Now that the MM era is finished, how would you rank those five albums?

[TheBarstoolWarrior]

There wasn't a grand scheme like there had been for SFaM, ToT or 8v (or SDoIT before they went in a different direction), but the goal for SC musically was for the album to have the balls and chunk of ToT but more light and shade than ToT. BCaSL continued in that same musical direction, but instead of the songs generally following one style, the songs on BCaSL had more variation within the songs (hence why they on average were longer). Lyrically, JP's lyrics were fictional monster lyrics on SC, and on BCaSL were more based on unusual real life events that he experienced (aside from ARoP). MP's lyrics were based on real life perspectives as always and JL's lyrics on SC were political which he's done before.

Got it. I never really listened to either with the perception of a grand idea in mind although when I think about BCSL I guess I can see how the idea of epic is more of a thing. There are 3 long songs that tell a clear story is one way to think about it.

[Trav]

Hey Pg, question... what would be the purpose of having two corporations? One solely for recording revenue and the other for performance and merchandise? If so, why separate them? Or maybe could they be separated because the three founders are shareholders of one and and maybe all members are shareholders of the other? So maybe that a few questions! I just find this aspect fascinating.

[TheBarstoolWarrior]

I just had a look at some of the music from View and I think as John said, dark and heavy is the theme.

ATC, ATM, Title track are all 7 or 8 string. That makes up over half the run time.

The Alien is also dark and heavy. The main riff is basically hammering away at a tritone but the riffs around it are filled with minor intervals. These are intervals he thinks about as tools for creating dark sounds, as discussed in his Room 137 video.

Invisible Monster has dark subject matter. The primary melody that keeps repeating is very tense and dissonant. There are also a lot of tritones in the riffs.

I guess you could say Sleeping Giant is by DT standards not especially dark and heavy but it's certainly not NOT those things.

TT is the only exception, which is pretty nice break from all the beat you over the head riffage.

Obviously, the record has no ballad.

[TheBarstoolWarrior]

As a follow up I just whipped out my DOT song book and you could make a case that DOT is also a dark and/or heavy theme. Not as clear cut as View but this is a very heavy album with shorter songs. I dont know if there is footage of the guys talking about a theme for the record.

1. UA is on a guitar tuned down 2 steps
2. Paralyzed is obviously a dark song and it is played on a baritone guitar I believe (or just tuned down 3 steps which seems unlikely for a regular 6 string)
3. Fall Into the Light is straight out of the Metallica playbook
4. BSW is not dark or heavy
5. Room 137 fits both beautifully
6. Heavy but not dark. Uses a 7 string.
7. Wits End is both in music and subject matter. Guitars tuned down a full step.
8. Out of Reach is neither though interesting choice to play it on a baritone guitar
9. Pale Blue Dot is clearly both
10. Viper King is the bonus track so thought of a little differently. I note it is played on 7 string guitars tuned down.

As for DT12, I remember the guys calling it cinematic at the time which I think is the theme there. There are musical examples of this.

In sum I don't think it is accurate to say the MP era albums are more cohesive. Both eras have unique albums with their own identities. Both eras have a record with a grand concept. Both eras have records that feel more like a collection of songs without a clear overarching theme.

[TAC]

As for DT12, I remember the guys calling it cinematic at the time which I think is the theme there. There are musical examples of this.

In sum I don't think it is accurate to say the MP era albums are more cohesive. Both eras have unique albums with their own identities. Both eras have a record with a grand concept. Both eras have records that feel more like a collection of songs without a clear overarching theme.

Definitely!

[Jamesman42]

I don't agree at all.  Yes, some albums in the 00s had themes, but some did not.  I mean, if we are going to say that "trying to make a classic metal album" is a theme for Train of Thought, then we can say anything is a theme.  DT12 and A View... were clearly going for the dark and heavy "themes" previously found in Awake and Train of Thought.  The Astonishing obviously has a theme because it is a concept album.  Distance over Time and A Dramatic Turn of Events are both merely collection of songs by and large, yes, but we can also say that about I&W, Falling into Infinity, Six Degrees and Black Clouds.

Also, even the songs are not connected lyrically or musically, I have long thought that Systematic Chaos has a "cheesy 80s horror flick" vibe, which I guess can be considered a theme based on the liberal definition of the term I am seeing in this thread.

Yep, which is why I said it felt like it, but I was being fast and loose with that.

[crystalstars17]

Hey Pg, question... what would be the purpose of having two corporations? One solely for recording revenue and the other for performance and merchandise? If so, why separate them? Or maybe could they be separated because the three founders are shareholders of one and and maybe all members are shareholders of the other? So maybe that a few questions! I just find this aspect fascinating.

I was wondering this myself (and thanks for the explanation).

[Stadler]

Dunno why but I thought Timmy had posted this. Thanks for the insights Paul! From your background, can you help define the difference between someone who is a band member (a paid salary employee) to someone who is a band member and part of the corporation? What differences and/or abilities would the one in the corporation have that the other would not? How different is an official band member (paid employee) different from a session/touring member?

Paul can opine as well; he seems to know more than I do as to the SPECIFICS of this arrangement.  But as a general proposition, it's the same as any corporation; "Members" (as they would be defined in the operating agreement for that corporation) have additional responsibilities to the corporation that an "everyday" employee might not.  They may have fiduciary duties (which is a legal responsibility to act solely in the best interest of the corporation, as opposed to the individual), and they may have administrative duties - signature responsibility, reporting responsibilities, etc. - that an employee may not specifically have (though which may be delegated to them on occasion).  By this, I don't mean "picking setlists" or "doing liner notes", I mean signing checks to employees or suppliers of the corporation, or making decisions on behalf of the corporation (i.e. distribution of profits, or tax decisions). 

As to the "official band member" vs. a session/touring member, I'm not sure that legally there is a difference, honestly.  Both are paid either by the individual hiring musician or the corporation, but they are not privy to the responsibilities of running the corporation (the band).  What they do in the band context is not really subject to the corporate agreement/responsibilities except in the broadest sense, but it's at the band context where the differences lie; Chester Thompson (and Daryl Stuermer) are the best examples of a "touring member" that I can think of.  Chester, who has worked with Phil Collins for the better part of almost 50 years now, has been clear: he was NEVER a "part of" Genesis. For him, that meant he was never involved in any of the creative decisions of the band.  Never (to my knowledge) appeared on ANY studio album or in any studio sessions and only played the music he was told to play when they moved to the touring aspect of their cycle (though I do know he co-wrote the drum duets with Phil).  Did not factor in to the art decisions, the remix/remaster/reissue decisions, or the decisions whether or not to tour or not.

Certain members of Kiss, by contrast, were "salaried members" of the band, and at various times they had a modicum of creative input; people like Vinnie Vincent (who did get writing credit) and Mark St. John (who did not) were salaried musicians at the employ of the Kiss entity.  But from a contractual standpoint, they had a contract that specified what they were obligated to do, and what Kiss (the entity) was obligated to pay them - or not - in consideration for what they do.

In some respects, it's better to be a "corporate member"; you have decision-making authority, you share in the profits of the enterprise, and you have the cache of being able to say "I am a part of the organization at it's very core". In some respects, it's better to be a "salaried employee"; you have duties but they are limited, you aren't responsible for the debts or obligations of the enterprise, you have no fiduciary duties, you can leave at will (or at the whim of your contract), and you can distance yourself if the ship runs aground.

One thing I will say: as someone who has drafted several operating agreements in his career, and has been privy to multiples more, I can tell you that "filing suit", as Mike did in 2010 should not be interpreted in any way, nor should any inferences be drawn.  It is common to have a filing be either a trigger for other obligations in the operating agreement, or as a condition precedent to other options being available to the members.  In other words, a formality.  I think at least in America, there's this preconceived notion that "filing suit" is a bad thing and only indicates animosity, or that one of the parties is a douchebag (I point to the Ozzy/Tony/Black Sabbath lawsuits, and maybe the Jonathan Cain/Neal Schon lawsuits, though it's hard to say on the latter one).  All divorces - even uncontested or amicable ones - are technically "lawsuits", necessary so that a judgment or decree can be entered into the court. 

[Stadler]

I was wondering this myself (and thanks for the explanation).

Hey Pg, question... what would be the purpose of having two corporations? One solely for recording revenue and the other for performance and merchandise? If so, why separate them? Or maybe could they be separated because the three founders are shareholders of one and and maybe all members are shareholders of the other? So maybe that a few questions! I just find this aspect fascinating.

Again, Paul can opine as well, but from my perspective, there are 100 reasons (or more) why there might be one or more corporations formed.  The time of formation, the state of formation (which impacts certain things like intellectual property rights and tax issues), the members within the corporation, the liabilities of the members ("corporations" and "limited liability corporations" and "partnerships", for example, all handle the liability of the members in different, sometimes very different, ways), the benefits afforded to the members and employees, the jurisdiction in which the corporation does business, and the assets held by the corporation all can influence whether an activity is done by one corporation or whether another corporation is incorporated.  I have worked for companies, for example, that park all their real estate (think "HQ") in one entity, all their employees in another, and all their intellectual property in a third.  Others use different entities for product sales (think records, t-shirts) and services (think touring). 

Several US laws prescribe different compliance to companies with differing levels of employees (the ACA comes to mind) or dollar values of revenue.  Whether the company does business in just the US, just the NAFTA countries, or globally can PROFOUNDLY impact the level of taxation and the way profits are handled. Immigration issues come into play; in some instances, one can travel for a certain period of time with limited VISA or tax implications, but if that employee stays in country for more than the prescribed time, it changes the way the company is treated under the law.

Shit's complicated. Jon Bon Jovi regularly says "he's not a singer anymore, he's the CEO of a multinational corporation" and he's spot on.  I sometimes don't know how bands like Metallica, U2, Taylor Swift, and The Rolling Stones do it.  Not be a douche, but knowing all this and reading some posts here and on social media - "they should just get in a room and go on tour and fuck the lawyers" - a lot of it sounds so incredibly uninformed and naive to me.

[crystalstars17]

Thank you for your insight!

[Trav]

Thanks Stad!

[CraftyCaleb2483]

All this business talk is way over my head!       

[pg1067]

From your background, can you help define the difference between someone who is a band member (a paid salary employee) to someone who is a band member and part of the corporation? What differences and/or abilities would the one in the corporation have that the other would not? How different is an official band member (paid employee) different from a session/touring member?

A lot of this is going to come down to:  It depends on what the governing agreements say and how they structured things.  I'm also trying to keep this simple.

Let's assume (and it may not be true) that, as of September 8, 2010, the shareholders (owners) of the two corporations were JLB, JM, JP, JR and MP.  At that time, all five of them had the right to share in profits from the corporations (subject to the terms of the corporation's governing documents).  It's possible for a shareholder also to be an employee, so it's possible that they all drew salaries.  Normally, a corporation would be structured so that the shareholder-employees' salaries are considered advance draws against profits.

When MP left, they needed to sort out his ownership interest in the two corporations.  Based on the lawsuit and the fact that it was resolved, I think the most likely outcome was that MP gave up his ownership interests in the corporations in exchange for a monetary payment.  At that point, he was no longer an owner nor a band member.  At the same time that was going on, the four remaining band members recruited MM.  They had a choice, they could hire MM as an employee of one of the corporations or they could give (or sell) him an ownership interest in the two companies, which would put him on equal footing as the other four band members.

If MM was "just an employee," then his status would be essentially the same as, e.g., Rikk Feulner, DT's tour manager, who I assume is an employee of Infinity Tours, Inc.  He'd be entitled to a paycheck as compensation for playing drums, writing music, etc.  On the other hand, if they made MM a shareholder, then he'd be on the same footing as the other four guys.

Another possibility, of course, is that maybe JLB, JM, JP and JR had 10 shares each but they only gave MM 5 shares (or some other disproportionate deal).  With all that in the background:

A shareholder has the right to participate in the management of the company.  It's no different than if you work for any corporation where the shareholders actively participate in the management of the company.  They get to make the decisions.  I work for the company as in-house counsel, and the shareholders will ask me for advice, but it's ultimately up to them to make the decisions.  Unless the shareholder agreement or corporate by-laws say otherwise (and they typically would for a band), a shareholder can't be fired, but most employees can be fired for any non-illegal reason.  With a band corporation, Member X can typically be kicked out by majority vote of the other members.  If the corporation is properly organized, there will be a procedure for buying out Member X's interest.  On the other hand, a "mere employee" gets nothing if he's fired (unless he has an employment contract calling for severance).

As far as an "official member" versus a "session/touring member," if neither are shareholders, then there's really no difference.  It's a little like if my employer brings in a temp for two weeks to scan a bunch of documents so that we can go paperless.  You can equate that person to person who is hired to play keyboards only for a month's worth of live shows.

Hopefully that answers your questions a little, but I'm happy to clarify.  And, you and most of the folks around here know this, but I'll say it anyway:  I have no personal knowledge of how DT and its corporations are set up, so any factual information above is either based on my assumptions or invented by me for the purpose of illustration.

[pg1067]

Hey Pg, question... what would be the purpose of having two corporations? One solely for recording revenue and the other for performance and merchandise? If so, why separate them? Or maybe could they be separated because the three founders are shareholders of one and and maybe all members are shareholders of the other? So maybe that a few questions! I just find this aspect fascinating.

I'm not 100% sure about the "why" of this, but I do know that the several bands I've worked with and others I know of all have separate corporations for recording and touring (and some will have a separate merchandising entity, while others lump merch in with touring).  I SUSPECT the biggest reasons are to keep the touring revenue away from the record company and for tax purposes.  The industry is changing, but the typical model is that the record company will enter into a contract with the recording corporation (or, in the case of a solo artist, a "loan-out corporation").  That corporation will represent that it will provide the services of "the band known as Dream Theater" or "the artist known as Lady Gaga," and there's usually an ancillary agreement whereby the actual artist ratifies that provision.  The recording revenue stream is very complicated, so it makes sense to keep that separate from touring revenue, which typically belongs entirely to the artist.  So...that's my guess, but it's an educated guess and (as always) it's probably a lot more complicated (especially for really big artists).

[pg1067]

Paul can opine as well; he seems to know more than I do as to the SPECIFICS of this arrangement.  But as a general proposition, it's the same as any corporation; "Members" (as they would be defined in the operating agreement for that corporation) have additional responsibilities to the corporation that an "everyday" employee might not.  They may have fiduciary duties (which is a legal responsibility to act solely in the best interest of the corporation, as opposed to the individual), and they may have administrative duties - signature responsibility, reporting responsibilities, etc. - that an employee may not specifically have (though which may be delegated to them on occasion).  By this, I don't mean "picking setlists" or "doing liner notes", I mean signing checks to employees or suppliers of the corporation, or making decisions on behalf of the corporation (i.e. distribution of profits, or tax decisions). 

I generally agree with everything you wrote, but this is particularly important (and something I didn't cover in the long response I just wrote).  Being a shareholder (of a corporation) or member (of a limited liability company) comes with both rights/benefits and duties/obligations - both to the entity and to fellow shareholders/members.

One thing I will say: as someone who has drafted several operating agreements in his career, and has been privy to multiples more, I can tell you that "filing suit", as Mike did in 2010 should not be interpreted in any way, nor should any inferences be drawn.  It is common to have a filing be either a trigger for other obligations in the operating agreement, or as a condition precedent to other options being available to the members.  In other words, a formality.  I think at least in America, there's this preconceived notion that "filing suit" is a bad thing and only indicates animosity, or that one of the parties is a douchebag (I point to the Ozzy/Tony/Black Sabbath lawsuits, and maybe the Jonathan Cain/Neal Schon lawsuits, though it's hard to say on the latter one).  All divorces - even uncontested or amicable ones - are technically "lawsuits", necessary so that a judgment or decree can be entered into the court. 

I mostly agree with this.  I doubt MP's filing was something that had to be done.  However, it certainly wasn't an indication that either he or the other four guys were necessarily behaving in some sort of inappropriate manner.  The thing that I thought was interesting is that I remember DT's lawyer actually denying that there was litigation pending.  From a purely procedural standpoint, he was right, but virtually no one who isn't a lawyer or otherwise familiar with NY legal practice (I'm not admitted in NY, but I know how the lawsuit process works there) would understand.

[crystalstars17]

Thank you for explaining all of this to us!

[Trav]

yeah but MM was a salaried employee, just like MP probably is now. There was some issue a few yrs back where DT's financials weren't that great and they couldn't give MM his 100k bonus he was supposed to get, so they did a I&W tour right after to be able to pay him. MP coming back surely means a shitton more sales, so i guess he'll be compensated fairly for that.

I keep coming back to this in my head, and I'd really like to see a source for this. You mean to tell me they were grossing well over 100k per show during the TA tour (according to the Billboard Boxscore thread from back then). Yet, they couldn't pull together the 100k contractual bonus for a member/employee? And then four years later, they're banking enough to buy/lease/construct property for the HQ? Now, I realize the HQ is a business investment more than anything. Office space/studio. Saving tons on booking studio time and office leasing, which is very smart when a band can afford it. Metallica figured it out 20 years ago. Anyway...that's been on my mind lol.

[TAC]

yeah but MM was a salaried employee, just like MP probably is now. There was some issue a few yrs back where DT's financials weren't that great and they couldn't give MM his 100k bonus he was supposed to get, so they did a I&W tour right after to be able to pay him. MP coming back surely means a shitton more sales, so i guess he'll be compensated fairly for that.

Are you sure that bonus wasn't used to help fund the I&W&B tour, which was not long term planned?
I do not believe MM didn't get his bonus because DT's financials were in shambles, and the tour sure was not about being able to pay it.

[TheBarstoolWarrior]

I keep coming back to this in my head, and I'd really like to see a source for this. You mean to tell me they were grossing well over 100k per show during the TA tour (according to the Billboard Boxscore thread from back then). Yet, they couldn't pull together the 100k contractual bonus for a member/employee? And then four years later, they're banking enough to buy/lease/construct property for the HQ? Now, I realize the HQ is a business investment more than anything. Office space/studio. Saving tons on booking studio time and office leasing, which is very smart when a band can afford it. Metallica figured it out 20 years ago. Anyway...that's been on my mind lol.

Just on the DTHQ thing, given the timing of the investment I bet they got a great price on the space. Manhattan real estate must have been cratered at that point in time.

[TheBarstoolWarrior]

was the I&W tour before or after the Astonishing?

[Trav]

After

[TheBarstoolWarrior]

Interesting. One thing I noticed, which is kind of off track, is how the stage productions on the last 2 tours seemed to be very bare bones especially when compared to the ADTOE or DT12 shows. By the time you get to the View tour, it's really just a band on the bare stage and a screen. Even Mangini's kit for that tour seems to convey a 'leaner' time for the band if you will. DreamSonic was the same except the box office was divided amongst 3 acts.

[efx]

That could probably have a lot to do with the increased costs of touring due to things like gas prices going up. The last few years have seen a lot of major bands having to cut down or even cancel touring because of it.

The last view tour with MM's smaller kit, no extra keyboards for JR and even JP playing a smaller rotation of guitars all seemed to indicate to me that costs plays a factor.

[Trav]

Interesting. One thing I noticed, which is kind of off track, is how the stage productions on the last 2 tours seemed to be very bare bones especially when compared to the ADTOE or DT12 shows. By the time you get to the View tour, it's really just a band on the bare stage and a screen. Even Mangini's kit for that tour seems to convey a 'leaner' time for the band if you will. DreamSonic was the same except the box office was divided amongst 3 acts.

They never said it, but it was definitely a way to cut costs. After the over the top production of TA, the I&WAB tour didn't have even a single sceeen. Just an old-school light show, which I liked. They did a little more with DOT/SFAM20 but with AVFTTOTW being post COVID, they had to be frugal. I just wish the cost-cutting lowered the ticket prices. I passed on DreamSonic because I just couldn't justify it. If I had known it was their last tour with Mangini I would have.

[TheBarstoolWarrior]

That could probably have a lot to do with the increased costs of touring due to things like gas prices going up. The last few years have seen a lot of major bands having to cut down or even cancel touring because of it.

The last view tour with MM's smaller kit, no extra keyboards for JR and even JP playing a smaller rotation of guitars all seemed to indicate to me that costs plays a factor.

For sure. I can definitely see a scenario in which costs are going up while revenue is going down. They did not even bother to make a dvd so that also says something. They probably didn't even think it would be economical.

Now that MP is back I am sure that is a big shot in the arm.

[TAC]

Interesting. One thing I noticed, which is kind of off track, is how the stage productions on the last 2 tours seemed to be very bare bones especially when compared to the ADTOE or DT12 shows. By the time you get to the View tour, it's really just a band on the bare stage and a screen. Even Mangini's kit for that tour seems to convey a 'leaner' time for the band if you will. DreamSonic was the same except the box office was divided amongst 3 acts.

Well, if you're counting the last two tours as the first run of The View, and Dreamsonic, I'd argue that that was the same tour, and the only one post Covid.

The same cannot be said of the DoT tour as Trav mentioned. That was as big of stage as the band had ever had.

[pg1067]

Just on the DTHQ thing, given the timing of the investment I bet they got a great price on the space. Manhattan real estate must have been cratered at that point in time.

DTHQ is in Manhattan??

[brakkum]

Thought it was on Long Island

[CraftyCaleb2483]

I wonder if you can find it on Google maps....

[pg1067]

FWIW, the Wikipedia entry for View says it was recorded at "DTHQ, Long Island, New York," but there's no source for that, and I couldn't find anything with a quick/cursory search.  Wouldn't surprise me if it's on LI.  It would shock me if it's in Manhattan.

[Max Kuehnau]

Thought it was on Long Island

yeah that's where it had always been indicated on any liner notes where applicable (Terminal Velocity, LTE3, View)

[Max Kuehnau]

FWIW, the Wikipedia entry for View says it was recorded at "DTHQ, Long Island, New York," but there's no source for that, and I couldn't find anything with a quick/cursory search.  Wouldn't surprise me if it's on LI.  It would shock me if it's in Manhattan.

I'll see if I can find a screenshot of some of these liner notes
Here it is: https://i.discogs.com/rEUZWHcXEi3SxTFZ0Ipqz47CT7LtkjDaJ2PdUwqfVnU/rs:fit/g:sm/q:90/h:511/w:600/czM6Ly9kaXNjb2dz/LWRhdGFiYXNlLWlt/YWdlcy9SLTIwNjg0/NTI3LTE2MzY4OTQy/NDctNzE2NS5qcGVn.jpeg

[pg1067]

I assume they're not any more specific than that so that one of us crazies doesn't stop by unannounced.   

[TheBarstoolWarrior]

DTHQ is in Manhattan??

I am trying to recall the thing that made me think that but I was under the impression that it was indeed in NYC. It may have been something in the View documentary, but I'll come back to you.

Also would make sense for it to be on Long Island, where John presumably still lives.

[Herrick]

Off topic but Long Island sucks.