Mike Portnoy on That Metal Show

[Perpetual Change]

You seem to enjoy drama.

Pretty much.

But, to be honest, Blabbermouth did not dramatize the situation between Mike or the band at all. It was already dramatic. Mike not handling it well when Blabbermouth published his forum posts in a way that he felt represented him inaccurately (I disagree) fueled the fire, in turn causing Mike to make more statements which Blabbermouth continued to publish the same way. It kinda became a cycle. But I wouldn't blame Blabbermouth solely for the bad press Mike's been having. If Mike and his fans are tired of Blabbermouth's coverage and feel they're being misrepresented, the best course of action would be to ignore the site and stop directing traffic to it. Which, smartly, Mike seems to have done for the most part.

A lot of fans, however, don't seem to have followed suit  and keep bringing blabbermouth's coverage up just so they can  complain about it. It seems to me that those fans like internet drama just as much as I do, maybe even more.

[rush-signals]

To me it was a good interview but clearly Mike had lost control of the band and it was showing. This alone made him think they needed a break from everything. Such as it is it all backfired on him and the outcome couldn't have been better! They needed a break from Mike, not vica-versa. He's moved on in a clearly different direction than DT which I'm thankful is not the direction DT headed.

[bosk1]

To me it was a good interview but clearly Mike had lost control of the band and it was showing. This alone made him think they needed a break from everything. Such as it is it all backfired on him and the outcome couldn't have been better! They needed a break from Mike, not vica-versa. He's moved on in a clearly different direction than DT which I'm thankful is not the direction DT headed.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

[rumborak]

bosky, I think you misread his post, partly because it was somewhat weirdly worded. I think he means what's been the consensus so far.

rumborak

[russellmania]

To me it was a good interview but clearly Mike had lost control of the band and it was showing. This alone made him think they needed a break from everything. Such as it is it all backfired on him and the outcome couldn't have been better! They needed a break from Mike, not vica-versa. He's moved on in a clearly different direction than DT which I'm thankful is not the direction DT headed.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Please, no personal attacks.

[WildeSilas]

Actually, I've perceived this to be the case from the beginning, and I totally get what rush-signals is saying - that there was some subtle resentment towards MP's "leadership" role (as evidenced by JR's "police" comment, some of JLB's comments, and JMX's sudden enthusiasm for the band following MP's exodus). They never really bucked him, but things like the "iPod" incident reveal a passive resentment. This added to MP's awareness that a change was needed. He just didn't realize that he was the only person who could change it - either by quitting or releasing the reigns of leadership.

I was in a similar situation with a large group of people where I was the "guy in charge." As years went by I felt progressively frustrated that people weren't responding to my direction and leadership. Eventually I realized that I wasn't a good fit with the group anymore, and that they would actually be better off with someone else. I left, and time has shown that I was right - the problem wasn't the group, it was me. I also have a very "benevolant dictator" style of leadership and simply couldn't function successfully in group that preferred democracy. So be it. But that sense of losing control is a telltale sign that you probably don't need to be in control anymore anyway.

I've said before that I think MP's aggressive personality was imperative to the band surviving through the SFAM stage of their career. However, I don't think it was necessary after that - the label and management were no longer pushing them to do things that didn't fit the band's vision. MP should have relinquished his role at that point and the band would have all been happier (or at least that's the way it appears in hindsight). It worked as a democracy prior to the FII bullshit, why wouldn't it work afterwards? Mike's personality seems to be such that he enjoys that leadership role very much, maybe so much that he simply didn't want to go back to the way it was before. I can see how the other band members might become slightly resentful about that over time. JLB really seems to have ill-will about it when he says things like, "I don't need anyone to tell me how to sing. Never did." If that type of sentiment rose more to the surface as the years went by (from both JLB and JMX), I can definitely see where Mike would view it as the band starting to run afoul of the tracks, while the others were ready to get off those tracks altogether.

[Samsara]

Actually, I've perceived this to be the case from the beginning, and I totally get what rush-signals is saying - that there was some subtle resentment towards MP's "leadership" role (as evidenced by JR's "police" comment, some of JLB's comments, and JMX's sudden enthusiasm for the band following MP's exodus). They never really bucked him, but things like the "iPod" incident reveal a passive resentment. This added to MP's awareness that a change was needed. He just didn't realize that he was the only person who could change it - either by quitting or releasing the reigns of leadership.

I was in a similar situation with a large group of people where I was the "guy in charge." As years went by I felt progressively frustrated that people weren't responding to my direction and leadership. Eventually I realized that I wasn't a good fit with the group anymore, and that they would actually be better off with someone else. I left, and time has shown that I was right - the problem wasn't the group, it was me. I also have a very "benevolant dictator" style of leadership and simply couldn't function successfully in group that preferred democracy. So be it. But that sense of losing control is a telltale sign that you probably don't need to be in control anymore anyway.

I've said before that I think MP's aggressive personality was imperative to the band surviving through the SFAM stage of their career. However, I don't think it was necessary after that - the label and management were no longer pushing them to do things that didn't fit the band's vision. MP should have relinquished his role at that point and the band would have all been happier (or at least that's the way it appears in hindsight). It worked as a democracy prior to the FII bullshit, why wouldn't it work afterwards? Mike's personality seems to be such that he enjoys that leadership role very much, maybe so much that he simply didn't want to go back to the way it was before. I can see how the other band members might become slightly resentful about that over time. JLB really seems to have ill-will about it when he says things like, "I don't need anyone to tell me how to sing. Never did." If that type of sentiment rose more to the surface as the years went by (from both JLB and JMX), I can definitely see where Mike would view it as the band starting to run afoul of the tracks, while the others were ready to get off those tracks altogether.

Great post. The bolded emphasis is mine. That point, in particular, is where I see the problem being. Although, to be fair, DT flourished under that system for quite awhile. They constantly grew even through BC&SL, so it did WORK.

My take on it is exactly what you said, but I'd add that since the system was so successful for a decade, and people just got comfortable, while the resentment grew, so did perhaps any drive to overturn the apple cart, because of the success.

Mike said a lot during this process that he wore all these hats and responsibilities for the band. I recall fans that might be closer to the band then the majority of us saying that the band members just deferred to Mike, and I don't find that surprising, given Mike's tendencies and his self-admitted need to be in control (OCD, etc.)

Now with MP leaving, it allowed people to perhaps put a foot forward themselves and be more comfortable in their own skins.

I just sincerely hope Mike abandons this notion and hope he alluded to on That Metal Show that maybe one day he'll be able to return to the band. Frankly, even five or six years from now, it'd be awfully awkward.

What I do hope is at the 30th anniversary of the band, Mike P could join them for a song to celebrate the band's history, preferably with all former members again (including Kev Mo).

But frankly, after witnessing DT live with Mangini...Mangini seems not only to be a league ahead of Portnoy in the drumming department, but also a better personality fit for the comfort level of the band as a whole.

[Podaar]

To me it was a good interview but clearly Mike had lost control of the band and it was showing. This alone made him think they needed a break from everything. Such as it is it all backfired on him and the outcome couldn't have been better! They needed a break from Mike, not vica-versa. He's moved on in a clearly different direction than DT which I'm thankful is not the direction DT headed.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Please, no personal attacks.

I don't believe that qualifies as a personal attack and if we all decide to be honest with ourselves we'll realize that bosk1's post is nothing but the cold, hard truth. None of us, no matter how insightful we think we are, know what we're talking about when we project motives, thoughts and desires on the band. Including MP.

[Bone_Daddy]

Which is another reason why I ended up not watching this. I knew nothing new would be said and I would basically waste an hour where I could be doing something productive.

QFT

[Cranky]

Actually, I've perceived this to be the case from the beginning, and I totally get what rush-signals is saying - that there was some subtle resentment towards MP's "leadership" role (as evidenced by JR's "police" comment, some of JLB's comments, and JMX's sudden enthusiasm for the band following MP's exodus). They never really bucked him, but things like the "iPod" incident reveal a passive resentment. This added to MP's awareness that a change was needed. He just didn't realize that he was the only person who could change it - either by quitting or releasing the reigns of leadership.

I was in a similar situation with a large group of people where I was the "guy in charge." As years went by I felt progressively frustrated that people weren't responding to my direction and leadership. Eventually I realized that I wasn't a good fit with the group anymore, and that they would actually be better off with someone else. I left, and time has shown that I was right - the problem wasn't the group, it was me. I also have a very "benevolant dictator" style of leadership and simply couldn't function successfully in group that preferred democracy. So be it. But that sense of losing control is a telltale sign that you probably don't need to be in control anymore anyway.

I've said before that I think MP's aggressive personality was imperative to the band surviving through the SFAM stage of their career. However, I don't think it was necessary after that - the label and management were no longer pushing them to do things that didn't fit the band's vision. MP should have relinquished his role at that point and the band would have all been happier (or at least that's the way it appears in hindsight). It worked as a democracy prior to the FII bullshit, why wouldn't it work afterwards? Mike's personality seems to be such that he enjoys that leadership role very much, maybe so much that he simply didn't want to go back to the way it was before. I can see how the other band members might become slightly resentful about that over time. JLB really seems to have ill-will about it when he says things like, "I don't need anyone to tell me how to sing. Never did." If that type of sentiment rose more to the surface as the years went by (from both JLB and JMX), I can definitely see where Mike would view it as the band starting to run afoul of the tracks, while the others were ready to get off those tracks altogether.

Exactly.
I'll be damned if you haven't hit the nail square on the head.

It's funny, because I have that same sort of personality too.
So, I can relate to Mike in that aspect, as well.

And, like I said, it isn't a terribly bad thing by any means, it's just his personality, and he has to find ways to deal with it, just as people who are socially inept have to find ways around that, or people that are paralyzed from the waist down have to find wheelchair accessible entrances.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

I think it's really interesting that Portnoy thinks (or thought) rejoining Dream Theater is (was) a possibility. I think it's safe to say that he and LaBrie don't get along, and if Portnoy rejoined, I'm pretty sure LaBrie would be furious. He might even quit the band at that point.

[Jaffa]

I think it's safe to say that he and LaBrie don't get along, and if Portnoy rejoined, I'm pretty sure LaBrie would be furious. He might even quit the band at that point.

Could I see some interviews showing this, or some quotes, or something? 

Not trying to be difficult.  It's just I've heard people mention them not getting along several times, but I've never actually seen either JLB or MP say it, so I'm curious.

[GunsOfThePatriots]

 

[ZirconBlue]

Finally saw the TMS episode last night.  MP didn't come across as negative in any way, IMO. 

And I think they should bring MP in to do "Stump the Portnoy", cause I'm pretty sure MP could kick Trunk's ass in a battle of rock/metal trivia.

[TAC]

I think it's safe to say that he and LaBrie don't get along, and if Portnoy rejoined, I'm pretty sure LaBrie would be furious. He might even quit the band at that point.

Could I see some interviews showing this, or some quotes, or something? 

Not trying to be difficult.  It's just I've heard people mention them not getting along several times, but I've never actually seen either JLB or MP say it, so I'm curious.

Jaff, there's been a number of interviews, especially with James this summer where you can feel the friction. But if you've followed the band closely, this has been clear for a long time.

[Orion1967]

lol like you actually care about that. he said RUMORED first of all, and secondly the band was being ridiculous about that entire situation. as for eddie, hes one of the only guys out there actually promoting heavy music.

lol Actually, I do care. And no, the band wasn't being ridiculous, talk to Roadrunner about that shit

if you actually care about that you need to get over it lol. eddie trunk is trying more than anyone else out there right now to keep heavy music alive, whether or not you think he acts like a baby sometimes. whether it was the band or roadrunner who came up with the idea to irritate a LARGE number of the fans by being that crazy about the release the fact is that ET didnt do anything wrong or "low."

Well, actually....    ...you're wrong.   Just because you choose not to believe it doesnt make it right.  Kind of like I can BELIEVE I am a duck but without feathers, quacks, and the ability to lay eggs that hatch into ducks, I am not a duck...   I'm just sayin.

[Jaffa]

I think it's safe to say that he and LaBrie don't get along, and if Portnoy rejoined, I'm pretty sure LaBrie would be furious. He might even quit the band at that point.

Could I see some interviews showing this, or some quotes, or something? 

Not trying to be difficult.  It's just I've heard people mention them not getting along several times, but I've never actually seen either JLB or MP say it, so I'm curious.

Jaff, there's been a number of interviews, especially with James this summer where you can feel the friction. But if you've followed the band closely, this has been clear for a long time.

That's the thing, though: I haven't.  I haven't been a Dream theater fan for a long time.  In fact, by the time I started getting seriously interested in them, MP had already quit the band.  Even then I wasn't really following them THAT closely - I was loving the music, but I didn't know anything at all about the band members.  I only started paying attention to the band MEMBERS when I joined the DTF in March of this year.  And even THEN I was trying to avoid as much of the Portnoy drama as I possibly could.  So I really haven't seen the friction you guys are talking about.  I'm just trying to get caught up.

[Samsara]

Jaffa,

As TAC, it's been pretty clear for awhile. I can't give you quoted interviews, but it has been implied for a long time now.

I disagree with Rush-signals' take on the MP situation though. The band would have continued with Mike regardless. Mike wanted something the other guys didn't. Mike left, reconsidered, and found himself on the outside looking in. Stuff happens.

I don't think what bosk1 said was a personal attack at all. He absolutely could have phrased it better, however. Telling a poster:

You have no idea what you are talking about.

...is a tad dismissive of a person and probably should have been followed with some more agreeable explanation. I can see where it would bother some, but a personal attack? Nah.

[Millais]

can't we just move on?! 

[Cranky]

I'm done talking about Mike Portnoy.




Well, until the next interview, at least.

[ResultsMayVary]

I'm done talking about Mike Portnoy.




Well, until the next interview, at least.

My thoughts exactly. He's been very well kept as of late and I hope he can keep it up.

[DT2003]

Please try to catch this episode YOURSELF and hopefully it can clear some of the air about how much I love and miss the guys and how much DT means to me....when I speak about these incidents they are NOT AT ALL in a vindictive or controversial way, they are in an incredibly honest & heart-felt way....

It's really ashame that Blabbermouth doesn't pick up the stuff like this.  It's only the negative stuff, or stuff that they can put a negative spin on that they write about.  B/c of them, and b/c of things I've read others say, I've jumped to conclusions a bit quickly a few times, and was wrong in doing so.  I'm a very senitive person, and I care a lot about what people think about me, so I can relate to how Mike feels as it seems he is similar in that respect.  My heart goes out to Mike to have to see/hear all the negativity.  In addition, I'm sure it is incredibly hard for him to see DT now with a new album out and touring. 

[XB0BX]

Someone should bring up these interviews where James showed his growing resentment of Portnoy because I haven't seen them.

[deslock]

As for Portnoy's comments, there's no reason for him to mention the iPod thing, in my opinion.  Yes, it would bother me too if a band member did that.  But there's no reason to publicize personal moments.

I thought he handled that well (he kept it anonymous).  I'd already read a quote from him about realizing that his circle of friends was completely different from the rest of DT's, but the iPod thing also illustrates why he felt they needed a break. 

The rumors are that he initially wanted to split for up to 5 years, before suggesting a shorter 1-2 year break.  If that's true, it was a little misleading that he didn't mention it.  But w/e... I like Portnoy and wish him the best.

Then the next day, BLABBERMOUTH takes that very quote out of context... Does anyone else get the irony in that? 

Not that I'm defending Blabbermouth in general, but that quote didn't seem out of context to me.

For those interested, the episode is now available at https://www.vh1.com/video/that-metal-show/full-episodes/mike-portnoy-john-sykes/1672249/playlist.jhtml

The star of the show is undoubtedly Bill Gates lol. Didn't know that guy was a metal-head.

I don't get it. Are you referring to the dude in the audience that kind of looks like a younger Bill Gates?

[lithium112]

Haha yeah at 26 minutes they're like "We're honoured to have Bill Gates in the house". I actually thought that's Bill Gates. Is it not?

[hefdaddy42]

Haha yeah at 26 minutes they're like "We're honoured to have Bill Gates in the house". I actually thought that's Bill Gates. Is it not?

No, of course not.

[ariich]

Jaffa,

As TAC, it's been pretty clear for awhile. I can't give you quoted interviews, but it has been implied for a long time now.

I disagree with Rush-signals' take on the MP situation though. The band would have continued with Mike regardless. Mike wanted something the other guys didn't. Mike left, reconsidered, and found himself on the outside looking in. Stuff happens.

I don't think what bosk1 said was a personal attack at all. He absolutely could have phrased it better, however. Telling a poster:

You have no idea what you are talking about.

...is a tad dismissive of a person and probably should have been followed with some more agreeable explanation. I can see where it would bother some, but a personal attack? Nah.

Agreed with pretty much all of this.

[deslock]

Haha yeah at 26 minutes they're like "We're honoured to have Bill Gates in the house". I actually thought that's Bill Gates. Is it not?

Oh I missed that (I had skipped ahead to the Permanent Waves vs Moving Pictures thing shortly after they brought on John Sykes). 

I just watched that bit at 26:31 and see they showed the "kind of looks like a younger Bill Gates" guy in the audience that I had noticed at 1:12.

[bosk1]

To me it was a good interview but clearly Mike had lost control of the band and it was showing. This alone made him think they needed a break from everything. Such as it is it all backfired on him and the outcome couldn't have been better! They needed a break from Mike, not vica-versa. He's moved on in a clearly different direction than DT which I'm thankful is not the direction DT headed.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Please, no personal attacks.

That isn't a personal attack.  Is it dismissive of the argument?  Absolutely.  But there is a BIG difference between being dismissive and disrespectful of an argument, on one hand, vs. being dismissive and disrespectful of the person, on the other hand.  It is a subtle difference sometimes, but an important one.  The former does not violate the rules.  The latter does. 

But that being said, I think it was Samsara who posted that I could have said it differently, and he's correct.  It's fine to call people out on arguments that are factually incorrect or based on incorrect assumptions.  But people get along better when that is done more tactfully than what I did.  Generally, I do try to be more tactful and encourage others to do the same.  My apologies for not doing that more in this post.

[YtseBitsySpider]

"But people get along better when that is done more tactfully that what I did.  Generally, I do try to be more tactful and encourage others to do the same."

this has been one of my issues lately....I'm trying to do better or avoid threads where I really nothing possitive to contribute.

[Lowdz]

Actually, I've perceived this to be the case from the beginning, and I totally get what rush-signals is saying - that there was some subtle resentment towards MP's "leadership" role (as evidenced by JR's "police" comment, some of JLB's comments, and JMX's sudden enthusiasm for the band following MP's exodus). They never really bucked him, but things like the "iPod" incident reveal a passive resentment. This added to MP's awareness that a change was needed. He just didn't realize that he was the only person who could change it - either by quitting or releasing the reigns of leadership.

I was in a similar situation with a large group of people where I was the "guy in charge." As years went by I felt progressively frustrated that people weren't responding to my direction and leadership. Eventually I realized that I wasn't a good fit with the group anymore, and that they would actually be better off with someone else. I left, and time has shown that I was right - the problem wasn't the group, it was me. I also have a very "benevolant dictator" style of leadership and simply couldn't function successfully in group that preferred democracy. So be it. But that sense of losing control is a telltale sign that you probably don't need to be in control anymore anyway.

I've said before that I think MP's aggressive personality was imperative to the band surviving through the SFAM stage of their career. However, I don't think it was necessary after that - the label and management were no longer pushing them to do things that didn't fit the band's vision. MP should have relinquished his role at that point and the band would have all been happier (or at least that's the way it appears in hindsight). It worked as a democracy prior to the FII bullshit, why wouldn't it work afterwards? Mike's personality seems to be such that he enjoys that leadership role very much, maybe so much that he simply didn't want to go back to the way it was before. I can see how the other band members might become slightly resentful about that over time. JLB really seems to have ill-will about it when he says things like, "I don't need anyone to tell me how to sing. Never did." If that type of sentiment rose more to the surface as the years went by (from both JLB and JMX), I can definitely see where Mike would view it as the band starting to run afoul of the tracks, while the others were ready to get off those tracks altogether.

You're not Colonel Gaddaffi are you?

[TheGreatPretender]

Finally watching the episode. And Mike, I gotta say something... As much as I hate dwelling on the past.... I miss your blue beard!

[Perpetual Change]

Finally saw this. It was pretty interesting, but nothing we haven't heard before aside from the head-phones thing. I don't think Mike was in the wrong about bringing any of that up, though.

After watching this, though, I realized that I still am an "MP fan". He just brings so much energy and personality to whatever he's doing that it's tough not to like. Listening to him talk on TMS, I almost forgot that I really dislike Adrenaline Mob. 

[tristl]

Just seen it for the first time, and i have to say that everything is like it should be.
MP realized that he didn' t like a couple of the wives anymore, that he prefers to hang with anthrax and some other guys i do not know.
So he hangs now with anthrax and his other friends and his baby makes the best record in ages and puts on a live show which i atleast never  experienced before.
Life is good , i love DT , and hopefully MPs sideproject with JS is more to my likes as the AM project which really disapointed me so far.

[Nofire]

Here is the YT-link for those who can't watch it on VH1.com: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znCBzum9WEE&feature=related

EDIT: After watching the interview, I feel that there is hope, if you can put it that way. I think Mike showed that he is moving on, although he is of course still heartbroken, which I assume anyone would be after leaving a band that he partly founded 25 years ago. To think that he would just leave it behind him like nothing had happened is ridiculous.

As far as the two events he described as wake-up calls, I have the following to say.

Realizing that your social network of friends isn't necessarily the same as your other friends/colleagues is just sometimes you'll have to face as you get older. However, it might be a shock when you first discover it. But that's normal. It happens all the time in peoples lives and there is nothing you can control, since we are all individuals. I've got to agree with him on the "iPod-incident" though, if it really went down the way he described it. To come to a farewell party with the band and especially the crew, who have worked their asses off in order to make the show work, and then just sit and listen to music, is just plain rude. I don't care if you've had a crap day and just want to be alone. Go there, eat something, act civilized and then retire early for the night if you want to have a moment for yourself. Sitting there and actively not socializing is not really that nice, and I don't think Mike overreacted when he described this as a weird moment for him.

Once again, I don't know for sure that it went down exactly the way he described it, and until we hear anything else from another source, we will never know for sure.

Sorry if what I have said has been said countless times. I just wanted to get my opinion off my chest