MP's hiatus-- what would it have done to DT's fame?

[Dublagent66]

If DT had taken a break, we'd probably have a better 11th album to look forward to.  Better would've been worth the wait.

[JPX]

So I guess you didn't like our answers in the other post? Anyways, IMO they would never have reunited and gone on to be rock superstars. First, they couldn't financially afford 5 years off. Tey don't make that much money. Second, more groups than not make it back and make it big. Further, they obviously didn't think it was worth the risk...... and they just love what they do AND they also seem to really have wanted a change.

Wow, that's awesome that you have access to their direct financial information like that!

[bosk1]

So I guess you didn't like our answers in the other post? Anyways, IMO they would never have reunited and gone on to be rock superstars. First, they couldn't financially afford 5 years off. Tey don't make that much money. Second, more groups than not make it back and make it big. Further, they obviously didn't think it was worth the risk...... and they just love what they do AND they also seem to really have wanted a change.

Wow, that's awesome that you have access to their direct financial information like that!

One doesn't need access to their direct financial information to know that fact.

But, anyway, as discussed, there is already a thread on this, so... 

[JPX]

One doesn't need access to their direct financial information to know that fact.
But, anyway, as discussed, there is already a thread on this, so... 

Please elaborate...

[bosk1]

No.  That's what we have a search function for.  You can look up the discussions on that subject yourself.  But, in short, it's obvious from the relatively modest number of albums they sell and from the lengths of their tours and size of venues they play.  At their ages and with children in their homes, it is obvious that turning the income stream off for five years would, at best, damage their financial outlook and, at worst, be disastrous.

[Nic35]

MP said on TMS that he wanted a 1 or 2 year hiatus. I don't why everybody's saying he wanted a 5 year break.

[Perpetual Change]

I highly doubt the guys from Dream Theater are swimming in dough. Mike P's the only one who really ever gave us a glimpse of his life-style, and what he's got going on (a pool, some nice cares, a big yard, a movie 'theater') still seems well below what you'd ever see on Celebrity Cribs. And he works the most, so you gotta imagine he's getting paid a lot more than the other guys were.

I'm sure the guys do well. Not well enough to have to rely on side-projects for the next five years, though (Keep in mind, James LaBrie couldn't even tour by himself).

[JPX]

No.  That's what we have a search function for.  You can look up the discussions on that subject yourself.  But, in short, it's obvious from the relatively modest number of albums they sell and from the lengths of their tours and size of venues they play.  At their ages and with children in their homes, it is obvious that turning the income stream off for five years would, at best, damage their financial outlook and, at worst, be disastrous.

So because they aren't in DT they suddenly aren't allowed to pursue other avenues which would provide income. Let alone other business ventures, endorsements, savings etc. You make it sound like they would go on social security for 5 years.

[bosk1]

MP said on TMS that he wanted a 1 or 2 year hiatus. I don't why everybody's saying he wanted a 5 year break.

The initial comments were that he asked for an "indefinite" or a "five year" hiatus, but that he later said 1 to 2 years after the band said they weren't willing to take that long a break.  Nobody has shared the exact words about what was said, but from reading all the different accounts, I have the impression it was something along the lines of this:

Mike:  Before we get into talking about working on the new album, I have something I need to say.  I think we need to take an indefinite hiatus for awhile to recharge and get re-energized about DT.
Band:  What do you mean, "indefinite?"
Mike:  I dunno.  I don't really have a specific time frame in mind.  Maybe five years or something.  I dunno.
Band:  Dude...no, we just can't do that.

[subsequent follow-up conversations]

Mike:  Well, okay, if you don't want to be off for a long time, I get that.  But for me, I need at least another year or two.  I can't go into the studio right now. 



Something along those lines.  I don't get the sense it was ever a specific demand, but just numbers being thrown around in a very nonspecific way.

[mrjazzguitar]

tl:dr: DT going on hiatus would have broken the business model that allows the band to remain at their current level of popularity, which is about the same as it's been over the last 5-10 years, and launched them irreversibly into obscurity.

pretty much this. it would have ruined DT

[fadetoblackdude7]

To make it short, MP's hiatus would have hurt their 'status' (for lack of a better word). They're not a huge mainstream band and a break that long would have pushed them into the shadows and it would be a big struggle to get back to where they were. But then again, their fanbase is of the most loyal and dedicated......

[ResultsMayVary]

MP said on TMS that he wanted a 1 or 2 year hiatus. I don't why everybody's saying he wanted a 5 year break.

MP first wanted a hiatus with an undetermined amount of time off. When the guys pressed him for a time period, he first mentioned five years. Then worked down to 2 years and then a year, and then he quit the band. The 5 year hiatus was the first thing MP wanted.

[senecadawg2]

I voted toll

[Riceball]

I don't think you can assess "fame" or "success" using one measure - its such an abstract thing that trying to assign it a number won't really tell you the full story.

Something I would be interested in seeing, however, to give a full-er perspective would be concert go-ers; how many people have paid to see them on each cycle. In my mind, that would better capture the things that people have been saying aren't captured in album sales: digital downloads, illegal downloads, discussion forums etc. At the end of the day, as far as I'm aware, most musicians make most of their dosh from performances.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is sales don't tell the full picture, its too narrow a metric to focus on. Perhaps looking at attendance figures would give a better guide.

[bosk1]

No.  That's what we have a search function for.  You can look up the discussions on that subject yourself.  But, in short, it's obvious from the relatively modest number of albums they sell and from the lengths of their tours and size of venues they play.  At their ages and with children in their homes, it is obvious that turning the income stream off for five years would, at best, damage their financial outlook and, at worst, be disastrous.

So because they aren't in DT they suddenly aren't allowed to pursue other avenues which would provide income. Let alone other business ventures, endorsements, savings etc. You make it sound like they would go on social security for 5 years.

What are you talking about?  I never said any such thing.  But it's not like they have much money rolling in if they aren't touring.  Given the number of albums they sell, they aren't making a lot from album sales.  Most of their income is going to come from touring.  So let's do a real rough breakdown of tour income. 

From what I've gathered informally through the grapevine, and just going with round numbers, average guarantees for a headliner that can sell out a 2,500 seat venue in the U.S. is about $50,000 (substantially less if we aren't talking a sellout capacity band).  For a 30-date North American tour, that's $1,500,000 maximum (assuming they are getting really good guarantees).  Sound like a lot of money?  Keep in mind that that is gross income to the company.  Let's think about some of the expenses (and this isn't all of them):
-They pay a band and tour manager.
-They pay a crew, which includes their techs, lighting guy, sound guy, other crew who travel with them to do set up/tear down, etc.  Take a look in one of the recent tour books and see how many guys they have on the road with them at any given time.
-Tour equipment, which includes lighting, sound, their video screens and video production, shipping cases, etc.
-Shipping of all that stuff from venue to venue.
-Rental for tour buses (for band and crew) and trucks.
-Airfare for everybody.
-Lodging (hotels that are in downtown locations close to venues for 30 cities--imagine living away from home in hotels for a month and a half.  Now multiply that by five band members, management, and however many crew members).
-Food for all the people above.
-Fees for venue security.
-Fees for local promoters in every city they play in.
-Cost for a their rehearsal studio, hotels, food, etc. for all the pre-tour preparation.
-Paying someone to create their videos, lighting, etc.

How much do you think is left after just those expenses when they are living on the road for a month and a half (actually, more than that because of the rehearsal time, but w/e)?  Probably less than a third, but let's be generous and say $500,000 goes to the company.  Let's forget for just a minute or two about all the other expenses the company has.  That's about $100,000 gross, pre-tax dollars per band member for a dude in his 40s with a family, who gets taxed to death because he is self-employed, and has to pay out of pocket for medical insurance and all the other stuff that us working stiffs with regular jobs take for granted.  Is that chump change?  Hardly.  But think about the fact that that is the vast majority of the income the band has seen from this year's work.  Now imagine that goes away. 

As others have said, it's hardly like these guys are starving.  They're doing well.  But they aren't making Metallica dollars either.  Nowhere near that. 

And, yeah, there are a lot of flaws in the above model (for instance, the money from a given show or tour doesn't likely get paid out to the guys in a lump sum.  It probably stays in the company with all the other money, and they pay out salary every months and "bonuses" or something similar at the end of the year so it doesn't get double taxed), but it's a stripped-down, oversimplified version just to give a bit of a reality check.

[Stoneyman]

It wouldnt have done much to their fame.  DT has a 25 years history of being prog metal masters.

However, it would have severely affected their earnings.  Try working your way up to a great wage at your job and then taking 2 years without that steady money expectation.  MP was involved in other things and had other sources of income.  The other guys could probably do okay, but it would probably take a ton of work.  What does a musician doing clinics make?  MM seemed to make a living doing clinics and playing as a studio musician.  I just dont think the rest of DT would make anywhere near what they were used to doing sessions or clinics.  Why give up your steady dependable livelihood to struggle?  How much money is enough?  Thats a personal issue that I am sure only the individual players can answer.  The 2 year break would have been more of a hit financially than anything related to the bands legacy.

It seems now that since MP left the band is getting along.  Say what you want, but that speaks volumes about his affect on the other members pre-break.

[rumborak]

Worth mentioning is also that it's tempting to look at Rush and say "well, they miraculously came back after a long hiatus, so why not DT?". For every band that manages to come back there's 10 which don't. They release an album that everybody then perceives as anachronistic, and sales and concert attendance fizzles out.
Frankly, I think DT is also smart enough to know that they likely are not looking at another 20 years of the band. Maybe they even perceive themselves to be on the home sprint, who knows.

rumborak

[King Postwhore]

Worth mentioning is also that it's tempting to look at Rush and say "well, they miraculously came back after a long hiatus, so why not DT?". For every band that manages to come back there's 10 which don't. They release an album that everybody then perceives as anachronistic, and sales and concert attendance fizzles out.
Frankly, I think DT is also smart enough to know that they likely are not looking at another 20 years of the band. Maybe they even perceive themselves to be on the home sprint, who knows.

rumborak

So very true rumbo.  In truth Rush is playing to less then they did in the 90's but their career has allowed them to enjoy playing still to decent crowds.

[rumborak]

Yup. One distinction I see between Rush and DT for example is that Rush (I don't think) ever saw the fan turnover that DT saw. A lot of my friends who were die-hard DT fans up to 6DOIT sort of lost interest in them, and were replaced by the younger post-6DOIT fan crowd. Will those people go to see DT 10 years down the road, like the guys who show up to Rush concerts at the age of 50? Tough to say.

rumborak

[King Postwhore]

Yup. One distinction I see between Rush and DT for example is that Rush (I don't think) ever saw the fan turnover that DT saw. A lot of my friends who were die-hard DT fans up to 6DOIT sort of lost interest in them, and were replaced by the younger post-6DOIT fan crowd. Will those people go to see DT 10 years down the road, like the guys who show up to Rush concerts at the age of 50? Tough to say.

rumborak

I don't think that's true Rumbo.  There were many older fans than me who hated the shift in style of Permanent Waves, Moving Pictures & Signals. I got into Rush around 1981 saw hem for the first time in 84 live and a lot of fans complained how they didn't like the "new" Rush and why don't they play the old tunes. 

I think most bands with longevity go through this.  Unless your AC/DC

[Perpetual Change]

I think that's pretty natural, actually. Every band sees some old-timers leaving the camp while some newbies come in... that's just the truth.

Rush has had it's share of turn-over, too. My dad used to be really into them as a teenager, but when I got into them (as a teenager), the only thing he had to say to me about them was, "Yeah, they're a good band for pissed off angry white kids who think they're better and smarter than everyone. You'll get over that phase one day, too."

[King Postwhore]

I hated that kind of response about Rush.  I think people think the same way about DT fans.  I loved Rush for there complex structures and great melody not because I thought my music was better than what others listened to.

[Perpetual Change]

Yeah, I know. But, a certain percentage have always been obnoxious about Rush. The same goes for Dream Theater, and Porcupine Tree.

(Some) prog fans just don't know how to like their music without being dicks about it 

[King Postwhore]

 

I try to push prog all the time.   

But I can love the simplest 3 minute pop song too. 

[tristl]

Yup. One distinction I see between Rush and DT for example is that Rush (I don't think) ever saw the fan turnover that DT saw. A lot of my friends who were die-hard DT fans up to 6DOIT sort of lost interest in them, and were replaced by the younger post-6DOIT fan crowd. Will those people go to see DT 10 years down the road, like the guys who show up to Rush concerts at the age of 50? Tough to say.

rumborak

and do not forget rush plays bigger venues but like this year they played just one concert in germany(frankfurt, i was there) and they did not fill it completly( so thats about 9000 fans for the whole of germany).
it is a shame anyway that DT is not able to fill bigger venues , in germany idiots from stupid tv shows (like american idol in the US) fill 16000 people venues and DT plays to  max about 3000. but i will be there

[lucky7]

It took DT over 20 years to finally tour Australia, I can't help but think if they had taken a break of anywhere over three years we would probably not seen them again down here. 
At least when you have the momentum from one album to the next they would know they could sell out a venue that seats about 4000.
But after a few years do you take that gamble again with a country that can take you a day to get there?!

Jordan has said he is no spring chicken and if the guys had taken a big break, would he have kept playing with DT or would the band members have found other projects that would have stopped them from ever coming back to DT.

But in saying that Aerosmith have only been to Australia once and I still love them, for their career span of hits and it is the same with DT, we have 11 historic albums.

But after five years of no releases would we all even be on this board still (no offence to anyone on this board)...a lot of interes was generated from MP leaving and talk of a new album, not to mention their touring.

I mean go over to Vai.com it is a ghost town on the boards, which is mainly facebook etc taking over, but also the fact Steve hasn't done a real tour in some time, (apart from the Masterclass which was in Melbourne last week and was fantastic!  )

But I wonder if DT did come over after five years would I even hear about it or would I find out when it was over?! 

I voted I don't know, but I seriously think after five years a new release would bring new fans to replace the ones they may have lost over the years......and now we can all say Thank God they chose to not have a hiatus! 

[Orion1967]

Where do you see a 40% increase?

From Octavarium's 27k to Black Cloud's 40k. I don't know if that's 40 percent or not. I just kinda winged that.

Unless my math is wrong that is actually a 48% and change to the better is it not?  40K/27K=1.481