Or maybe the day that the Apple I was sold? No. It was when they first got started. And many other companies are the same way.

Okay, but if you count it as a company, then you can only count Apple a company from the moment they officially became one. I'm not really business savvy, so I don't know EXACTLY what it entails, but for the sake of argument, let's say from the moment they registered Apple as a brand with the copyright/trademark/patent office, or whatever it is. I don't know Apple's origins so this is entirely hypothetical, but a guy sitting at home with a personal computer, making software in his spare time, is not a company, until he gets a business license and registers his business.
When a band gets together and starts jamming, in most cases, they start making music right away, and don't end up copyrighting their name until way later. Hence why Majesty had to change their name right before their album came out in the first place.
So by business definition, Dream Theater wasn't a band until they got signed and their name got copyrighted. By those standards, you're only supporting JLB's proposed date.

snip

That's a good point. Still, I don't think the name change was meaningless. Sure is Majesty in 1988 different from Dream Theater in 1989? No. But if you ask me, then I would say that Chris Collins was never a member of "Dream Theater", only Majesty.

In a way, I like to think of Majesty like a caterpillar that ended up morphing into Dream Theater, which is the butterfly.

[425]

If you were to ask me about Chris Collins, I think I would say that he was a member of Dream Theater when they were still called Majesty and before they had put out an album. In short, he was a member of Dream Theater, but not a very relevant one. Similarly, all the random guitarists, singers and drummers of Iron Maiden during the late 1970s were members of Iron Maiden, but only the ones who appeared on their albums are actually all too relevant as members of Iron Maiden.

And you could say the caterpillar butterfly thing about a lot of bands who actually put out albums during what you'd call their caterpillar stage. Like you could say that the first few Porcupine Tree albums, when there wasn't really a band, just Steven Wilson writing things (and in quite a different musical style than later PT, too), were a caterpillar that morphed into the butterfly of the later PT albums (NB: I've not actually heard any PT pre-Lightbulb sun; I'm just going off of what I've read, so anyone please correct me if I'm wrong about anything).

[TheGreatPretender]

And you could say the caterpillar butterfly thing about a lot of bands who actually put out albums during what you'd call their caterpillar stage. Like you could say that the first few Porcupine Tree albums, when there wasn't really a band, just Steven Wilson writing things (and in quite a different musical style than later PT, too), were a caterpillar that morphed into the butterfly of the later PT albums (NB: I've not actually heard any PT pre-Lightbulb sun; I'm just going off of what I've read, soanyone please correct me if I'm wrong about anything).

Well, the whole caterpillar metaphor is a little philosophical, so it depends on how you look at it. But in the case of Chris Collins, this is how I see it. Let's say I have never held a caterpillar or a butterfly in my life. Then suddenly I pick up a caterpillar, and I bring it home, for some reason. Now, I held a caterpillar. Then it turns into a cocoon and morphs into a butterfly and flies away. But even though I held that very same creature in my hand, I can't in good conscience say that I ever held a butterfly, only a caterpillar.

[425]

Hey, when I was a kid I brought home caterpillars once. I kept them in a Tupperware container that I poked holes in until they turned into moths, at which time I released them.

In any case, I guess you're saying that in this metaphor Chris Collins is picking up Majesty caterpillars and then they're turning into Dream Theater butterflies and flying away before he holds them? I get that, except that if you for some reason pointed to the particular butterfly Chris Collins had picked up as a caterpillar and asked him "have you ever held this?" the proper response for him to make would probably be "Yes," with the caveat "But only when it was a caterpillar." Neither "no" nor simply "yes" without any clarification would really be a proper response, but if for some reason he was only allowed to say one of those two and was not permitted to go into further detail, the correct response would certainly be "yes."

[TheGreatPretender]

Well, I guess you could clarify, sure, but the thing is, like you said, he wasn't a relevant member. In the same way, that one might say Steve Stone was a member of Dream Theater. 
And you did bring up all those passing members of Iron Maiden. Now, personally, if I was one of those musicians, it's not like I'd be able to brag, "Oh yeah, I was a member of Iron Maiden, for like, one week, before they became popular." Because that's a non-accomplishment.
Just the same, if I was Chris Collins, and I said I was ever a member of Dream Theater, personally, I'd feel like a fraud making claims like that.

[Invisible]

Now how about addressing some of the points from my other post? 

Fair enough

First of all, I'm not disputing where the band that was going to be Dream Theater started. It's pretty clear that the very moment that MP said "we should start a band" and the other guys said "cool!", that's where it started. What I'm discussing here it's what should've been Dream Theater official anniversary. The highlighted words are very important to understand my point. The facts are what they are, there's no discussing that. And note that it's very different from the more ethereal form called "the band". "The band" started at 1985 or 86 depending how you see it, the very moment they gathered the five members, you can't really dispute that, I'm talking what IMHO should be the official date to celebrate.

Now, with that being out of the way...

Interesting comparison with the doctor, but I disagree. Said person was in training over those years and wasn't truly practicing to the fullest extent until he graduated.

Well... that's actually my point. In my opinion, Dream Theater 85-88 period was their training period, actually if you push me the entire era until 92 was their training period but that's another story. Then again, it's an example, the actual point is below(I edited it right in my answer to you).

You bring a good point, and it's how important the name change was. Well, for me, it's huge. For you, not so much. Most companies celebrate their anniversaries as to when they had their names, Apple was Apple, not Oranges or Steve Jobs and The Wackos. Majesty is Majesty, not Dream Theater even if the name change was as a result of an unforseen(and very lucky IMHO) incident. Even if it's not a definitive factor on itself, it is when you add these:

- Lineup changes, multiple singers until they settled for Dominici (which didn't even stuck anyway).
- No tours or significant live performances(MP himself says they were a "basement" band, not playing shows out there).

But the most important factor for me is, in absence of the former:

- No releases.  Neither as Majesty or Dream Theater. Considering they didn't almost play any gigs, nor released anything, and none of the songs stuck for the first album, I would definetly consider this a period of developing stage of Dream Theater, not the official birthday.

I'll say it once again, for me it's not when it started, it's when it should be celebrated as their official starting point. "Dream Theater been around for 20 years" Really? Playing in your basement with a different singer in one or two gigs is not what I'd consider "being around" or important enough for a band of the size of Dream Theater to be worthy enough of being the anniversary.

I seriously understand what you guys are saying, and it's not undermining the huge and monumental efforts of constructing the band, they are after all the hardest years. But I consider them "devoloping years of the band that was going to be Dream Theater", not the official birthday of the band.

But then again, with a somewhat convoluted story like DT(not as easy as U2, Rush or Queen), it's normal that we are having these debates. In some ways we're all right, in others we're all wrong , it just depends on the criteria. Mine is more line of how historical events are usually studied, but then again History is not an exact science, so it's not a definitive and undisputed criteria.

EDIT
I was supposed to underline that part, not cross it

[425]

Well, I guess you could clarify, sure, but the thing is, like you said, he wasn't a relevant member. In the same way, that one might say Steve Stone was a member of Dream Theater. 
And you did bring up all those passing members of Iron Maiden. Now, personally, if I was one of those musicians, it's not like I'd be able to brag, "Oh yeah, I was a member of Iron Maiden, for like, one week, before they became popular." Because that's a non-accomplishment.
Just the same, if I was Chris Collins, and I said I was ever a member of Dream Theater, personally, I'd feel like a fraud making claims like that.

Exactly. I agree. It's not like anyone is going to recognize his name, so the only time that's even coming up is if he brings it up, which, since he was not a relevant member, would probably involve him taking credit for a bigger achievement than he'd really made. Unless he wasn't trying to brag but merely to tell his friends a story from his youth, which could happen. The fact is that he was a member, but was not a relevant one.

[DebraKadabra]

Butterfly/caterpillar, Apple, , baby analogy...
 
All this over JLB thinking the 25th anniversary should be this year?  That's his opinion and he has every right to it, regardless of right/wrong/indifferent.
 
Wow.

[TheGreatPretender]

Exactly. I agree. It's not like anyone is going to recognize his name, so the only time that's even coming up is if he brings it up, which, since he was not a relevant member, would probably involve him taking credit for a bigger achievement than he'd really made. Unless he wasn't trying to brag but merely to tell his friends a story from his youth, which could happen. The fact is that he was a member, but was not a relevant one.

Okay, but again, some elaboration would be in order. If it WAS a yes or no question, and the question was, "Were you ever a member of a band called Dream Theater?" then I would say the answer has to be 'no'. Associated with, yes. Been in a band with the members of, yes. But he was never in a band that was called Dream Theater.

Butterfly/caterpillar, Apple, , baby analogy...
 
All this over JLB thinking the 25th anniversary should be this year?  That's his opinion and he has every right to it, regardless of right/wrong/indifferent.
 
Wow.

Hey, it gives us something else to talk about besides, "What was your favorite 12th track on every 11 track DT album?"

[Invisible]

Butterfly/caterpillar, Apple, , baby analogy...
 
All this over JLB thinking the 25th anniversary should be this year?  That's his opinion and he has every right to it, regardless of right/wrong/indifferent.
 
Wow.

It's a Dream Theater forum, what do you expect? 

[DebraKadabra]

Yeah... I forgot how weird DT side gets sometimes.

[rumborak]

Fuck, yeah. It's a ton more interesting than those dime-a-dozen threads lately. OK, maybe the vegetable thread was still better.

[DebraKadabra]

NOT THE VEGETABLE THREAD