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

[BlobVanDam]

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

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

I would think that if that was the case, they would have done so when they did the special 15th anniversary WDADRU show in 2004, as they could have killed two birds with one stone if that was their intent. They certainly made a big enough deal of it that it would have been suitable and considered.

The 20th anniversary wasn't "giving the illusion" of anything. It was celebrating a 20 year history of playing, writing, and growing as a band together, not celebrating 20 years of selling out stadiums and writing gold records. The Score documentary celebrated those humble beginnings with pride.

With all due respect to JLB as a band member of the vast majority of those years, he wasn't there when the band was just starting out, risking everything to quit Berklee, practicing for countless hours and writing their first music together, recording demos, handing out tapes, signing that first record deal etc.
The only people currently in the band who have the firsthand experience of whether their band's anniversary should be 1985 or 1989 is JP and JM. JLB was there for neither of those milestones, so I understand that he has a disconnect from that. I really don't see the band changing the already established anniversary based on JLB's thoughts.

I don't think there's a right or wrong way to choose a band's anniversary, and I think that's entirely up to the band, because they're the ones who were there. But once it's established, changing it is silly and pointless.

[rumborak]

The last one point there is really the most important. There is no officially correct way of placing a birthday. It's heavily dependent on the history of the band, and how the band members feel about that history. Lacking any further information, the band made clear that they view the early years of DT as important enough to warrant that as the marker. 

[snapple]

Think of a band like a marriage: do most married couples celebrate the anniversary of when they first started dating?  No.  They celebrate their wedding anniversary, just like most bands celebrate the anniversary of their first album.

oh god the marriage analogy

[Madman Shepherd]

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

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

They are celebrating the anniversary by playing a handful of songs from each, many of which haven't been heard in a while(or have never been heard).  A far cry from celebrating the 15th anniversary of WDADU, the 20th anniversary of when they wrote a bunch of songs the majority of DT fans haven't heard,  and then the 15th anniversary of I&W.  (There were also 25th anniversary shirts but I'll give them a pass because they were just shirts although a quarter of a century seems like a much cooler anniversary to celebrate than 15 or 20.)

BTW, I totally love the WDADRU concert.  The 15th anniversary, while odd without a back story, makes perfect sense when you realize it was the first "milestone" anniversary where they had the creative control to do something, and give a bit of notice to some underrated songs. 

Regardless, I don't want these arguments to ruin a three day anniversary, a milestone only shared by 78% of the average thread.   

[TheGreatPretender]

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

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

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

We know the facts. Way to dodge the question. What I'm asking is, do you go by the 1985 date just because the band says so, or because you agree that a band is born as soon as its core members say, "Let's make a band"?
Because I'm sure there are a lot of bands out there, who go through similar situations as DT, in terms of not having an album for a few years, developing, rotating members, changing names. And I'm sure that some of them would count their anniversary from their first album. So if that's the case, do you then say, "Well, that's what they say, so I'll go with that"? or do you say, "But they got together so much earlier, that's when their anniversary SHOULD be"?

[rumborak]

We know the facts. Way to dodge the question. What I'm asking is, do you go by the 1985 date just because the band says so, or because you agree that a band is born as soon as its core members say, "Let's make a band"?

A band is a band when the members feel it's a band. It's as simple as that. I have no idea why this is troubling you so much. By the very fact that the original three guys decided to drop out of college, it's rather obvious that at *that* point they felt it is a viable, functioning band. They were still lacking a singer, but the core was established and solid.

[TheGreatPretender]

A band is a band when the members feel it's a band. It's as simple as that. I have no idea why this is troubling you so much. By the very fact that the original three guys decided to drop out of college, it's rather obvious that at *that* point they felt it is a viable, functioning band. They were still lacking a singer, but the core was established and solid.

The sheer fact that they were lacking a singer (and were adamant about having one) means that it was an incomplete band. There's nothing established or solid about that.

[rumborak]

Yes, Master Of Who Decides When Bands Start

[TheGreatPretender]

Yes, Master Of Who Decides When Bands Start

Better recognize!

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

I don't even know why anyone would care about any of this. It's not like JLB is trying to have another 20th anniversary or something, he just gave his opinion.

[TheGreatPretender]

I don't even know why anyone would care about any of this. It's not like JLB is trying to have another 20th anniversary or something, he just gave his opinion.

It does sound like he wants to have the 30th anniversary 5 years from now, though.

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

But why would anyone care.

[theseoafs]

Because we're getting to that middle period between album cycles where no new real DT news is coming out, but everybody's already said everything they wanted to say about the previous album.

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

Personally, I think we should go back to talking about Kevin Moore.

I wonder when he would have wanted the anniversary to be.

[TheGreatPretender]

Personally, I think we should go back to talking about Kevin Moore.

I wonder when he would have wanted the anniversary to be.

He'd probably celebrate DT's 30th Anniversary THIS year. He'd be like, "It's not really their anniversary, but I had a party hat and some sparklers, so what the fuck."

[Madman Shepherd]

Ok, wait wait wait a minute here.  Let's refer to the official Dream Theater throw blanket which is what I do whenever I am in doubt.




Ok...so the band was established in 1985...in New York.


BUT....

They were established in Boston.....

SO, either they were established in 1985 in Boston or they were established once they got back to New York which means they were not established until 1986!!!!!


Fuck whatever Mike Portnoy or James LaBrie said.  The throw blanket answers one question and raises another. 

[TheGreatPretender]

You know what this means... Dream Theater was founded in 1985 in New York, by Chris Collins, who then was gracious enough to permit JP, JM, MP and KM to join.

[Setlist Scotty]

Ok...so the band was established in 1985...in New York.

BUT....
They were established in Boston.....
SO, either they were established in 1985 in Boston or they were established once they got back to New York which means they were not established until 1986!!!!!

Or it could have been that they were fully invested in the idea (and therefore marked the beginning of the band) when they returned home to New York in 1985 for Christmas break.   

We know the facts. Way to dodge the question. What I'm asking is, do you go by the 1985 date just because the band says so, or because you agree that a band is born as soon as its core members say, "Let's make a band"?

A band is a band when the members feel it's a band. It's as simple as that. I have no idea why this is troubling you so much. By the very fact that the original three guys decided to drop out of college, it's rather obvious that at *that* point they felt it is a viable, functioning band. They were still lacking a singer, but the core was established and solid.

Ha! This is troubling for TGP since he thinks JL is right, we're wrong and he won't let it go. 

And just so I'm not accused of dodging the question, my personal opinion is that when the band is formed is when the anniversary should be marked. When Rush decided to do the R30 tour, it seemed odd to me since they formed in 1968. But who am I to argue with when they want to celebrate the anniversary? So while my personal opinion is of one way, if a band decides the other thing, so be it. And DT has already decided it as such, despite what JL's personal feelings are on the topic. If DT wants to change the anniversary, then so be it, but my personal opinion is that it would be stupid, considering the 20th Anniversary Tour and Score DVD/CD set and create more confusion than anything.

[TheGreatPretender]

Okay, first of all, I never said I thought that JL was right, I said that everyone has the right to choose their own basis for how long they consider a band's existence, so his opinion is totally valid. Personally, I think it differs from band to band, depending on their history. I also think that if you count Majesty and DT as the same band, then I would still count their birth as being in 1986, when they completed their original lineup. Although I'd be happy celebrating their anniversary counting from 1989, not because of their first album, but because of the name change.

Shadow Ninja did bring up a good point though, who cares if they did change it? The only people who'd probably even be aware of it are the hardcore fans, but it's those same hardcore fans who know the band's history and would know the context of why they would change their anniversary date, if they chose to do so. And those who aren't hardcore DT fans, probably wouldn't even buy Score, let alone realize that it was a 20th Anniversary concert. Or else, they wouldn't even pay attention when it was released, and that the timeline isn't consistent.

[rumborak]

It's a bit surprising how much you attach to the name change. Had it been a voluntary name change, sure, that would clearly have meant they started something different. But this change was due to legal threats from another band.
Besides, another band we all love first was called The Originals, but then they were forced to change names and switched to The Regulars. And then another change after that. They still were the same band.

[TheGreatPretender]

It's a bit surprising how much you attach to the name change. Had it been a voluntary name change, sure, that would clearly have meant they started something different. But this change was due to legal threats from another band.
Besides, another band we all love first was called The Originals, but then they were forced to change names and switched to The Regulars. And then another change after that. They still were the same band.

Of course, for bands that change their names voluntarily, it holds a much greater significance. But I still think it matters. Majesty evolved and changed since their Berklee days, and even though they were forced to change their name because of legal reasons, I still feel like it was kind of symbolic of them finally reaching that level of maturity that allowed them to finally unleash themselves onto the world as professional recording artists. Maybe it was destiny. I feel like, even in terms of their own mentality, they were a lot more assertive and professional after they became DT and released their debut album. Hence why they sacked Charlie and auditioned over 200 vocalists. As Dream Theater, they said, "We are absolutely not settling for anything less than what we deserve."

[rumborak]

So, err, that Californian band threatening Majesty was some sort of divine intervention?

[TheGreatPretender]

So, err, that Californian band threatening Majesty was some sort of divine intervention?

That Californian band was a victim of divine intervention. Dream Theater was meant for greatness, while Majesty was not, so they had to take the name and fall into obscurity in order for Dream Theater to achieve greatness. 

[BlobVanDam]

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

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

They are celebrating the anniversary by playing a handful of songs from each, many of which haven't been heard in a while(or have never been heard).  A far cry from celebrating the 15th anniversary of WDADU, the 20th anniversary of when they wrote a bunch of songs the majority of DT fans haven't heard,  and then the 15th anniversary of I&W.  (There were also 25th anniversary shirts but I'll give them a pass because they were just shirts although a quarter of a century seems like a much cooler anniversary to celebrate than 15 or 20.)

They're celebrating 2 anniversaries every single night, and at the expense of almost half of their discography. Once you factor in the obligatory coverage of the new album, plus the 2 anniversaries, that leaves I think 4 other songs in the setlist? Given how I feel it has negatively impacted the setlist, I think a one off show would have been the better option.

[KevShmev]

I disagree.  Regardless of how much you or I like those Awake songs, most of those have gotten little or no love in the live set lists since Rudess joined the band, so it's not like they are playing a bunch of songs that have gotten played a ton over the years already.  And given how much live crowds love Scenes, playing anything from that is always a good choice.

[BlobVanDam]

I disagree.  Regardless of how much you or I like those Awake songs, most of those have gotten little or no love in the live set lists since Rudess joined the band, so it's not like they are playing a bunch of songs that have gotten played a ton over the years already.  And given how much live crowds love Scenes, playing anything from that is always a good choice.

My problem isn't with the album choices themselves (as the SFAM portion is easily my favourite part of the setlist, and the Awake portion was a special treat for Awake fans), but I feel the setlist overall would have been better served if they either alternated between the two anniversary portions, or toured one on the first half of the tour, then switch when they swing back around. Something like that.
Having both in the same setlist is too much imo. They're neglecting too many songs/albums in the process. As I said, all but 4 songs in the setlist are covered by only 3 albums. That's unbalanced.

[KevShmev]

See, I don't get hung up them needing to cover as many albums as possible.  With 12 albums now, it goes without saying that some albums are gonna be neglected at times now, and while six might seem like a lot, forcing something from them into the set list, at the risk of playing stuff they obviously wanted to play, is not something I want to see them do.  Besides, much of the 00s material has been played a ton in the last 10+ years, so giving that era a rest for a tour seems to make sense. 

[rumborak]

I think there's also the reality that there's a good percentage of fans showing up at their concerts who go there to hear the old tunes. Happened to Rush, happened to just about every artist that's been around for more than 15 years. Hell, to be perfectly honest with you, that's why I saw them in Boston.
So, if they want to keep filling the venues, they have to plug the albums of their heyday.

[BlobVanDam]

The 2000s stuff has been played a ton in the past 10+ years? You don't say, that's because they were the new albums at that time! Just as DT12 is this tour.
And 2 of those 4 other slots are taken up by ADTOE songs, which could also definitely be given a rest, as they were played so often on their last tour (the fact that one was Grammy nominated doesn't really justify it imo). Then one of the other slots is TSF.

I don't expect them to cover every single album every tour, but this tour is an extreme to the point that I think it's their weakest setlist ever (and not because of DUR DUR AWAKE). They have an evening with show, so there's plenty of room for balance. Lots of middle ground there.

[JayOctavarium]

I have to say... this setlist has been my fav out of all the sets I've seen. I do think it would be stupid of them to continue celebrating these anniversaries during the second legs though

[KevShmev]

Okay, but that's my point: because the 00s stuff has been played so much in the last 10+ years because of it being the new stuff at the time, it only makes sense to give that era a rest now (except for the never before played TSF), especially since the two Mangini era albums are understandably being given a lot of attention.  I think them playing only two ADTOE tunes is all but giving it a rest, as that album was really well-liked by the fanbase, so to already bust down to only playing two songs from it, on the next tour, is striking. 

Oddly, even though I like DT12 a lot, and feel like the band does as well, I have a feeling that most of the songs won't make it to the next tour:

-Just like Beneath the Surface gave way to Along for the Ride as the new "ballad-type" song they are playing, assuming the next album has some type of ballad, that one will take Along for the Ride's place.
-Illumination Theory likely will go away, since it is so long, and their super long songs never get played the next tour.  Hell, even Octavarium didn't.
-Enigma Machine is good fun live, but they have enough instrumentals to choose from, and if they any new ones on the next album, they'll get played.
-The Enemy Inside or The Looking Glass likely will be the one that survives, because both were "singles."  Then again, if they have singles of a similar ilk on the next album, there might not be a need to play either or both. 
-And it remains to be seen if any of the other three will be played later this tour.  If so, that lessens the chances of them being played on the next tour (just like This Is the Life and Lost Not Forgotten were late additions to the ADTOE tour, but didn't make the current one).  If not, one or two of them could make it that next tour.

As always, it's fun to speculate. 

[?]

I still don't get why some people are whining about OTBOA and BAI being in the setlist... The former is a Grammy-nominated single and the latter has become a fan-favorite, and both songs come from an album that was widely regarded as their best in years. Taking into account that most bands have a number of "hits" that get played all the time, I think DT fans are pretty spoiled. Ok, 20 minutes of music in the current 3-hour setlist was played on the previous tour - so what?

[BlobVanDam]

10+ years is a long time between playing songs though. Should albums just get shelved for a decade after their first tour? Not everyone has been a fan for that long, or was able to see those tours the first time around. And not all songs from those albums have been covered equally, such as TSF, which got a turn this time.

One thing I've always liked about DT is the confidence they have in their entire discography, including recent albums. And there's a lot of material from all over their discography that hasn't been played much being overlooked. The evening with format would have been the perfect time to bring a lot of that out. The current setlist just baffles me.

I think you'd be spot on with your assessment of the future inclusion of DT12 songs.
I could see them going either way on keeping TEI/TLG, TEI being the grammy nominated song, and TLG apparently getting a big push too. TEI might get the boot just because it's more likely to get replaced by the equivalent metal single of the next album, much as you've mentioned is the case with BTS/AFTR. TLG will probably contrast better.

I still wouldn't want to bet either way on whether they'll be changing the setlist later in the tour. I would take a guess not, in which case they're sure to include something next tour. Hopefully STR.

[adastra]

I still don't get why some people are whining about OTBOA and BAI being in the setlist... The former is a Grammy-nominated single and the latter has become a fan-favorite, and both songs come from an album that was widely regarded as their best in years. Taking into account that most bands have a number of "hits" that get played all the time, I think DT fans are pretty spoiled. Ok, 20 minutes of music in the current 3-hour setlist was played on the previous tour - so what?

Well I don't like those songs! 

[KevShmev]

Oh, so they should cater to your personal tastes?

Blob, I get what you are saying, but I don't think the lack of '02-'09 material means they suddenly do not like those albums as much; it just means they are mostly giving them a rest this tour after playing that material a lot over recent years.  When they bring some of those songs back in a few years, they'll probably seem fresh to them again, having given them a few tours off (depending on what songs they are).