MP's Shattered Fortress Tour

[mikeyd23]

I can't say too much, but let's just say there's stuff that has happened and is continuing to happen "behind closed doors" as it were. Not everything that is going on has been talked about in the media...

THIS THIS and THIS
There is a lot more to the situation than is public.

Okay, but the thing is, I don't think anyone is concerned about what may or may not have happened behind closed doors.  What people are objecting to is one party constantly taking passive-aggressive shots publicly.  And that's all it is about. 

It's all well and good to say, "but you don't know the whole picture!  There is more that happened than you'll ever know."  But (1) people are only commenting on what we DO know, and (2) nobody would be commenting at all if Portnoy would let it go and not comment instead of constantly fueling the fire.  And like it or not, #2 is HUGE.  Nobody on the DT side is commenting.  Mike Portnoy IS commenting.  If he stopped, it would hardly ever get brought up.

Exactly what I was going to post. If stuff is happening behind closed doors, great, that's where it can stay and if it does, I can't comment because I'm on the other side of that door.

I love Mike and will always follow his music but let's not pretend we don't know what was going on between Mike and James.  James has a food reason to be upset. 

What we don't see is James continually opening up old wounds like Mike does.  Mike needs to let it go and he can't.

It's on Mike.

Agreed.

Agreed as well, this seems like it should be logical for most, but I guess it isn't for some.

[kaos2900]

I think the fact that the DT camp has stayed pretty silent through all of this speaks volumes.  Part of me thinks MP keeps trying to bait them into saying something negative.

[Stadler]

Love all the judgment (NOT).   LaBrie went out of his way to bash Mike when the breakup happened (calling him a control freak; claiming what he did in the band wasn't that special or hard; that the band would each take up the slack and do all that Mike did; saying that the real front man could be a front man now; etc.).  They also were at each others throats for years before.    Why this is all of a sudden a huge deal is beyond me. 

If you can honestly look at the public comments James has made and look at the public comments MP has made and come to the conclusion James is the one bashing, I'm not sure what to tell you. If they were at each others throats for years, that's between them, all I can do is look at what they have each actually said publicly, heck MP bashed James publicly when he was still in the band 

I don't think it's "either/or".  I think it's two guys that don't care about each other that much.   All I'm saying is that it's not one-sided, and it's not as if Mike is making shit up to get his name in Blabbermouth.   

Here's the thing, though:  for all the (in my opinion, off base) assertions that Mike is a baby and a drama queen, I find it funny that no one is giving DT any stick for not allowing the one-off for Shattered Fortress.   It's one show (or a handful, around the world) in a 1,000 seat club (in NY), and isn't even sold out (to my knowledge).  This isn't going to tarnish the DT legacy any more than it's already tarnished.  To not let Mike do this is just as childish (and actually worse, since it fucks with Mike's livelihood).   

What are you talking about? How is DT "not allowing" it? Aren't you going to the NYC show? I'm pretty sure if DT weren't allowing it somehow (not sure they could do that) you wouldn't be headed to see it.

The last bolded part leads to....

People are talking here about "rights" as if they are some absolute thing.  They are not.   I write a song and put it out there, I have no "rights" per se to that song, save the recording I made, and to the extent that if someone else does the song I can get paid.  This is why Def Leppard, Maiden, and Kiss (by way of example) were able to do complete, note-for-note re-recordings of their songs to get out from under record labels.    ABSENT SOME SPECIFIC AGREEMENT (very important here, and not something we - or at least I - know for sure about) there would be nothing stopping Mike from staging a concert "Dream Theater from A to Z" and playing EVERY song in the catalogue - whether he was on it or not - and releasing a live CD/DVD/Bluray.    WITH THE AGREEMENT, there are likely some things that the parties agreed to that they are held to. 

As a lawyer, I can tell you that the idea that two people negotiate a contract and just blindly follow it with no changes, no discussions, no modifications (formal or otherwise) is naïve and not reflective of the real world.  Time changes.  Leverage changes.   Intent (of the parties) changes.  Hell, it could be as simple as just poor drafting (the language doesn't accurately reflect the intent of the parties; it happens every day).  Maybe the parties were worried about Mike forming Dreams Theatres (spelling intentional) and be - like QR, Great White and Ratt - a competing entity.   And the language was formed around that.  We can't tell anything about that without the agreements.  All I'm going on is Mike's comment that he can/will not release a DVD because of "drama" from DT.  Whether that is contractual enforcement, or carping or bluffing on Mike's part, none of us know.   But it DOES imply that DT didn't say "Hey, Mike, rest easy; if this REALLY IS a one-off, release your DVDs, give us 10% net, and we're good."  That's all I'm saying.

So MP's livelihood is important and DT should make decisions that are best for his livelihood even though he isn't a part of the band anymore, but MM's livelihood isn't important even though at that point he was a member of the band? Yikes.

Not sure what you're trying to say, but at the time, none of this was set in stone.  I'll grant the argument that yes, by having the "break" conversation, Mike potentially threatened the livelihoods of the others, but that's negotiable; there could have been releases, there could have been new music (Ytsejam or otherwise).   And even if there was livelihoods at stake, there's always risk in the world.  No one lives (or can live) without ANY risk in this world.   

[Stadler]

I think Mangini having left his job was a real part of the consideration when MP tried to come back, but it was part of the bigger picture.  DT had just been through a lot - they were upset that Mike left; I think Jordan even said he cried. They found a drummer they thought was great and meshed with them, he quit his job, and they were probably on an emotional roller coaster that included some low lows but also the excitement of working with the new guy.  When MP wanted to come back, it just wasn't possible for a lot of reasons.  Would he have tried if Avenged Sevenfold wanted him to join their band?  Probably not - and what had changed from MP's perspective?  Nothing except he didn't get the job he might have thought he was going to.  I believe Jordan made a comment in an interview that Mangini's personality was important because MP had basically said "he didn't like us anymore." None of those issues would have been worked out when Mike tried to come back, and after everything they had been through, they probably didn't trust him, didn't want to let MM down, were excited to work with MM and see what the future would bring, and didn't have it in them emotionally to try to let MP back in.

None of that seems to be spiteful or childish on DT's part.  And as more time went by after the split, maybe they found that they were just happier working with MM?

All good points, but all speculation.   And as such, it doesn't warrant the amount of judgment and castigation that much of this has taken.    We know that certain event happened, and we know timelines, but that's it.  We don't know the language used.  We don't know (with one exception, when the DT lawyer rebuffed Mike's offer to rejoin) who was doing the talking.   We don't know the other things (perhaps James said "HIM OR ME" and John couldn't chance losing the voice AND heart of the band in one fell swoop).  There's a TON we don't know, and as I've said, we don't know what the contracts say. 

I am Team Mike, but if he truly DID "fuck over" the band then he ought to be accountable to that.   A LOT of the evidence that he did that, though, is speculative and subjective.   

[bosk1]

Stadler, just no.  The only one in this discussion speculating about things we don't know is you.  People are reacting specifically to what Mike has said or done publicly.  There is no basis for anything that you have speculated about in your posts.  None.  You can be on whatever "team" you like, but let's stick to the facts.

[Samsara]

Bottom line, as I think bosk said earlier (paraphrasing here), MP is the only one saying anything PUBLICLY. If MP would just SHUT UP on social media and in interviews about DT, there would probably be less speculation. There's no real reason for MP to say some of the things he does except to stir the pot a bit.

All he has to say PUBLICLY regarding Shattered Fortress is this:

"Hey, yeah, just revisiting my past one more time in-full before doing something progressive metal oriented with a new band. I probably won't play a ton of DT material with that band, so this is the last time you'll see me doing a full tour of Dream Theater songs. They've moved on, and so have I, and we're all in a better place."

Boom. Done.

But instead, he always goes a bit too far. I mean, I get it, he wants to reply to some reactionary stuff from all of us fans. But he needs to show public restraint. DT does -- wisely.

I am sure there is a ton behind the scenes going on -- both good and bad. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if MP was pissed about the 25th Anniversary of I&W tour and not being a part of it. (Total speculation here on my part.) But at the end of the day, MP is his own worst enemy when it comes to attention. He just can't keep his mouth shut to save himself.

As for all the fault and all of the drama -- DT could very well be treating MP like shit behind the scenes. I don't know. A few of you probably know that answer. But generally speaking, no one knows, because DT keeps its collective mouths shut in the press and online -- and that's smart.

I think most of us (and probably MP himself, privately) realize MP made a mistake leaving DT and tried to strong arm them into something they didn't want to do, and then MP made another mistake by jumping ship, and giving his former bandmates all the leverage moving forward. That was pretty...unwise. But it has been years now. And MP still (at least publicly) hasn't seem to have learned the lesson of what not to say online and in the media. And that's really a shame, because it probably plays into the fact he hasn't ever appeared with DT live again. Had he kept his mouth shut from the get-go, in my opinion, he probably would have played some of these I&W anniversary gigs with the band.

It's really a shame, and I hope whatever is being discussed behind closed doors leads to something positive for everyone involved.

[Stadler]

I can't say too much, but let's just say there's stuff that has happened and is continuing to happen "behind closed doors" as it were. Not everything that is going on has been talked about in the media...

THIS THIS and THIS
There is a lot more to the situation than is public.

Okay, but the thing is, I don't think anyone is concerned about what may or may not have happened behind closed doors.  What people are objecting to is one party constantly taking passive-aggressive shots publicly.  And that's all it is about. 

It's all well and good to say, "but you don't know the whole picture!  There is more that happened than you'll ever know."  But (1) people are only commenting on what we DO know, and (2) nobody would be commenting at all if Portnoy would let it go and not comment instead of constantly fueling the fire.  And like it or not, #2 is HUGE.  Nobody on the DT side is commenting.  Mike Portnoy IS commenting.  If he stopped, it would hardly ever get brought up.

But that's my point.  If what you know (or, 'think you know') isn't accurate, then BY DEFINITION it's not fact, and if you're basing your conclusions on something that isn't fact, it's speculation.    I don't want to argue with you, Bosk, because I deeply respect your insight, but I kind of think this is proving my point for me.   If Noxon and Bobs23 are countering the speculation with a polite and implied "You DO NOT know the whole story" (and I don't know Noxon from Harry Potter, but I trust Bob to know what he's talking about) then we've lost all credibility.

My post - apparently a good Alec Baldwin impersonation, which I take as a compliment, because I love the guy - could possibly be speculation too, but the difference is, I'm not saying I'm definitively right, I'm saying there's an alternative way of looking at it that is equally possible.   

I have no argument that what he's saying is passive aggressive, or confrontational.  But I also say "SO WHAT?"    I can list the number of rock stars that do that on a daily basis, and still be typing by the time DT releases their next album.   Sam Hagar (as much as I love him) is STILL talking about Van Halen, and it's been what, 12 years since he was last in the same room with them?   Anyone read a Peter Criss interview in the last 10 years that didn't take a swipe at Gene and/or Paul? 

As for control freaks, the list is even longer:   Tony Banks, Steve Harris, Robert Fripp, Mick Jagger, Gene Simmons, Dio, Fish, Ritchie Blackmore... "control freak" in music is not necessarily a bad thing, is it? 

[mikeyd23]

I don't think it's "either/or".  I think it's two guys that don't care about each other that much.   All I'm saying is that it's not one-sided, and it's not as if Mike is making shit up to get his name in Blabbermouth.   

Relationships usually aren't a matter of either/or. Both parties usually contribute positively and negatively at different times to the relationship, once again, all I'm commenting on are public comments because that's all I know.

People are talking here about "rights" as if they are some absolute thing.  They are not.   I write a song and put it out there, I have no "rights" per se to that song, save the recording I made, and to the extent that if someone else does the song I can get paid.  This is why Def Leppard, Maiden, and Kiss (by way of example) were able to do complete, note-for-note re-recordings of their songs to get out from under record labels.    ABSENT SOME SPECIFIC AGREEMENT (very important here, and not something we - or at least I - know for sure about) there would be nothing stopping Mike from staging a concert "Dream Theater from A to Z" and playing EVERY song in the catalogue - whether he was on it or not - and releasing a live CD/DVD/Bluray.    WITH THE AGREEMENT, there are likely some things that the parties agreed to that they are held to. 

As a lawyer, I can tell you that the idea that two people negotiate a contract and just blindly follow it with no changes, no discussions, no modifications (formal or otherwise) is naïve and not reflective of the real world.  Time changes.  Leverage changes.   Intent (of the parties) changes.  Hell, it could be as simple as just poor drafting (the language doesn't accurately reflect the intent of the parties; it happens every day).  Maybe the parties were worried about Mike forming Dreams Theatres (spelling intentional) and be - like QR, Great White and Ratt - a competing entity.   And the language was formed around that.  We can't tell anything about that without the agreements.  All I'm going on is Mike's comment that he can/will not release a DVD because of "drama" from DT.  Whether that is contractual enforcement, or carping or bluffing on Mike's part, none of us know.   But it DOES imply that DT didn't say "Hey, Mike, rest easy; if this REALLY IS a one-off, release your DVDs, give us 10% net, and we're good."  That's all I'm saying.   

That's a lot of speculation. Aren't you always the one that gets on people about signing or agreeing to a contractual obligation and then wanting out? I've seen you praise the sanctity of student loans as a contractual obligation that people willingly enter, so they shouldn't be allowed to just be forgiven of that debt. Doesn't the same apply to Mike? He willingly left the band, negotiations occurred around that, and everyone moved on (except MP I guess). So yeah, he might want things to be different now, but that doesn't change his responsibility to uphold whatever the agreed upon contractual obligations were.

Regardless, we have no clue what agreements were made, you are just speculating off a random passive aggressive comment Mike made. Clearly he is free to perform this music, because he is. I'm sure he could release it, but he seems unwilling to work with DT to do that, that is not necessarily DT's fault.

Not sure what you're trying to say, but at the time, none of this was set in stone.  I'll grant the argument that yes, by having the "break" conversation, Mike potentially threatened the livelihoods of the others, but that's negotiable; there could have been releases, there could have been new music (Ytsejam or otherwise).   And even if there was livelihoods at stake, there's always risk in the world.  No one lives (or can live) without ANY risk in this world.   

Okay I'll make it clearer. You can't consider MP's livelihood important and not the other guys. You either care about that for them all or you chose not to. Either is fine. You are applying a different standard to MP than you are to the other parties involved, which is kind of the issue with this whole discussion.

[Stadler]

I totally agree with every sentence of this post.

Given that what he said about DT not allowing the Shattered Fortress show is factually wrong, how can you agree with every sentence?

Or are you simply patting him on the back for the parody?

What actually did I have wrong? 

[mikeyd23]

I totally agree with every sentence of this post.

Given that what he said about DT not allowing the Shattered Fortress show is factually wrong, how can you agree with every sentence?

Or are you simply patting him on the back for the parody?

What actually did I have wrong?

DT is allowing the Shattered Fortress.

[Samsara]

I totally agree with every sentence of this post.

Given that what he said about DT not allowing the Shattered Fortress show is factually wrong, how can you agree with every sentence?

Or are you simply patting him on the back for the parody?

What actually did I have wrong?

DT is allowing the Shattered Fortress.

Passively, they are. And legally, they couldn't stop MP from PLAYING those songs anyway. Releasing those shows is another matter, however...

[Stadler]

I'll cherry-pick this first paragraph.

So, when MP left cuz DT called him out on his BS, James may have said something *possibly* negative?  So you're saying he's *not* a control freak?  And in all these years since MP left he's taken every opportunity to trash DT and DT "fans" and SPECIFICALLY JL and be truly negative and abusive whereas DT has kept quiet and tried to move on but MP, who left, is somehow a victim in all this?  So one or two things that *may* be interpreted as negative towards MP is somehow NOT ok but you give MP, who left, with all the trash he has said over the years a free pass?

Whatever; if you're going to "cherry pick" the parts that fit your argument, and ignore that which doesn't, I'm not interested in that.  There were three other things that WERE negative. 

Plus, your WHOLE position is based SOLELY on that which is public.   At what point do Mike or DT have an obligation to sit down and say "Whoa, even though behind closed doors, the other side is being a complete and utterly unreasonable dick, I should probably only concern myself with that which is public, so my fans don't get on my case and jump to unsubstantiated speculative conclusions!"   

Can we criticize Mike for airing diry laundry?  Perhaps.   But that's his deal.  He doesn't shy away.  That the other side chooses not to is their choice.  Some of you seem to think that's a good thing.  I personally think it's disingenuous and dickish it's own way.  "Silence" isn't necessarily taking the high road.   

This is what should be beyond you, man, seriously.  It's like those Youtube videos where the bully is being filmed by their buddies who keep taunting their prey who then proceeds to smash the face of the bully and then all of a sudden the friends of the bully are screaming bloody murder and call the cops and all that junk.  MP is the bully who keeps talking trash and people just blindly defend him and say the prey is at-fault when they clearly aren't.

O_o

Bad analogy, because in your scenario, there isn't potentially 1000 things behind the scenes that change the game.  You're assuming that EVERYTHING in the press/media is the full, truthful, complete story, and there are no mitigating facts. 

What we don't see is James continually opening up old wounds like Mike does.  Mike needs to let it go and he can't.

It's on Mike.

But he doesn't hold grudges and he's just being honest and doesn't want any more drama so leave Mikey alone!

Look, you don't have to agree with me, that's fine, but don't be a dick about it.   That's not at all what I'm saying, and you know it.   Sarcasm here is just your version of what you're accusing Mike of (passive aggressive bullying). 

[mikeyd23]

Passively, they are. And legally, they couldn't stop MP from PLAYING those songs anyway. Releasing those shows is another matter, however...

You know they are stopping MP from releasing the shows? Link?

To the best of my knowledge the only "information" we have on the topic is a passive aggressive comment from MP about not wanting to deal with DT in order to release these shows. That tells us nothing other than (1) MP would have to work with DT to release these shows which makes perfect sense because they are DT songs and (2) MP doesn't want to work with them to do that.

Am I missing something?

[Stadler]

I can't say too much, but let's just say there's stuff that has happened and is continuing to happen "behind closed doors" as it were. Not everything that is going on has been talked about in the media...

THIS THIS and THIS
There is a lot more to the situation than is public.

Okay, but the thing is, I don't think anyone is concerned about what may or may not have happened behind closed doors.  What people are objecting to is one party constantly taking passive-aggressive shots publicly.  And that's all it is about. 

It's all well and good to say, "but you don't know the whole picture!  There is more that happened than you'll ever know."  But (1) people are only commenting on what we DO know, and (2) nobody would be commenting at all if Portnoy would let it go and not comment instead of constantly fueling the fire.  And like it or not, #2 is HUGE.  Nobody on the DT side is commenting.  Mike Portnoy IS commenting.  If he stopped, it would hardly ever get brought up.

Exactly what I was going to post. If stuff is happening behind closed doors, great, that's where it can stay and if it does, I can't comment because I'm on the other side of that door.

Except that's the point: a lot of people are doing an awful lot of commenting when they DON'T perhaps know the full story.  I don't either and I don't claim I'm right, but I know that there are other explanations - reasonable ones - that don't paint Mike as a passive-aggressive dickhead, and I'm willing to consider them.  That's all I'm saying. 

I love Mike and will always follow his music but let's not pretend we don't know what was going on between Mike and James.  James has a food reason to be upset. 

What we don't see is James continually opening up old wounds like Mike does.  Mike needs to let it go and he can't.

It's on Mike.

Agreed.

Agreed as well, this seems like it should be logical for most, but I guess it isn't for some.

Why is it logical?   What does the publicity have to do with it?  Totality of the situation.   Look, I'm no fan of the social media by any stretch (just the opposite) but if someone chooses to use it, that's on them.   On that I think we agree.   But Mike's comments CAN BE passive aggressiveness, but they can also be an implication, for those that like the nuggetz (and Mike is all about the nuggetz as his career has shown), that there is more to the story.   I think we're being disingenuous when we read things into DT's silence, but refuse to read ANYTHING other than face-value into Mike's social media statements.   

[bosk1]

But that's my point.  If what you know (or, 'think you know') isn't accurate, then BY DEFINITION it's not fact, and if you're basing your conclusions on something that isn't fact, it's speculation.    I don't want to argue with you, Bosk, because I deeply respect your insight, but I kind of think this is proving my point for me.

No, it actually doesn't prove your point at all.  What we "know" is what Mike himself has said.  We don't have to speculate about what went on behind the scenes because that is not what we are discussing.  What we are discussing is what Mike has said publicly. 

[jakepriest]

MP is being a "passive-agressive dickhead" as you say by definition because of his outburts on social media. It doesn't matter one bit what is going on behind the scenes that we don't know.
He's the one turning to the public in a very negative manner, that's what matters.

[Samsara]

Passively, they are. And legally, they couldn't stop MP from PLAYING those songs anyway. Releasing those shows is another matter, however...

You know they are stopping MP from releasing the shows? Link?

To the best of my knowledge the only "information" we have on the topic is a passive aggressive comment from MP about not wanting to deal with DT in order to release these shows. That tells us nothing other than (1) MP would have to work with DT to release these shows which makes perfect sense because they are DT songs and (2) MP doesn't want to work with them to do that.

Am I missing something?

Mike -- I believe they CAN stop Mike from releasing the shows because those songs are Dream Theater songs, not Mike Portnoy solo songs. The credits show that. It takes cutting through a lot of red tape to do it (and money).

I took your post as being a bit aggressive toward me. No need to be that way, I have no dog in the race, I don't take "sides." I was just pointing out that bands can routinely cover another band's songs. But when they wish to release that material is when it can get sticky.

It's basic copyright stuff (yes, I'm a lawyer).

[ToT-147]

Good choice of a vocalist.  The three guitarists though....what is this?  Guns N' Roses Circa 2006?

Yeah, because no legendary and so loved by MP himself metal band has three guitar players..


In all seriousness though, it would be nice to have Rich Henshall playing keyboards in some sections (specially with the symphonic-oriented parts on the SFAM tracks and adding some stuff in the long final section of Repentance)..

[FOXAN03]

Good choice of a vocalist.  The three guitarists though....what is this?  Guns N' Roses Circa 2006?

Yeah, because no legendary and so loved by MP himself metal band has three guitar players..


In all seriousness though, it would be nice to have Rich Henshall playing keyboards in some sections (specially with the symphonic-oriented parts on the SFAM tracks and adding some stuff in the long final section of Repentance)..

I was thinking the same especially with Overture 1928 or finally free would have been good to have Richard play Keyboards but even still they sounded awesome anyway

[Stadler]

I don't think it's "either/or".  I think it's two guys that don't care about each other that much.   All I'm saying is that it's not one-sided, and it's not as if Mike is making shit up to get his name in Blabbermouth.   

Relationships usually aren't a matter of either/or. Both parties usually contribute positively and negatively at different times to the relationship, once again, all I'm commenting on are public comments because that's all I know.

We're in agreement here.  All I'm saying is that before we comment on Mike's CHARACTER, we should probably consider and caveat that what we know is not only limited, but may be only a small fraction of what is at issue. 

That's a lot of speculation. Aren't you always the one that gets on people about signing or agreeing to a contractual obligation and then wanting out? I've seen you praise the sanctity of student loans as a contractual obligation that people willingly enter, so they shouldn't be allowed to just be forgiven of that debt. Doesn't the same apply to Mike? He willingly left the band, negotiations occurred around that, and everyone moved on (except MP I guess). So yeah, he might want things to be different now, but that doesn't change his responsibility to uphold whatever the agreed upon contractual obligations were.

Regardless, we have no clue what agreements were made, you are just speculating off a random passive aggressive comment Mike made. Clearly he is free to perform this music, because he is. I'm sure he could release it, but he seems unwilling to work with DT to do that, that is not necessarily DT's fault.

No, I'm not speculating, because I'm not arguing the POSITION, I'm saying that there are multiple, equally likely positions, and here's one.    I'm not at all saying "I'm right", I'm saying before you call Mike a bunch of disparaging names and write off his musical contributions because he's a "dick", that maybe we should consider alternative explanations that don't lead to that conclusion.   

As for the other part, fair question, but it's not quite on point.  If the person - individually - negotiates a revised deal with their lender, then I'm all for that (I do that a fair amount of the time myself).  My beef with the student loan thing was the bullying by politicians to force - by law - the lenders to accept a deal they didn't want to accept.   That wasn't a mutual negotiation, that was a bullying tactic that I don't support. 

Okay I'll make it clearer. You can't consider MP's livelihood important and not the other guys. You either care about that for them all or you chose not to. Either is fine. You are applying a different standard to MP than you are to the other parties involved, which is kind of the issue with this whole discussion.

Fair point.  Can't argue with that.   

[Architeuthis]

This has become a lively thread, allready 43 pages in a short time..lol! The name of this thread should be changed to "Hornets Nest".. 

[Stadler]

Passively, they are. And legally, they couldn't stop MP from PLAYING those songs anyway. Releasing those shows is another matter, however...

You know they are stopping MP from releasing the shows? Link?

To the best of my knowledge the only "information" we have on the topic is a passive aggressive comment from MP about not wanting to deal with DT in order to release these shows. That tells us nothing other than (1) MP would have to work with DT to release these shows which makes perfect sense because they are DT songs and (2) MP doesn't want to work with them to do that.

Am I missing something?

I've already covered this generally:  absent some specific agreement, he can play any SONG.   Like Gilmour plays Comfortably Numb, or better yet, Dweezil was "playing Zappa".  But when it comes to a complete work - The Wall, what the Zappa Trust said was the Zappa ouvre, here, arguably, SFAM or the Suite - the rules are different.  Again, ABSENT SOME SPECIFIC AGREEMENT.

As for the specific case, there is indication that DT has not blessed a live release of the concert.  We don't know why this is - whether it is a contractual block and they are not willing to waive it, or a required approval that they are not willing to grant.   But that's the excuse given.  And I have a real hard time with the notion of "taking Mike at his word" when it suits your argument (that he's a "passive aggressive dickhead") but when it counters the argument, it's "well, we don't even know if this is even accurate!".   We're both speculating here, and I'm open to all interpretations, but one interpretation, supported by some of the statements and actions since September of 2010, is that complete performances of set pieces - be it SFAM, or the Suite - may either be blocked or require the approval of the other party.   None of this is unusual.   As I said above, I would be completely blown away if Gilmour could legally stage a complete production of The Wall without Roger's explicit approval.  here, if you take Mike at face value (which you have to to make your other assertions even remotely valid) is that approval was not granted.   

[bosk1]

That is NOT taking Mike at face value, because Mike never said that.  What he has said can be taken as an implication that that is the case, but that requires assumption.  There has been no indication that there is any sort of block.  The block may simply be that he hasn't asked and doesn't want to.  It may be that he did ask and was told, "screw you; not only are we withholding our blessing, but we hope you choke on a drumstick during a stick toss onstage and die."  Or it could be something in between.  We don't know.  But you are assuming a lot that hasn't been said by anyone.

[Stadler]

But that's my point.  If what you know (or, 'think you know') isn't accurate, then BY DEFINITION it's not fact, and if you're basing your conclusions on something that isn't fact, it's speculation.    I don't want to argue with you, Bosk, because I deeply respect your insight, but I kind of think this is proving my point for me.

No, it actually doesn't prove your point at all.  What we "know" is what Mike himself has said.  We don't have to speculate about what went on behind the scenes because that is not what we are discussing.  What we are discussing is what Mike has said publicly.

AND

MP is being a "passive-agressive dickhead" as you say by definition because of his outburts on social media. It doesn't matter one bit what is going on behind the scenes that we don't know.
He's the one turning to the public in a very negative manner, that's what matters.

I don't at all see how you can willfully ignore the fact that there IS - not "we think", but we KNOW - information that bears on our conclusions.   

Why wouldn't you look for as much information as you can to make sure you're correct in your assumptions?    It's like saying "Hmm, I'm a huge Ritchie Blackmore fan; I'm going to invest in my life savings to follow Deep Purple around on this last tour" and totally and willfully ignoring that Ritchie left the band two decades ago. 

Don't you at all question the validity of drawing a conclusion when you KNOW that you don't have the full story?   

[Stadler]

That is NOT taking Mike at face value, because Mike never said that.  What he has said can be taken as an implication that that is the case, but that requires assumption.  There has been no indication that there is any sort of block.  The block may simply be that he hasn't asked and doesn't want to.  It may be that he did ask and was told, "screw you; not only are we withholding our blessing, but we hope you choke on a drumstick during a stick toss onstage and die."  Or it could be something in between.  We don't know.  But you are assuming a lot that hasn't been said by anyone.

This may be my bad... I thought he explicitly said that he would not be releasing a live DVD because of "drama from DT".  I could have sworn I read that. 

For some reason the "choke on a drumstick during a stick toss" made me laugh out loud.  I need a hobby. 

[ToT-147]

If what you know (or, 'think you know') isn't accurate, then BY DEFINITION it's not fact, and if you're basing your conclusions on something that isn't fact, it's speculation.

I kind of agree with you that we don't know the situation and therefore shouldn't be saying anything about Portnoy -or judging him- regarding his private life, and this include his past (or probably even current) life with DT..

But the situation we DO know is his commenting on social media.. So we were/are, at least most of us, judging those comments of him, and how they're, at best, poor combinations of words that leave us, the DT fans, and some MP fans too, way too confused, upset or at least uncomfortable..

Moreover, WHY does he feel the need to make those kind of comments?.. Why does he choose to make those cryptic sentences before US?.. With the experience he has on forums and social networks, I'm pretty sure he knows very well what happens when a famous person makes this type of statements... Is that what he wants?..

[bosk1]

Why wouldn't you look for as much information as you can to make sure you're correct in your assumptions?    It's like saying "Hmm, I'm a huge Ritchie Blackmore fan; I'm going to invest in my life savings to follow Deep Purple around on this last tour" and totally and willfully ignoring that Ritchie left the band two decades ago. 

Don't you at all question the validity of drawing a conclusion when you KNOW that you don't have the full story?   

Not applicable here.  Those that are drawing conclusions are drawing conclusions based on Mike's own comments.  There is no "full story" necessary.  What's more, there is no "full story" available, so trying to fill in the blanks requires speculation.  But, again, it isn't even necessary to get to that stage because, again, any back story isn't what people are largely commenting on.  People are commenting on the fact that he can't help himself from publicly taking shots at his former bandmates.  If he "tended his own garden," "stayed in his own lane," or however you want to put it, there wouldn't be anything to comment on.  But he doesn't.  He airs it out.  Why or what might underlie that is irrelevant.

That is NOT taking Mike at face value, because Mike never said that.  What he has said can be taken as an implication that that is the case, but that requires assumption.  There has been no indication that there is any sort of block.  The block may simply be that he hasn't asked and doesn't want to.  It may be that he did ask and was told, "screw you; not only are we withholding our blessing, but we hope you choke on a drumstick during a stick toss onstage and die."  Or it could be something in between.  We don't know.  But you are assuming a lot that hasn't been said by anyone.

This may be my bad... I thought he explicitly said that he would not be releasing a live DVD because of "drama from DT".  I could have sworn I read that.

He did reference "drama," but we have no idea what that means without speculating.  It could mean he has asked and DT withheld consent.  It could mean he was told, "Yeah, that's fine.  Talk to the lawyers to make sure it is all handled correctly" and he didn't want to be bothered and subjectively felt that, since they used to be like family, he shouldn't have to jump through those hoops.  It could mean that he didn't even bother asking because of any number of imagined boogeymen exist in his own mind.  It could be any number of things.  Again, we just don't know, and you are speculating that his comment means something that is actually attributable to the band.

[mikeyd23]

Mike -- I believe they CAN stop Mike from releasing the shows because those songs are Dream Theater songs, not Mike Portnoy solo songs. The credits show that. It takes cutting through a lot of red tape to do it (and money).

I took your post as being a bit aggressive toward me. No need to be that way, I have no dog in the race, I don't take "sides." I was just pointing out that bands can routinely cover another band's songs. But when they wish to release that material is when it can get sticky.

It's basic copyright stuff (yes, I'm a lawyer).

Went back and re-read my post, it did sound aggressive, I apologize, I didn't intend for it to come across that way. Sure they probably CAN stop MP from releasing the shows, but we have absolutely no information that they are exercising that power.

Except that's the point: a lot of people are doing an awful lot of commenting when they DON'T perhaps know the full story.  I don't either and I don't claim I'm right, but I know that there are other explanations - reasonable ones - that don't paint Mike as a passive-aggressive dickhead, and I'm willing to consider them.  That's all I'm saying. 

Maybe you and I are commenting on different things then, I'm commenting on MP's public comments.

Why is it logical?   What does the publicity have to do with it?  Totality of the situation.   Look, I'm no fan of the social media by any stretch (just the opposite) but if someone chooses to use it, that's on them.   On that I think we agree.   But Mike's comments CAN BE passive aggressiveness, but they can also be an implication, for those that like the nuggetz (and Mike is all about the nuggetz as his career has shown), that there is more to the story.   I think we're being disingenuous when we read things into DT's silence, but refuse to read ANYTHING other than face-value into Mike's social media statements.   

There probably is more to the story, I don't know anything you don't know. Once again, I'm commenting on the publicly available information.

We're in agreement here.  All I'm saying is that before we comment on Mike's CHARACTER, we should probably consider and caveat that what we know is not only limited, but may be only a small fraction of what is at issue.     

I'm commenting on his character based on what he has done and said publicly in comparison to what the other DT guys have done and said publicly, I think that's totally fair.

No, I'm not speculating, because I'm not arguing the POSITION, I'm saying that there are multiple, equally likely positions, and here's one.    I'm not at all saying "I'm right", I'm saying before you call Mike a bunch of disparaging names and write off his musical contributions because he's a "dick", that maybe we should consider alternative explanations that don't lead to that conclusion.   

As for the other part, fair question, but it's not quite on point.  If the person - individually - negotiates a revised deal with their lender, then I'm all for that (I do that a fair amount of the time myself).  My beef with the student loan thing was the bullying by politicians to force - by law - the lenders to accept a deal they didn't want to accept.   That wasn't a mutual negotiation, that was a bullying tactic that I don't support.     

First off, I don't think I've been disrespectful to MP, I certainly don't think I've called him names, I simply just don't think he's handled the last 7 or so years since the split well. I think he's said a lot of things that make him sound and look bad, I'm certainly not writing off his musical contributions, but I'm also not over-exaggerating those contributions (some here have). Second, I get the student loan thing wasn't a perfect analogy, but you get the point. If MP and DT agreed to something, then that is that. If MP wants to change the terms, he will have to deal with DT to do so and IMO shouldn't complain publicly about having to do so.

I've already covered this generally:  absent some specific agreement, he can play any SONG.   Like Gilmour plays Comfortably Numb, or better yet, Dweezil was "playing Zappa".  But when it comes to a complete work - The Wall, what the Zappa Trust said was the Zappa ouvre, here, arguably, SFAM or the Suite - the rules are different.  Again, ABSENT SOME SPECIFIC AGREEMENT.

As for the specific case, there is indication that DT has not blessed a live release of the concert.  We don't know why this is - whether it is a contractual block and they are not willing to waive it, or a required approval that they are not willing to grant.   But that's the excuse given.  And I have a real hard time with the notion of "taking Mike at his word" when it suits your argument (that he's a "passive aggressive dickhead") but when it counters the argument, it's "well, we don't even know if this is even accurate!".   We're both speculating here, and I'm open to all interpretations, but one interpretation, supported by some of the statements and actions since September of 2010, is that complete performances of set pieces - be it SFAM, or the Suite - may either be blocked or require the approval of the other party.   None of this is unusual.   As I said above, I would be completely blown away if Gilmour could legally stage a complete production of The Wall without Roger's explicit approval.  here, if you take Mike at face value (which you have to to make your other assertions even remotely valid) is that approval was not granted.   

Once again, I've never called MP a "dickhead" so I'll assume you are referring to someone else.

[mikeyd23]

That is NOT taking Mike at face value, because Mike never said that.  What he has said can be taken as an implication that that is the case, but that requires assumption.  There has been no indication that there is any sort of block.  The block may simply be that he hasn't asked and doesn't want to.  It may be that he did ask and was told, "screw you; not only are we withholding our blessing, but we hope you choke on a drumstick during a stick toss onstage and die."  Or it could be something in between.  We don't know.  But you are assuming a lot that hasn't been said by anyone.

This may be my bad... I thought he explicitly said that he would not be releasing a live DVD because of "drama from DT".  I could have sworn I read that.

He did reference "drama," but we have no idea what that means without speculating.  It could mean he has asked and DT withheld consent.  It could mean he was told, "Yeah, that's fine.  Talk to the lawyers to make sure it is all handled correctly" and he didn't want to be bothered and subjectively felt that, since they used to be like family, he shouldn't have to jump through those hoops.  It could mean that he didn't even bother asking because of any number of imagined boogeymen exist in his own mind.  It could be any number of things.  Again, we just don't know, and you are speculating that his comment means something that is actually attributable to the band.

Exactly, I was going to post a response but Bosk said it better than I.

[Samsara]

In an attempt to help steer this back to discussion of the tour, what has been the highlight for those of you who have seen it? What song(s) and why? Any particular person's performance stand out?

[bosk1]

THIS IS DTF!  WE DON'T STAY ON TOPIC! 

[Samsara]

THIS IS DTF!  WE DON'T STAY ON TOPIC! 

 

[Nick]

In an attempt to help steer this back to discussion of the tour, what has been the highlight for those of you who have seen it? What song(s) and why? Any particular person's performance stand out?

I mean The Glass Prison has always been a favorite of mine and to see that open up the show on the boat was awesome. Loved having Daniel out, but not knowing the lyrics well took away from his performance. Ted Leonard on the other hand was, as expected, full out awesome. Loved the band choice, as Haken + Gillette for practical choice is basically what I would have chosen anyway. I will stick by saying however that while I'm glad 3 guitarists were out tackling this, I wish they would have rotated and only had two on stage per song.

[bosk1]

The Glass Prison and Home would probably be my two favs if I had the opportunity to see this.  I have been hoping for those two songs in a DT set for a LONG time.  They actually played those two songs back to back at a show I attended years ago, but I ended up missing them. 

[MirrorMask]

Talking of back to back, even though I didn't go to the show I'm a little annoyed at how they don't play the entire suite in a row, since that was supposedly the whole point of the saga. I completely understand nobody wants to pass out from exhaustion by playing the whole run from Glass Prison to Root of All Evil, but I would have though there would have been a way to sneak it in a little break, like towards the end of Metropolis, to let the band breathe a little, and then connect This Dying Soul straight into Root (or find musical workarounds since I understand you need a different tuning for those songs).