Great tour show - Really minor complaint

[stephendawson]

As stated in the title of the thread I would just like to say how fantastic the gig was in Sheffield and the issue I have is very small.

The show finishes with Finally Free which is an awesome choice to finish with. I was really looking forward to the end of this track where IMO MP exhibits his finest work on a Dream Theater record (that said, Dream Theater members greatest moment could be a thread all on its own). Unless my ears deceived me MM did not play the song as MP did on the record. We all know that MM is an exceptionally talented drummer and I assume he would be more than capable of replicating MP's work.

Does anyone know the reason for this alteration or have I made a terrible mistake?

[BlobVanDam]

From live clips I've seen of the song with MM, I didn't really like the way those drum parts were played compared to the way MP does either.

My guess is that they have to do it differently because they're now using a click track to keep everything in sync for lighting/video etc. I think on the Metropolis 2000 DVD, MP says that the rest of the band keeps that section together while MP does the crazy drum fills and the timing comes from them, but that wouldn't work with their current more complex tour setup. MM needs to keep the tempo for the rest of the band so it doesn't drift out.
So it has nothing to do with MM not being capable of replicating the parts, because I have no doubt he could, I think it's that the stage show doesn't allow him to do it the same way MP did.

[rumborak]

I just watched the St. Petersburg YouTube video of the song. JLB does the "audience, sing the chorus" thing and points his microphone into the audience. Problem is, the backing track continues with him singing, with the main vocal line. I guess they used it to make the vocals richer during the chorus, but it's kinda unfortunate because it looks as if JLB was lip-synching.

[lithium112]

it's kinda unfortunate because it looks as if JLB was lip-synching.

Good thing nobody's just going to watch that single portion of the video clip then, eh?

[JiM-Xtreme]

Glad you enjoyed the show dude, I myself was there as well and it's the second time I've seen them on this tour!

In answer to your question re: the ending of Finally Free, I'm willing to bet that it was cut short purely because the other guys aren't into jamming as much as MP was. MP always seemed to have this love for grooving on certain sections and really letting them build (the extended jam/break in Beyond This Life at Budokan probably the best recorded example).

I'm quite surprised your "issue" with the show wasn't the fact that the intro tape didn't work for the first 45 seconds or so, and for the first part of Blob's incredible opening animation there was pure SILENCE before the music suddenly cut in and made everyone jump!

Another very minor thing that bothered me was the EM animation was off-sync with the music, and the two parts that are supposed to go with JM's bass fills were a few seconds behind.

These weren't the only issues with the pre-recorded sound/visuals throughout the night, but it didn't spoil the show for me in the slightest. The band were absolutely on top of it, and even though the setlist turned out to be exactly the same as last time for me I still really enjoyed it.

[Grizz]

My guess is that they have to do it differently because they're now using a click track to keep everything in sync for lighting/video etc.

Why wasn't this an issue from 2007-2010? The lighting and video was just as complex then.

I'm pretty sure the lighting is still cue-based and requires each chase to be manually initiated. Isn't the lighting designer the same guy they've had since at least 2000?

[King Postwhore]

It's defiantly a more advanced show now more than 2007 to 2010.

[rumborak]

DT concerts have gotten much more visual, that's for sure. Wasn't it ToT where they introduced screens?

[SystematicThought]

The Six Degrees tour had that weird shaped screen, didn't it?

[Grizz]

The video screen was introduced in the Oakdale, the gig before LSFNY. For those two gigs they rented a bunch of  visual stuff.

I think that on the rest of the tour they used TVs, as one can see on LSFNY.

Video screens were used from World Tourbulence on I believe.

[rumborak]

I remember MP justified the introduction of the VIP tickets (which in turn meant no more autograph sessions after concerts, and thus drew harsh criticism from the fans) with that they had to recoup the money spent on screens.

[Tis BOOLsheet]

I remember MP justified the introduction of the VIP tickets (which in turn meant no more autograph sessions after concerts, and thus drew harsh criticism from the fans) with that they had to recoup the money spent on screens.

Oh god. I better not get started on those VIP tickets...

[Kotowboy]

It's defiantly a more advanced show now more than 2007 to 2010.

Definitely *.

[King Postwhore]

Thanks Kotowboyz.

[BlobVanDam]

My guess is that they have to do it differently because they're now using a click track to keep everything in sync for lighting/video etc.

Why wasn't this an issue from 2007-2010? The lighting and video was just as complex then.

I'm pretty sure the lighting is still cue-based and requires each chase to be manually initiated. Isn't the lighting designer the same guy they've had since at least 2000?

They've had the heavy visuals/lighting for a while now, but it was all operated manually back then, because the songs were at live tempos. Now they run to a click track, so everything is synced up in advance, so I don't believe there's any manual interaction once the song has started.
So instead of the video/lighting needing to sync up to the music, the music now needs to sync up to the lighting/video.

[Grizz]

Huh, I thought I saw some synchronization errors/variation in the lighting that one would only see in humans. Perhaps I was wrong.

Anyways I'm pretty sure that the current lighting shows could easily be done at live tempo, and if not, they would still look as good, but different.

Too bad we won't see much of this anymore: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNhgYqFnH0o

[KevShmev]

I get why some might not like them doing this, as it eliminates the chance for a little spontaneity that used to happened here and there, but the obvious positive here is that the band is more likely to be locked in on a nightly basis, resulting in more consistency from show to show, and the static set list helps in that regard, too.

[bosk1]

My guess is that they have to do it differently because they're now using a click track to keep everything in sync for lighting/video etc.

Why wasn't this an issue from 2007-2010? The lighting and video was just as complex then.

I'm pretty sure the lighting is still cue-based and requires each chase to be manually initiated. Isn't the lighting designer the same guy they've had since at least 2000?

They've had the heavy visuals/lighting for a while now, but it was all operated manually back then, because the songs were at live tempos. Now they run to a click track, so everything is synced up in advance, so I don't believe there's any manual interaction once the song has started.
So instead of the video/lighting needing to sync up to the music, the music now needs to sync up to the lighting/video.

^Exactly that.  The tour production this time out is really cool, and I am glad to have seen it.  I have mixed feelings about it.  On one hand, it helps keep the show very consistent and tight (for the most part), and having the backing tracks makes for a "bigger, fuller" sound.  On the other hand, the band is constrained to stay married to the backing track.  That is not necessarily a problem in and of itself, and LOTS of bands do that, so maybe it's not an issue except in the overactive imaginations of the fans.  The band seems to like doing it this way too.  But I still can't help feeling like maybe they would be more loose without it.

Huh, I thought I saw some synchronization errors/variation in the lighting that one would only see in humans. Perhaps I was wrong.

Anyways I'm pretty sure that the current lighting shows could easily be done at live tempo, and if not, they would still look as good, but different.

Too bad we won't see much of this anymore: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNhgYqFnH0o

But it isn't just lighting.  It is lighting and video and, perhaps most importantly, backing tracks.

[BlobVanDam]

Huh, I thought I saw some synchronization errors/variation in the lighting that one would only see in humans. Perhaps I was wrong.

Anyways I'm pretty sure that the current lighting shows could easily be done at live tempo, and if not, they would still look as good, but different.

They could do it as they did in the past, but I don't think it was ever easy!
Equipment problems can still cause sync issues even without human interaction. When you think about it, it's a ton of hardware and software to keep synchronized together for an entire show. There's always something that can go wrong.

[bosk1]

I get why some might not like them doing this, as it eliminates the chance for a little spontaneity that used to happened here and there, but the obvious positive here is that the band is more likely to be locked in on a nightly basis, resulting in more consistency from show to show, and the static set list helps in that regard, too.

Yeah, that was kinda my point too.  And when I talked to them about it, they seemed pretty enthusiastic about it.  But then again, it's not like John Petrucci or Mike Mangini are going to say, "Yeah, Jerry, you know, we're trying to keep our game faces on and be positive about it in the media, but the truth is, this sucks and we can't wait for the tour to be over so we can go back to the way it used to be."

[Grizz]

But it isn't just lighting.  It is lighting and video and, perhaps most importantly, backing tracks.

Yes, I know, but I was disregarding them because backing tracks suck

[KevShmev]

I get why some might not like them doing this, as it eliminates the chance for a little spontaneity that used to happened here and there, but the obvious positive here is that the band is more likely to be locked in on a nightly basis, resulting in more consistency from show to show, and the static set list helps in that regard, too.

Yeah, that was kinda my point too.  And when I talked to them about it, they seemed pretty enthusiastic about it.  But then again, it's not like John Petrucci or Mike Mangini are going to say, "Yeah, Jerry, you know, we're trying to keep our game faces on and be positive about it in the media, but the truth is, this sucks and we can't wait for the tour to be over so we can go back to the way it used to be."

Right.  The band is obviously pleased with this approach, so I don't see the real issue here.  I mean, if you are really going to a show and letting the fact that the occasional backing track is used negatively affect your enjoyment of the show, then you're kind of missing the point of going in the first place, IMO.

Also, I just think some fans get hung up on seeing different songs in the set list every night when they log on to the 'net, as if playing totally different songs from night to night is the bomb, regardless of the negatives that might come from that approach (certain cities missing out on special songs/events, the band not being as locked in on playing a song they rarely play, etc.). 

[hefdaddy42]

For me, anyway, the problem with the way they do it now isn't the lack of rotating set lists, but simply no room for derivation AT ALL.  No extended solo sections, no impromptu jams, nothing whatsoever to make any one show different from any other.

[rumborak]

Yeah. I was chatting with PC the other day and he made the interesting point that there's no more "look what happened at last night's gig" YT videos at all anymore. Every gig is almost exactly the same as the previous night.

[hefdaddy42]

Exactly.

[Setlist Scotty]

I just think some fans get hung up on seeing different songs in the set list every night when they log on to the 'net, as if playing totally different songs from night to night is the bomb, regardless of the negatives that might come from that approach (certain cities missing out on special songs/events, the band not being as locked in on playing a song they rarely play, etc.).

You and I will never see eye to eye in this regard as I love the rotating setlists. That said, I know that we'll never see the setlist variation that we did when MP was in the band, but even some variation from show to show is nice, like what they did on some legs of the Dramatic tour, where they had an A and B setlist. At least there was some variation and for those of us who enjoyed going to multiple shows, it gave us something different to see. Even if they were to take that same batch of songs and further shake things up (intermixing songs from the A and B setlists, perhaps dropping out some songs that were in both, so that there might be 4, 5 or 6 standard setlists), it would not be a major negative thing. The guys would still have everything rehearsed to a T and it would provide more unpredictableness like what we were used to in the past.

And frankly, one could still complain that some cities missed out on special things on this tour - specifically that only Boston got something especially special. Yeah it was for a DVD shoot, but still, nobody else got that. 
 
 

For me, anyway, the problem with the way they do it now isn't the lack of rotating set lists, but simply no room for derivation AT ALL.  No extended solo sections, no impromptu jams, nothing whatsoever to make any one show different from any other.

I'll be the first to agree with the lack of derivation at all from show to show (which is why I personally wish there was some song swapping), but truth be told, there has been a change over the course of the tour. If you were to listen to ToT from the beginning of the first European leg of the tour, and compare it to how it was played towards the end of the North American tour, you'd see that they're stretching it out more now, allowing for maybe a little variation. Nonetheless, it's far less than what me, you and many others would like to see.

[rumborak]

What I don't understand is, playing to a click track isn't an all or nothing thing. Take for example Finally Free; there is no reason why the click couldn't just stop at the end section, and the band simply listens to MM's playing. The video at that point is rather irrelevant, so no sync is needed.
As far as I've been able to discern, the only free section is MM's drum solo.

[Grizz]

I'm pretty sure the drum solo is played to a click. It's been pretty much the same all tour, as evidenced by the fact that the multi-cam rig had some sync issues from being from different shows.

[BlobVanDam]

What I don't understand is, playing to a click track isn't an all or nothing thing. Take for example Finally Free; there is no reason why the click couldn't just stop at the end section, and the band simply listens to MM's playing. The video at that point is rather irrelevant, so no sync is needed.
As far as I've been able to discern, the only free section is MM's drum solo.

I agree with this. I think the outro could have been done free no problem. The video and lighting could just be looping whatever pattern at that point.

I wouldn't mind the click tracks so much if they did away with the backing tracks (or at least most of them), and varied the tempos a bit.
I struggle to tell the difference between the studio version of OTBOA and the LALP version. It gains nothing live. And TSCO feels like it's being held back during the big build up at the end at studio tempo.

[Siddhartha]

Click sucks.

Nobody goes to a DT concert to see the lights and video performance. Itīs all about the music and see those 5 super musicians play. And having a clip that trigger playback sections makes it feels canned. I hate that.

Anyway, I still  wonīt miss a single DT concert near my town, but I hope they get rid of click tracks asap.

[KevShmev]

I just think some fans get hung up on seeing different songs in the set list every night when they log on to the 'net, as if playing totally different songs from night to night is the bomb, regardless of the negatives that might come from that approach (certain cities missing out on special songs/events, the band not being as locked in on playing a song they rarely play, etc.).

You and I will never see eye to eye in this regard as I love the rotating setlists. That said, I know that we'll never see the setlist variation that we did when MP was in the band, but even some variation from show to show is nice, like what they did on some legs of the Dramatic tour, where they had an A and B setlist. At least there was some variation and for those of us who enjoyed going to multiple shows, it gave us something different to see. Even if they were to take that same batch of songs and further shake things up (intermixing songs from the A and B setlists, perhaps dropping out some songs that were in both, so that there might be 4, 5 or 6 standard setlists), it would not be a major negative thing. The guys would still have everything rehearsed to a T and it would provide more unpredictableness like what we were used to in the past.

And frankly, one could still complain that some cities missed out on special things on this tour - specifically that only Boston got something especially special. Yeah it was for a DVD shoot, but still, nobody else got that. 

Actually, I did like the rotating set lists that they always used to, but I get why they do it this way now.  In other words, I liked it both ways, and I think it's fair to say that there are positives and negatives to both ways.

And honestly, I did like the way they did it on the ADTOE better, with a mostly static set list, but with a few songs swapped in and out each night (similar to what Rush did on their last tour as well).  I guess, for me, the set list they played this year was so damn awesome that I was fine with seeing them not mess with it at all.  Song for song, this year's set list is the best one I've seen out of them since the 6DOIT tour (which had mostly awesome set lists). 

Nobody goes to a DT concert to see the lights and video performance. Itīs all about the music and see those 5 super musicians play.

Speak for yourself.  The lights and video make it a much better show, rather than four guys just standing there wanking away for three hours.

[rumborak]

The term "click track" is also a bit misleading. In all likelihood the click track has some version of the full song on them. The problem with just having a click is that once you're out, there's no way of telling the position. Gavin Harrison talks about that in one of his interviews, where he says he's essentially listening, and playing along to, a rich music track with his own voiceover that reminds him of important upcoming sections.

[BlobVanDam]

The term "click track" is also a bit misleading. In all likelihood the click track has some version of the full song on them. The problem with just having a click is that once you're out, there's no way of telling the position. Gavin Harrison talks about that in one of his interviews, where he says he's essentially listening, and playing along to, a rich music track with his own voiceover that reminds him of important upcoming sections.

I could be mistaken, but I recall an interview with MM near the start of the ADTOE tour where he said his click track was both the metronome and the song, but then he preferred having just the song.
The end result is the same in terms of pros and cons for the audience, but if I was a drummer, I'd much rather have a real song in my ear than a metronome. And given the length and complexity of DT's music, as opposed to just a constant tempo 4/4 throughout, it would leave too much room to make a mistake.

[mikeyd23]

I actually think it would be really interesting to hear what MM hears during a DT show... In fact that would be a cool bonus thing to release to the fans "MM's Guide Tracks" for the current DT tour. It would interesting to hear how much of the song is in there along with the metronome, how much vocal cues are included and for that matter what the vocal cues do (count in different sections, remind him of tough sections coming up, actually count through entire odd-meter sections, etc...)

Maybe a lot of fans wouldn't even understand what that would be, but a small group of fans would really enjoy that, especially drummers, I'm sure. Just a random thought, 

[bosk1]

What I don't understand is, playing to a click track isn't an all or nothing thing. Take for example Finally Free; there is no reason why the click couldn't just stop at the end section, and the band simply listens to MM's playing. The video at that point is rather irrelevant, so no sync is needed.
As far as I've been able to discern, the only free section is MM's drum solo.

In principle, I tend to agree with you.  Especially since that song is all the way at the end of the set anyway.  It seems like it would be a simple thing to transition out of the structured click and go freeform.  But then again, while this seems like common sense, I also must admit that I have no clue about how the hardware and software they are using integrates with the entire audio/visual stage setup, and have no idea what it actually takes to operate such a system on the scale that it takes for their live show, so I concede that there may be very good reasons why it might not be practical, and that I am completely clueless about those reasons.

Nobody goes to a DT concert to see the lights and video performance. Itīs all about the music and see those 5 super musicians play.

Fine if you don't like it, but the way you are setting up the argument is silly.  Of course nobody goes to a DT concert to see the lights and video.  But that's just a strawman argument.  Plenty of people who go to shows go for the entire experience.  Yes, the music is primary.  But the stage production can significantly enhance (or detract from) the experience, which can in turn significantly elevate the music.  The band and many fans feel that their present production does indeed enhance the entire experience.