DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
Dream Theater => Dream Theater => Topic started by: Mebert78 on April 18, 2014, 12:44:38 PM
-
Just saw a new interview in which JLB mentions the band's anniversary. He feels this year is the 25th, not 2010. It's not a big deal, but I just thought it was interesting because DT sold a few 25th anniversary items in 2010. Personally, I have a 25th anniversary hoodie that I wear alot. So it's interesting to hear that JLB considers this year to be the 25th anniversary. I wonder if the other guys feel the same way.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xpUe6RIXKU (6:30 mark)
JLB on 1985: "For me personally, that's when the band formed at Berklee. But as far as I'm concerned, the way I look at it... The first album came out in 1989, so as far as I'm concerned 2019 will be our 30th. I always go by when the band released their first album. I know it was established in 1985, because that's where Mike and John Petrucci and John Myung -- that's where they met. So the nucleus of the band was formed there, and then it spread out from there. So, to me, 2015 doesn't really commemorate 30 years for me. It commemorates 25. So how about we do something to commemorate our 25th...which would be now. The 25 years would be now in 2014, if we wanted to do that. We'll definitely, in 2019, still be going so I think at that point it would be really cool."
-
I know I posted about this before (tho I don't remember where), but I disagree with JL. I've never understood why the band's first album has to mark the official beginning of the band, especially when you consider that they recorded material earlier in their career that was circulated in the public (tho admittedly demos) and that they had multiple band member changes. In a band like Rush, I can understand why they chose 1974 as their starting point, because that's when Neil joined the band. But for DT, it makes more sense just to count from 1985 onward, especially since this has been how things have been counted from 2000 onward (the Metropolis 2000 tourbook marked the 15th anniversary).
-
The other thing is, considering that even WDADU was originally supposed to be released under the name "Majesty" one can say that Dream Theater wasn't a band until 1989 anyway.
To say, "That's when we started jamming" is not something I would consider the beginning of a band, just because people who would become its members were already around at that point.
Disturbed, for example, at first was known as "Brawl" (later Crawl). They didn't have an album or anything, and it wasn't until they hired David Draiman that he suggested they name the band Disturbed. Personally, I would say that was the point when Disturbed became a band.
With Dream Theater, it's a little more fuzzy than that, but I would say that Dream Theater as we know them, at the very least started after they hired Charlie Dominici, and not before, when they had Chris Collins and the Majesty demos.
Either way, there can be many potential answers as to when a band becomes a band, but if JLB feels that a band's discography defines their existence, then I see nothing wrong with that. And, it means that my DT 25th anniversary T-Shirt is still current this year. :biggrin:
-
Yeah, have to disagree with James here as well. Under his definition, I only ever played in one single band, because the others didn't produce a recording.
To me a band starts existence the moment the band members decide they're in one. And that will have happened very early on with DT.
-
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.
-
I'm not particularly precious about anniversaries, so I'm probably not the best person to ask, but When Dream and Day Unite is the moment the band emerged, screaming, into the world. You can count it a lot of different ways - if they want to celebrate a thirtieth in 2019, I won't object!
-
It all comes down *what* anniversary is being celebrated. If you're just saying "DT's anniversary", you can mean the start of the band, the first album, the first time MP took a shit in the tour bus toilet, whatever. To me, *without* any specific specifier preceding the word "anniversary", I will talk about the band. And the band has existed since 1985.
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.
But when you ask a couple how long they've been together, I'm quite sure they will include how long they had been dating before that. With JLB's analogy, dating couples are never "together" until they get married.
-
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 No! Marriage analogies . . . :lol
-
A band's anniversary should ultimately be up to the band; when they formed, when their debut came out, what have you. I'd personally have it when the debut came out since, yeah, we'd have been jamming for perhaps years before then, but that's when we came out into the world and first received wider exposure.
In the case of DT:
the first time MP took a shit in the tour bus toilet
-
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.
That's the thing, too. Usually when a bunch of guys start jamming and want to start a band, I mean, there are a lot of milestones. When the idea first came to mind with JP, JM and MP. But then, they said, "We need a keyboard player and a vocalist" so at that point, the band wasn't complete yet, and if it's incomplete, I would say it's not a band. Then they got Moore and Collins, okay, now they have every musician they need to have a band, so that's one milestone. First demo, , first gig, first record deal, and even then, there are steps, "When was the phone call made, when was the contract signed." It's all very fuzzy. I can't imagine JP, JM and MP still remember the exact day and month of when they first decided, "This should be a legitimate band." But once that album drops, it has a solid, concrete release date, and it's the date when people would be able to go to a store and see this band on the shelves, and purchase their music.
I'm not particularly precious about anniversaries, so I'm probably not the best person to ask, but When Dream and Day Unite is the moment the band emerged, screaming, into the world. You can count it a lot of different ways - if they want to celebrate a thirtieth in 2019, I won't object!
You know, that's a good metaphor. Instead of a marriage metaphor, a baby metaphor is better. You don't celebrate when a baby's parents first made that sweet love that conceived the baby, or when the doctor announced that they're pregnant. You know it's there, that it exists, but you only celebrate it once it's actually born, and out for the world to see. So first album is a legitimate time, if someone chooses to see it that way.
-
I find it rather peculiar DT would play a song on their 20th anniversary concert, Another Won, that is from their "doesn't count" era. Discounting the 6 tracks on the Majesty demos just because they weren't release on a shiny CD does not make a lot of sense to me.
I'm pretty sure most bands on this planet would meet you with incredulous laughter if you told them that none of their demos count, that they only become a "real band" when they release a CD, even though they had a ton of gigs already. No offense to James, but I also wouldn't be surprised if JM and JP disagree with him on that one. The years they labored to get the band off the ground, I'm pretty sure they don't just relegate that to "jam band" status. It might just be easy to view it that way for James since he wasn't part of it.
-
I find it rather peculiar DT would play a song on their 20th anniversary concert, Another Won, that is from their "doesn't count" era. Discounting the 6 tracks on the Majesty demos just because they weren't release on a shiny CD does not make a lot of sense to me.
Well, first of all, I think that just like Raise The Knife, Another Won was a song that was good enough that it really deserved an official release, even if it was in live format, and Score was the perfect platform to do it. The songs on the Majesty Demos were just that, demos. The band had a different name, different vocalist and a different approach back then. At most, it was an early prototype of what would become Dream Theater. With Another Won having gotten an official live release, I would say that's the only song from that era that's been inducted into the Dream Theater discography. Every thing else, Two Far, Your Majesty, etc. Those are songs by a band called Majesty, again, with a different vocalist, different approach, etc, so I wouldn't go about counting them as a part of DT's discography.
Second, yes, the band has always said they were established in 85, I mean, it's on the official jacket, and that's why they played Another Won. It was a special treat for those who knew the band's history. But honestly, to me, it always seemed like, they said they were established in 85, just to make themselves seem like they've been around longer. I truly always thought that it was a little pretentious to say that DT has been around for that long.
-
With Another Won having gotten an official live release, I would say that's the only song from that era that's been inducted into the Dream Theater discography.
Yeah, let's just say we won't agree on this one. The fact that a live play can elevate a song to "proper discography" whereas the songs from the same demo are considered "different band", yeah, no.
To me the Majesty demos are the absolute most-late point where I would say the band was "proper". And that was in 1986.
-
With Another Won having gotten an official live release, I would say that's the only song from that era that's been inducted into the Dream Theater discography.
Yeah, let's just say we won't agree on this one. The fact that a live play can elevate a song to "proper discography" whereas the songs from the same demo are considered "different band", yeah, no.
Okay, then you can say that Another Won was a Majesty cover song. :biggrin:
-
To me, JLB's comment brings a more interesting question than which year is the proper 25th. His comment shows the band was not on the same page in 2010 when they unveiled the 25th anniversary merchandise campaign. JLB was clearly not on board with it. He seems pretty firm in his stance that this year is the 25th. So, the obvious question is, who spearheaded all the 25th anniversary stuff -- the band or management?
-
I am curious about what JP thinks, but from the sounds of it, it doesn't seem like JLB feels too strongly about the issue. It's not like he spoke out saying, "It was wrong of us to do that in 2010."
-
To me, JLB's comment brings a more interesting question than which year is the proper 25th. His comment shows the band was not on the same page in 2010 when they unveiled the 25th anniversary merchandise campaign. JLB was clearly not on board with it. He seems pretty firm in his stance that this year is the 25th. So, the obvious question is, who spearheaded all the 25th anniversary stuff -- the band or management?
MP, probably.
-
Frankly, I don't give a damn about all this, but officially calling Score the 20th anniversary is binding and there's no way out of it now.
-
To me, JLB's comment brings a more interesting question than which year is the proper 25th. His comment shows the band was not on the same page in 2010 when they unveiled the 25th anniversary merchandise campaign. JLB was clearly not on board with it. He seems pretty firm in his stance that this year is the 25th. So, the obvious question is, who spearheaded all the 25th anniversary stuff -- the band or management?
MP, probably.
Exactly. JP probably had to sign off on it, but I'm pretty sure James and Jordan had no vote in it.
-
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 No! Marriage analogies . . . :lol
While we are on marriage analogies, do you still celebrate an anniversary when the father who raised the baby quit the family?
:marriageanalogy:
-
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 No! Marriage analogies . . . :lol
While we are on marriage analogies, do you still celebrate an anniversary when the father who raised the baby quit the family?
:marriageanalogy:
Dont cross the crooked step.
-
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 No! Marriage analogies . . . :lol
While we are on marriage analogies, do you still celebrate an anniversary when the father who raised the baby quit the family?
:marriageanalogy:
Dont cross the crooked step.
Wait... How's Mangini crooked?
-
While we are on marriage analogies, do you still celebrate an anniversary when the father who raised the baby quit the family?
:marriageanalogy:
They never saw the signs. He never said a word.
-
DID THEY EVER SEE THE RED LIGHT
-
INVENTORY!
-
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.
This.
-
SUCKIN' ON HIS PIPE.
LOL marriage analogies. You might as well talk about when life begins. At conception or birth. Doesn't really matter does it?
-
SUCKIN' ON HIS PIPE.
LOL marriage analogies. You might as well talk about when life begins. At conception or birth. Doesn't really matter does it?
I just addressed this a few posts ago:
Instead of a marriage metaphor, a baby metaphor is better. You don't celebrate when a baby's parents first made that sweet love that conceived the baby, or when the doctor announced that they're pregnant. You know it's there, that it exists, but you only celebrate it once it's actually born, and out for the world to see. So first album is a legitimate time, if someone chooses to see it that way.
-
I can only scratch my head here, and maybe it's because most of you have never been in a band. The first few years of any band are exceedingly important and formative. It's where the groundwork and structures are laid down for whatever comes after.
-
Frankly, I don't give a damn about all this, but officially calling Score the 20th anniversary is binding and there's no way out of it now.
:rollin
-
It all comes down *what* anniversary is being celebrated. If you're just saying "DT's anniversary", you can mean the start of the band, the first album, the first time MP took a shit in the tour bus toilet, whatever. To me, *without* any specific specifier preceding the word "anniversary", I will talk about the band. And the band has existed since 1985.
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.
But when you ask a couple how long they've been together, I'm quite sure they will include how long they had been dating before that. With JLB's analogy, dating couples are never "together" until they get married.
Thank you rumbo - I completely agree! If JL is referring to the anniversary of the band, then it's 1985 or 1986 at the latest since that's when the first full line up existed. If he wants to talk about album anniversaries, then 1989 would be it, assuming he's referring to the anniversary of WDaDU (as if they'd ever celebrate that anniversary with a mini set or perform a side of that album...) ::)
I can't imagine JP, JM and MP still remember the exact day and month of when they first decided, "This should be a legitimate band."
Maybe JP and JM can't remember, but I'd be willing to bet there's at least a 50% chance that MP does!
You know, that's a good metaphor. Instead of a marriage metaphor, a baby metaphor is better. You don't celebrate when a baby's parents first made that sweet love that conceived the baby, or when the doctor announced that they're pregnant. You know it's there, that it exists, but you only celebrate it once it's actually born, and out for the world to see. So first album is a legitimate time, if someone chooses to see it that way.
I get what you're saying, but I still think the marriage metaphor is more appropriate, since it's the celebration of the union of individuals, not simply what they produce (children or music).
The songs on the Majesty Demos were just that, demos. The band had a different name, different vocalist and a different approach back then. At most, it was an early prototype of what would become Dream Theater. With Another Won having gotten an official live release, I would say that's the only song from that era that's been inducted into the Dream Theater discography. Every thing else, Two Far, Your Majesty, etc. Those are songs by a band called Majesty, again, with a different vocalist, different approach, etc, so I wouldn't go about counting them as a part of DT's discography.
But you're still ignoring the fact that AW was produced by that first line up of musicians. And don't get me started on the excuse that they had a different name, a different vocalist and a different approach. They are still the same band as they were with different members. It's obvious you're not discounting Kevin Moore, Derek Sherinian or even Charlie Dominici, so why do that to Chris Collins? And I've already argued the name thing with you - the ONLY reason why we aren't calling the band Majesty today is because there was another band that already had the name. So the name issue means nothing. And as for having a different approach, even that I would argue. Yes, it's true that they may not write music the same way as they did way-back-when, but that's a matter of growth and maturity, not a complete change of direction. I would counter with the example of Pantera, who had a different vocalist for their first 3 albums, and even after they got Phil, they continued in the hair-metal/cock-rock style for their 4th album. They might be an example of a "different" band, and even then I would have my doubts. But with Majesty/DT, it's the same friggin' band.
Let's also not forget that ALL 6 of the songs on the Majesty demo tape, as well as a few other Majesty-era tracks (The School Song, Cry For Freedom, Resurrection of Ernie and maybe others) were all listed on the back of 20th anniversary T-shirt, along with all the other DT tracks. So your argument that these other songs don't count holds no water.
To me, JLB's comment brings a more interesting question than which year is the proper 25th. His comment shows the band was not on the same page in 2010 when they unveiled the 25th anniversary merchandise campaign. JLB was clearly not on board with it. He seems pretty firm in his stance that this year is the 25th. So, the obvious question is, who spearheaded all the 25th anniversary stuff -- the band or management?
MP, probably.
Exactly. JP probably had to sign off on it, but I'm pretty sure James and Jordan had no vote in it.
I agree with rumbo - probably was MP.
Even if JL and JR disagreed, they aren't original members of the band, nor are they leaders in the band, so if the original members/leaders in the band say so, who are they to argue?
-
I can only scratch my head here, and maybe it's because most of you have never been in a band. The first few years of any band are exceedingly important and formative. It's where the groundwork and structures are laid down for whatever comes after.
I've been in a band. It only lasted a few months and we didn't play any gigs and only released a rough demo single on MySpace. And while yes, I would say that we were a band, and we did exist at that time, but I would still say that those were early developing stages of the band. If you think of a band like a franchise, then it only exists as an officially released, finished product. If we had stuck around for a year, and then a year later, we had member changes that caused our sound to change, and were forced to change our name, then I would consider that a new band.
So you're right, the groundwork and structures are laid out, but like I said, it's a development stage, like making a movie franchise, or like I said, having a baby. Those development stages are when the people who are to represent the brand come together and develop that brand into what it eventually becomes, but until that moment, it's all just work in progress, or a "band in the making" as the case would be.
Maybe that's the difference. Whether a person sees the band as a product, or whether they see a band as a group of people who get together and make music. Personally, to me, a band, if you give it an official name, is a product. Dream Theater is a franchise, and as a franchise, it came to fruition in 1989.
-
I don't mind the band celebrating their 30th anniversary in 2019... except I do, because Score marked their 20th anniversary and was released in 2005. That doesn't make sense.
Except for when they're doing this in a tetradecimal system. In which case the band would have been formed in 1977. Well, it's Dream Theater, so I guess everything is possible.
-
Except for when they're doing this in a tetradecimal system. In which case the band would have been formed in 1977. Well, it's Dream Theater, so I guess everything is possible.
Wat?
-
:biggrin:
-
Regarding TGP's "that was when the proper lineup was established" argument, it's worth pointing out that DT has changed more *after * that supposedly official birthday than before. To recap, they have lost 1 singer, 2 keyboard players and 1 drummer since that "official" birth.
The longest stable lineup was SFAM to BCSL, so maybe SFAM should be the proper birthday of DT?
-
Regarding TGP's "that was when the proper lineup was established" argument, it's worth pointing out that DT has changed more *after * that supposedly official birthday than before. To recap, they have lost 1 singer, 2 keyboard players and 1 drummer since that "official" birth.
Yes, but like I said, this was all after they've been established as a brand. Obviously, sometimes it's inevitable that members change. But at that point, whatever new band member they get, that band member needs to understand what the band is, and what kind of music, sound and show they're trying to bring to the world.
Before that, it's a different story, because if a band doesn't have a single official release, then I think what they're going to sound like, and be like is completely up in the air. If all of a sudden they decided in 1987, "Let's drop the whole prog thing and be a straight forward metal band," they could do that without alienating anyone, because chances are, at that point, their fanbase is very small, if not nonexistent.
Look, you don't have to agree with me. I'm just saying there are different ways a person could look at it, and JLB's opinion and reasoning are just as valid as yours. Officially, the band has established in the past that "DT has been around since 1985". So at this point, I don't think there's any point in changing that. But personally, I never agreed with it.
-
I'm with TGP, but for different reasons. First of all, 90% of the bands I know celebrate their anniversaries based either on their first official album or their first single, or, at the very least, their official lineup formed. None of them applies to Dream Theater. Different names, different singers, they were a work in progress, no matter how much time and effort they spent.
Second, it goes against every historical standard. When do a movie celebrates their anniversaries? When the writers hands over the first script? When they start filming? The first trailer? No, no and no. When it's released. Period. Every historical date or commemoration is done when a significant event happend. All historical events start to take place months or years before the actual anniversary, but it isn't until there is a significant change or event that you start counting. Independences, revolutions, wars, birthdays, weddings... you name it, all start brewing well before they actually start, but it isn't until there isn't a significant and undisputable event that you pinpoint it as the actual start.
"I've been a doctor for 20 years"
"Really, you look so young! When did you graduate?"
"10 years ago :biggrin:"
It's not about not recognizing the actual work that led to the point of their first album, we all know how important that is, as important as all the studying a doctor did, all the events that led to a revolution, all the years dating to a married couple, but when it comes to celebrate an anniversary, all those things don't count, at least by every historical standards. If you want to change that, be my guest, it's not a crime, but when people scratch their heads over that, it's a clear sign that something is off.
BUT, in this case, the band already made that "mistake", call it what you want, so I'll say they pretty much are stuck with it, as weird as it may sound. They released an official material on 2005 saying "20 years of Dream Theater", changing it now would be a little weird, not as weird as celebrating those 20 years in the first place, but still...
I hope I made my point across, sorry for poor word choices, most of you know by now english isn't my first language. :-X
-
TGP, actually, the only people who can make the call on when DT started are JP, JM and MP. And the fact that Score happened in the year it happened probably shows that at least JP and MP view 1985 as DT's proper start. It doesn't matter what Jordan or James think when it started; they weren't around, for them it's remote history as much as it is to us.
-
When do a movie celebrates their anniversaries? When the writers hands over the first script? When they start filming? The first trailer? No, no and no. When it's released.
A movie anniversary is equivalent to an album anniversary, NOT a band anniversary.
TGP, actually, the only people who can make the call on when DT started are JP, JM and MP. And the fact that Score happened in the year it happened probably shows that at least JP and MP view 1985 as DT's proper start. It doesn't matter what Jordan or James think when it started; they weren't around, for them it's remote history as much as it is to us.
He may ignore this point of reasoning, since I already brought it up in my post, and he blew through it without responding. ;) ;D
-
When do a movie celebrates their anniversaries? When the writers hands over the first script? When they start filming? The first trailer? No, no and no. When it's released.
A movie anniversary is equivalent to an album anniversary, NOT a band anniversary.
So you're shrugging off one example, how about the whole point I'm trying to make? ::)
Which in case you missed is this: it doesn't matter how many years in the making something is, it matters when it comes out. By that standard a person is a doctor from the moment he/she takes it's first biology class, and every historical date is not only wrong but also impossible to pinpoint. A band starts, from a historical point of view, when they release something under that name, the first thing Dream Theater released, is When Day And Dream Unite.
-
Frankly, I don't give a damn about all this, but officially calling Score the 20th anniversary is binding and there's no way out of it now.
Absolutely. It's fine if James doesn't give a good god damn about what happened 1985-1989, because really why should he, but they already said it was 1985. They said it in 2005 and they said it in 2010. If they do a WDADU anniversary event for 2019, that would be great and everything (I want badly to see OAMOT live), but they're fairly wedded to 1985 at this point as the year of the band's inception.
And you can't even say this is a Mike Portnoy thing, even though I wouldn't doubt it at all if he was the one who first decided that the band formed in 1985. They sell, even now, a t-shirt (https://dreamtheater.fanfire.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Store.woa/wa/product?sourceCode=DRAWEBWWUSD&sku=DRA56033) that says on it "New York 1985." And there's a picture of Mangini on the shirt! Clearly, even though James feels differently (which again is fine because it's not like it's essential that the band agree on this), for all official intents and purposes, Dream Theater founded in 1985. And if the case is that the entire band does approve all official merchandise, then James was willing to approve the shirt that says they founded in 1985.
-
TGP, actually, the only people who can make the call on when DT started are JP, JM and MP. And the fact that Score happened in the year it happened probably shows that at least JP and MP view 1985 as DT's proper start. It doesn't matter what Jordan or James think when it started; they weren't around, for them it's remote history as much as it is to us.
First of all, I don't see why those are the ONLY people. Kevin Moore was a founding member as well, and worked on three of their albums, so if he ever decided to mention the words "Dream" and "Theater" in the same sentence again, I don't see why his opinion of when DT officially started, would be invalid.
As for JP and MP's claim on when DT started, if that's what they want to think, that's fine. But like I said, I think it's pretentious, and I think they only consider it that to make it seem like Dream Theater has been an established brand since 1985, when that's really not the case.
They can say what they want, but if someone told me that a band has been around since 1993 (for example), then I would automatically assume that in 1993, something by the band had been officially released. At the very least an EP of some sort (or in modern times, at least a good quality digital single).
If someone asked me, "How long has DT been around?" I would honestly say, "They released their first album in 1989. But the founding members got together in like, 86." That way, it'll let people draw their own conclusions of how long the band has been around, based on their own definition. I wouldn't say, "Dream Theater have been around since 1985," because that, to me, implies that they released something in 1985.
So while JLB and JR may not have the official say on when DT was established, they are well within their rights to have their own clear definition of what makes a band complete.
Sorry, Scotty, didn't mean to ignore you! :biggrin: But I think I addressed most of everything you said in my other posts.
-
Given the mediocre popularity of WDADU, and the fact that JLB joined for IAW, I would not be surprised to hear the opinion by someone on here that 1992 was the official birth of DT.
A successful band will have a shit-ton of important milestones. In the end, the most important is when they got together.
-
So you're shrugging off one example, how about the whole point I'm trying to make? ::)
Point taken - was in a hurry when I responded and that just caught my eye. As for more of your post...
I'm with TGP, but for different reasons. First of all, 90% of the bands I know celebrate their anniversaries based either on their first official album or their first single, or, at the very least, their official lineup formed. None of them applies to Dream Theater. Different names, different singers, they were a work in progress, no matter how much time and effort they spent.
<snip>
"I've been a doctor for 20 years"
"Really, you look so young! When did you graduate?"
"10 years ago :biggrin:"
Interesting comparison with the doctor, but I disagree. Said person was in training over those years and wasn't truly practicing to the fullest extent until he graduated. The band was practicing to the fullest extent that they could by 1986 (recording demos, performing live). Sure they didn't have a record deal nor were they touring the world, but if a record label had approached them in 1986 instead of 1988, perhaps their first album might have Another Won and a few of the other tracks on it and it would've come out in 1986 or 1987.
And as I said in my previous post, the whole argument about band name change and band members changing means nothing since it's still the same band, they continued in the same general vein on music (didn't change direction like Pantera) and never broke up.
Every historical date or commemoration is done when a significant event happend. All historical events start to take place months or years before the actual anniversary, but it isn't until there is a significant change or event that you start counting. Independences, revolutions, wars, birthdays, weddings... you name it, all start brewing well before they actually start, but it isn't until there isn't a significant and undisputable event that you pinpoint it as the actual start.
I get what you're saying, and in some cases it makes more sense than others. In the case of a *band* anniversary, I disagree. In the case of the band as a professional recording entity, I agree, but that's not what has been specified - simply just the band's existence.
Maybe we're weird this way, but my wife and I acknowledge the date that we met just as much as the day that we got married (and yes, they were on different days).
Now how about addressing some of the points from my other post? ;D
-
Sorry, Scotty, didn't mean to ignore you! :biggrin: But I think I addressed most of everything you said in my other posts.
LOL! Well, I'm still waiting for your counter argument on the name thing (which I don't think you responded to in the last thread that discussed this topic). :)
-
TGP, what you said about releasing a digital single actually brings up a good point. Today, pretty much anyone can get their music out there so long as they have the right computer software and an internet connection. However, that's obviously only been a thing as long as the internet has been a thing. Before then, band had to actually seek a label, and they could have been writing and performing together for far longer than that.
Take as another example, Iron Maiden. Their debut album was released in 1980, but they consider themselves to have founded in 1975. They played their first show in 1976 and basically spent the time 1976-1979 playing small shows in London pubs until they were signed to a record deal and recorded their debut. In the view of situations like this, where a band obviously had music and fans and played shows but had yet to be signed to a record deal, which was at the time the only time they could get music to a considerable audience, I don't think it's at all improper to state the date of their foundation to be some date prior to the release of their first actual album.
-
I don't think anyone downplays the momentous occasion that was the release of WDADU, but they had been playing, writing and gigging for 4 years up to that. You can't just write off a span like that.
-
Given the mediocre popularity of WDADU, and the fact that JLB joined for IAW, I would not be surprised to hear the opinion by someone on here that 1992 was the official birth of DT.
A successful band will have a shit-ton of important milestones. In the end, the most important is when they got together.
In terms of their sound, yeah, I would say that Dream Theater as we know them, became what they are after JLB joined the band. His voice has been a major factor in their style and their sound. And frankly, if someone said, "DT without JLB wasn't truly DT" I don't think there's anything wrong with that opinion.
And you, thinking the MOST important is when they got together, that's an opinion too, not a fact.
Sorry, Scotty, didn't mean to ignore you! :biggrin: But I think I addressed most of everything you said in my other posts.
LOL! Well, I'm still waiting for your counter argument on the name thing (which I don't think you responded to in the last thread that discussed this topic). :)
Last thread that discussed this topic? I don't even remember that. Please refresh me?
Take as another example, Iron Maiden. Their debut album was released in 1980, but they consider themselves to have founded in 1975. They played their first show in 1976 and basically spent the time 1976-1979 playing small shows in London pubs until they were signed to a record deal and recorded their debut. In the view of situations like this, where a band obviously had music and fans and played shows but had yet to be signed to a record deal, which was at the time the only time they could get music to a considerable audience, I don't think it's at all improper to state the date of their foundation to be some date prior to the release of their first actual album.
You know, if a band develops a buzz and starts playing shows before their initial release, then yeah, I would say that counts as the band 'existing'. Twisted Sister is the same way, they've been around since 75 as well.
But performing in front of a live audience is another way of putting your product out there. So even though a lot of bands who do that, probably start out rusty with no live chops whatsoever, if they actually start developing a fanbase, then yeah, I'd have to accept that it's a band and they have something real going on. Same would go for Metallica.
But in DT's case, and please correct me if I'm wrong, even with Chris Collins, they weren't playing live shows as Majesty until at LEAST 1986. So 1985 is still not a date that sticks with me, when it comes to DT being a band.
Like I keep saying, I don't think there is a concrete way of establishing when a band is a band, and not just a group of guys who casually jam together. That's why debut album or EP is a great, concrete establishing date of how long a band has been around.
-
And you, thinking the MOST important is when they got together, that's an opinion too, not a fact.
What either i or you think is irrelevant. It just happens that my opinion seems to coincide with the opinion of the founding members of DT. They were the ones who dropped out of college to follow that long shot, and labored for four years before you deem them to have properly started.
When in doubt, I would say listen to the guys who were there.
-
And you, thinking the MOST important is when they got together, that's an opinion too, not a fact.
What either i or you think is irrelevant. It just happens that my opinion seems to coincide with the opinion of the founding members of DT. They were the ones who dropped out of college to follow that long shot, and labored for four years before you deem them to have properly started.
When in doubt, I would say listen to the guys who were there.
Yup.
-
@TGP: Well, if they were playing shows in 1986, that means that they were certainly a band as Majesty in the same sense that Iron Maiden was a band in 1976. If that's the case I don't think it's at all weird to say "okay, they made their live debut in 1986, but they got together and started writing music together in 1985, so they founded in 1985."
-
What either i or you think is irrelevant. It just happens that my opinion seems to coincide with the opinion of the founding members of DT. They were the ones who dropped out of college to follow that long shot, and labored for four years before you deem them to have properly started.
When in doubt, I would say listen to the guys who were there.
Yeah, and it seems like because your opinion coincides, that you just dismiss everything else. How do we even know that the whole 1985 thing wasn't purely MP's adamant opinion? What if JP went on an interview tomorrow and said, "Yeah, I agree with James"?
@TGP: Well, if they were playing shows in 1986, that means that they were certainly a band as Majesty in the same sense that Iron Maiden was a band in 1976. If that's the case I don't think it's at all weird to say "okay, they made their live debut in 1986, but they got together and started writing music together in 1985, so they founded in 1985."
I would say that's a stretch. Especially because of the name change, and honestly, I think a name change is definitely a factor. Iron Maiden and Twisted Sister were called just that. But even with a band like Disturbed, as I mentioned, they were a different sounding band with a different name before, but the same core musicians. But it wasn't until they hired the vocalist, Draiman that he suggested they change their name to Disturbed. Personally, I would say that that's when the band Disturbed was established, regardless of when the core musicians originally got together.
-
Last thread that discussed this topic? I don't even remember that. Please refresh me?
Found the thread, but you weren't the one I was arguing with - LOL! Here it is (which is the same topic):
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=41113.msg1786406#msg1786406
Take as another example, Iron Maiden. Their debut album was released in 1980, but they consider themselves to have founded in 1975. They played their first show in 1976 and basically spent the time 1976-1979 playing small shows in London pubs until they were signed to a record deal and recorded their debut. In the view of situations like this, where a band obviously had music and fans and played shows but had yet to be signed to a record deal, which was at the time the only time they could get music to a considerable audience, I don't think it's at all improper to state the date of their foundation to be some date prior to the release of their first actual album.
But in DT's case, and please correct me if I'm wrong, even with Chris Collins, they weren't playing live shows as Majesty until at LEAST 1986. So 1985 is still not a date that sticks with me, when it comes to DT being a band.
You are correct. That said, you still argue for JL's point of 1989 being the official starting point! :P
Adding to this discussion is another thought I just had. Instead of comparing the band to a marriage or having children, I think the best way to compare it is to a company, because quite frankly, that's exactly what it is in many ways. Now you take a look at most companies - Apple for instance. Do you think they count their anniversary from the time that they got into a big building? Or maybe the day that the Apple I was sold? No. It was when they first got started. And many other companies are the same way.
-
Oh my fucking god, Scotty. I was just looking at the Wikipedia page of the Apple I to make exactly the same argument.
-
Yeah, and it seems like because your opinion coincides, that you just dismiss everything else. How do we even know that the whole 1985 thing wasn't purely MP's adamant opinion? What if JP went on an interview tomorrow and said, "Yeah, I agree with James"?
What if the tour bus toilet overrode everyone's opinion?
We can conjure up all kinds of hypothetical scenarios; in the absence of any evidence, we should assume that the band's celebration of their anniversary was at least vetted by the majority of the band.
-
I would say that's a stretch. Especially because of the name change, and honestly, I think a name change is definitely a factor. Iron Maiden and Twisted Sister were called just that. But even with a band like Disturbed, as I mentioned, they were a different sounding band with a different name before, but the same core musicians. But it wasn't until they hired the vocalist, Draiman that he suggested they change their name to Disturbed. Personally, I would say that that's when the band Disturbed was established, regardless of when the core musicians originally got together.
I might agree with that if they had changed the name for any reasons other than legal ones. There was no point where they decided anything to the effect of needing a fresh start or wanting a change in musical direction and deciding to change the name for that reason. They only changed the name in order to not be sued. The musical direction for Dream Theater and for the songs written as Majesty is pretty much identical as well, it's just that the Dream Theater songs obviously have more mature songwriting. The name change also did not coincide with a lineup change (at least, Wikipedia says that the name change occurred after they'd hired Charlie; I unfortunately do not own Lifting Shadows).
Keep in mind also that Dream Theater 1986 edition actually had more of their core musicians than Iron Maiden 1976 edition. DT had MP, JP, JM and KM, four out of five from the group of musicians that would record the first three Dream Theater albums. Iron Maiden had just Steve Harris and Dave Murray from the band that would record the debut, and the rest of the band went through several lineup changes, including once Dave Murray being fired for several months. Granted, Steve Harris was at that time far and away the band's primary songwriter (though there is some question as to how many of their early songs were written by other band members and had the rights to them bought or outright taken by Harris during those years, since Harris has a policy of not crediting former band members on songs recorded after they were out of the band [this is tangential, but for anyone who may be interested, it is pretty well documented that Blaze Bayley had a hand in writing at least Dream of Mirrors on Brave New World, but after Bayley was fired Harris bought his share of the songwriting credit]), but the fact still remains that there was a time in the late 70s when Maiden had only one member who would go on to appear on their debut. If you would say they still should get credited with having founded in 1975 in spite of this, I don't see why Dream Theater should lose out on that just because they at one point had to change their name or be sued.
-
You are correct. That said, you still argue for JL's point of 1989 being the official starting point! :P
I'm arguing that his opinion is valid if that's how he chooses to justify it. If JLB thinks that all those live shows they did in 86, 87, and 88 didn't count for being a band, well, then he's got a different definition of what makes a band, and I see nothing wrong with that.
If someone chooses to say that they consider "Majesty" to be a different band from "Dream Theater", I'd say that's a valid opinion too.
Adding to this discussion is another thought I just had. Instead of comparing the band to a marriage or having children, I think the best way to compare it is to a company, because quite frankly, that's exactly what it is in many ways. Now you take a look at most companies - Apple for instance. Do you think they count their anniversary from the time that they got into a big building? Or maybe the day that the Apple I was sold? No. It was when they first got started. And many other companies are the same way.
Okay, but if you count it as a company, then you can only count Apple a company from the moment they officially became one. I'm not really business savvy, so I don't know EXACTLY what it entails, but for the sake of argument, let's say from the moment they registered Apple as a brand with the copyright/trademark/patent office, or whatever it is. I don't know Apple's origins so this is entirely hypothetical, but a guy sitting at home with a personal computer, making software in his spare time, is not a company, until he gets a business license and registers his business.
When a band gets together and starts jamming, in most cases, they start making music right away, and don't end up copyrighting their name until way later. Hence why Majesty had to change their name right before their album came out in the first place.
So by business definition, Dream Theater wasn't a band until they got signed and their name got copyrighted. By those standards, you're only supporting JLB's proposed date.
snip
That's a good point. Still, I don't think the name change was meaningless. Sure is Majesty in 1988 different from Dream Theater in 1989? No. But if you ask me, then I would say that Chris Collins was never a member of "Dream Theater", only Majesty.
In a way, I like to think of Majesty like a caterpillar that ended up morphing into Dream Theater, which is the butterfly.
-
If you were to ask me about Chris Collins, I think I would say that he was a member of Dream Theater when they were still called Majesty and before they had put out an album. In short, he was a member of Dream Theater, but not a very relevant one. Similarly, all the random guitarists, singers and drummers of Iron Maiden during the late 1970s were members of Iron Maiden, but only the ones who appeared on their albums are actually all too relevant as members of Iron Maiden.
And you could say the caterpillar butterfly thing about a lot of bands who actually put out albums during what you'd call their caterpillar stage. Like you could say that the first few Porcupine Tree albums, when there wasn't really a band, just Steven Wilson writing things (and in quite a different musical style than later PT, too), were a caterpillar that morphed into the butterfly of the later PT albums (NB: I've not actually heard any PT pre-Lightbulb sun; I'm just going off of what I've read, so anyone please correct me if I'm wrong about anything).
-
And you could say the caterpillar butterfly thing about a lot of bands who actually put out albums during what you'd call their caterpillar stage. Like you could say that the first few Porcupine Tree albums, when there wasn't really a band, just Steven Wilson writing things (and in quite a different musical style than later PT, too), were a caterpillar that morphed into the butterfly of the later PT albums (NB: I've not actually heard any PT pre-Lightbulb sun; I'm just going off of what I've read, soanyone please correct me if I'm wrong about anything).
Well, the whole caterpillar metaphor is a little philosophical, so it depends on how you look at it. But in the case of Chris Collins, this is how I see it. Let's say I have never held a caterpillar or a butterfly in my life. Then suddenly I pick up a caterpillar, and I bring it home, for some reason. Now, I held a caterpillar. Then it turns into a cocoon and morphs into a butterfly and flies away. But even though I held that very same creature in my hand, I can't in good conscience say that I ever held a butterfly, only a caterpillar.
-
Hey, when I was a kid I brought home caterpillars once. I kept them in a Tupperware container that I poked holes in until they turned into moths, at which time I released them.
In any case, I guess you're saying that in this metaphor Chris Collins is picking up Majesty caterpillars and then they're turning into Dream Theater butterflies and flying away before he holds them? I get that, except that if you for some reason pointed to the particular butterfly Chris Collins had picked up as a caterpillar and asked him "have you ever held this?" the proper response for him to make would probably be "Yes," with the caveat "But only when it was a caterpillar." Neither "no" nor simply "yes" without any clarification would really be a proper response, but if for some reason he was only allowed to say one of those two and was not permitted to go into further detail, the correct response would certainly be "yes."
-
Well, I guess you could clarify, sure, but the thing is, like you said, he wasn't a relevant member. In the same way, that one might say Steve Stone was a member of Dream Theater. :lol
And you did bring up all those passing members of Iron Maiden. Now, personally, if I was one of those musicians, it's not like I'd be able to brag, "Oh yeah, I was a member of Iron Maiden, for like, one week, before they became popular." Because that's a non-accomplishment.
Just the same, if I was Chris Collins, and I said I was ever a member of Dream Theater, personally, I'd feel like a fraud making claims like that.
-
Now how about addressing some of the points from my other post? ;D
Fair enough ;D
First of all, I'm not disputing where the band that was going to be Dream Theater started. It's pretty clear that the very moment that MP said "we should start a band" and the other guys said "cool!", that's where it started. What I'm discussing here it's what should've been Dream Theater official anniversary. The highlighted words are very important to understand my point. The facts are what they are, there's no discussing that. And note that it's very different from the more ethereal form called "the band". "The band" started at 1985 or 86 depending how you see it, the very moment they gathered the five members, you can't really dispute that, I'm talking what IMHO should be the official date to celebrate.
Now, with that being out of the way...
Interesting comparison with the doctor, but I disagree. Said person was in training over those years and wasn't truly practicing to the fullest extent until he graduated.
Well... that's actually my point. In my opinion, Dream Theater 85-88 period was their training period, actually if you push me the entire era until 92 was their training period but that's another story. Then again, it's an example, the actual point is below(I edited it right in my answer to you).
You bring a good point, and it's how important the name change was. Well, for me, it's huge. For you, not so much. Most companies celebrate their anniversaries as to when they had their names, Apple was Apple, not Oranges or Steve Jobs and The Wackos. Majesty is Majesty, not Dream Theater even if the name change was as a result of an unforseen(and very lucky IMHO) incident. Even if it's not a definitive factor on itself, it is when you add these:
- Lineup changes, multiple singers until they settled for Dominici (which didn't even stuck anyway).
- No tours or significant live performances(MP himself says they were a "basement" band, not playing shows out there).
But the most important factor for me is, in absence of the former:
- No releases. Neither as Majesty or Dream Theater. Considering they didn't almost play any gigs, nor released anything, and none of the songs stuck for the first album, I would definetly consider this a period of developing stage of Dream Theater, not the official birthday.
I'll say it once again, for me it's not when it started, it's when it should be celebrated as their official starting point. "Dream Theater been around for 20 years" Really? Playing in your basement with a different singer in one or two gigs is not what I'd consider "being around" or important enough for a band of the size of Dream Theater to be worthy enough of being the anniversary.
I seriously understand what you guys are saying, and it's not undermining the huge and monumental efforts of constructing the band, they are after all the hardest years. But I consider them "devoloping years of the band that was going to be Dream Theater", not the official birthday of the band.
But then again, with a somewhat convoluted story like DT(not as easy as U2, Rush or Queen), it's normal that we are having these debates. In some ways we're all right, in others we're all wrong :lol, it just depends on the criteria. Mine is more line of how historical events are usually studied, but then again History is not an exact science, so it's not a definitive and undisputed criteria.
EDIT
I was supposed to underline that part, not cross it :P
-
Well, I guess you could clarify, sure, but the thing is, like you said, he wasn't a relevant member. In the same way, that one might say Steve Stone was a member of Dream Theater. :lol
And you did bring up all those passing members of Iron Maiden. Now, personally, if I was one of those musicians, it's not like I'd be able to brag, "Oh yeah, I was a member of Iron Maiden, for like, one week, before they became popular." Because that's a non-accomplishment.
Just the same, if I was Chris Collins, and I said I was ever a member of Dream Theater, personally, I'd feel like a fraud making claims like that.
Exactly. I agree. It's not like anyone is going to recognize his name, so the only time that's even coming up is if he brings it up, which, since he was not a relevant member, would probably involve him taking credit for a bigger achievement than he'd really made. Unless he wasn't trying to brag but merely to tell his friends a story from his youth, which could happen. The fact is that he was a member, but was not a relevant one.
-
Butterfly/caterpillar, Apple, :marriageanalogy: , baby analogy...
All this over JLB thinking the 25th anniversary should be this year? That's his opinion and he has every right to it, regardless of right/wrong/indifferent.
Wow.
-
Exactly. I agree. It's not like anyone is going to recognize his name, so the only time that's even coming up is if he brings it up, which, since he was not a relevant member, would probably involve him taking credit for a bigger achievement than he'd really made. Unless he wasn't trying to brag but merely to tell his friends a story from his youth, which could happen. The fact is that he was a member, but was not a relevant one.
Okay, but again, some elaboration would be in order. If it WAS a yes or no question, and the question was, "Were you ever a member of a band called Dream Theater?" then I would say the answer has to be 'no'. Associated with, yes. Been in a band with the members of, yes. But he was never in a band that was called Dream Theater.
Butterfly/caterpillar, Apple, :marriageanalogy: , baby analogy...
All this over JLB thinking the 25th anniversary should be this year? That's his opinion and he has every right to it, regardless of right/wrong/indifferent.
Wow.
Hey, it gives us something else to talk about besides, "What was your favorite 12th track on every 11 track DT album?"
-
Butterfly/caterpillar, Apple, :marriageanalogy: , baby analogy...
All this over JLB thinking the 25th anniversary should be this year? That's his opinion and he has every right to it, regardless of right/wrong/indifferent.
Wow.
It's a Dream Theater forum, what do you expect? :)
-
Yeah... I forgot how weird DT side gets sometimes.
-
Fuck, yeah. It's a ton more interesting than those dime-a-dozen threads lately. OK, maybe the vegetable thread was still better.
-
NOT THE VEGETABLE THREAD
:ontome:
-
Fuck, yeah. It's a ton more interesting than those dime-a-dozen threads lately. OK, maybe the vegetable thread was still better.
I feel like that was copying my, "If DT songs were food" thread. Which kinda died. :'(
-
I trust the numbering scheme of the man who was integral in founding and running the band for 25 years, whose influence is still heavily discussed and debated despite having left the band three and a half years ago, more than the man who sang from five years into the band's life and wrote lyrics on twelve songs.
-
Given that JLB wasn't around for those years, I don't count his opinion for as much as the founding members. They already celebrated the 20th anniversary in 2005 and released a DVD, so it's already strongly established that it's how they classify it. There's no doubt JLB would feel as MP/JP/JM do if he was around in those formative years.
-
Given that JLB wasn't around for those years, I don't count his opinion for as much as the founding members. They already celebrated the 20th anniversary in 2005 and released a DVD, so it's already strongly established that it's how they classify it. There's no doubt JLB would feel as MP/JP/JM do if he was around in those formative years.
He should've just said, "DT was established in 1992 when their first album with ME came out, bitches!" :yarr
-
Given that JLB wasn't around for those years, I don't count his opinion for as much as the founding members. They already celebrated the 20th anniversary in 2005 and released a DVD, so it's already strongly established that it's how they classify it. There's no doubt JLB would feel as MP/JP/JM do if he was around in those formative years.
He should've just said, "DT was established in 1992 when their first album with ME came out, bitches!" :yarr
If he'd worded it like that, I would have been much more receptive. :lol :metal
-
For the record, I'm not disputing the history. The band, whether all agreed or not, decided their 20th was on 2005, so that's it, they are committed to it. I'm just saying James has a point and I agree with him.
It has nothing to do with being there or not for me, I mean he's been the freakin singer for more than twenty years, and since the real launch of DT career. By now he is as big as a founding member, and Jordan too. Though I agree that on this particular discussion his opinion bears less weight, the whole founding member thing is blown way out of proportion most times.
I always understood he, like me, is not disputing when the band started, he's disputing when it's more appropiate to celebrate the years of the band. I disagree with James that it can be changed now, releasing Score automatically settled the story that way, there's no going back now.
Still, it's not a big deal anyway... just fun to discuss :biggrin:
If he'd worded it like that, I would have been much more receptive.
Maybe you would, but this place would be on fire, so I'm glad he didn't :lol
-
Regarding the ""How long has DT been around?" question, I was actually asked that recently by a co-worker who just started listening to the band and my reply was, "Basically, the early 90s, although their first album actually came out in '89." I never even thought to say 1985 or 1986.
-
Regarding the ""How long has DT been around?" question, I was actually asked that recently by a co-worker who just started listening to the band and my reply was, "Basically, the early 90s, although their first album actually came out in '89." I never even thought to say 1985 or 1986.
In that context, 1985 wouldn't have had any relevance, as your co-worker isn't going to find any DT album from 1985. The only answer that matters in that context is how long they've been releasing albums, not how long the band has actually been together, which is since 1985.
-
I've always struggled to decide when Van Halen's foundation date was - their first album (1978) or when Eddie first met Alex and they started singing together (1955) :P
I've always considered any anniversary a function of the debut album as it's something set in stone rather than when band members met/played together for the first time/recorded first demo/got first deal/played first gig/played together first with the lineup on the debut etc........ , but as some have said once you start doing "band anniversaries" based upon a certain date it would be a bit silly to start changing it now.
-
but as some have said once you start doing "band anniversaries" based upon a certain date it would be a bit silly to start changing it now.
That's my main issue. When you've already released a DVD that says "Score / XX / 20th anniversary world tour" right on the front, then that's what you're going with. :lol
To go back on that would only confuse and divide people. Had they chosen from the start to celebrate it based on their first album, then that would be their decision to make. And they can (and have) still celebrate the anniversary of their first album, and it doesn't make it any less important a milestone in their career.
-
That's my main issue. When you've already released a DVD that says "Score / XX / 20th anniversary world tour" right on the front, then that's what you're going with. :lol
To go back on that would only confuse and divide people. Had they chosen from the start to celebrate it based on their first album, then that would be their decision to make. And they can (and have) still celebrate the anniversary of their first album, and it doesn't make it any less important a milestone in their career.
You know what though? Re-reading JLB's quote, it's interesting just how confidently he says it. Not just, "In my opinion, a band's anniversary is their first album," but he's talking about celebrating their 30th in 2019, as if it's something the band had already talked about. I wonder...
Also, I think it's pretty clear that it has already confused and divided people. :lol
-
This is the most technical binding discussion I have ever read. It makes me think of two kids discussing who is cooler, Sonic the Hedgehog or Mario?
"Ya see, Sonic is inherently more capable of escaping danger because as a hedgehog he not only has a thicker layer of natural armor, but he can roll through enemies. For Mario to do anything other than punch bricks and hope there is a pipe he can go down, he needs to finds a feather which will turn him into a part-raccoon thus making him able to jump to great heights and flick his tail back and forth so he can ease himself gently back to the ground...or a levitating pipe."
While we are getting so technical about what constitutes what...is James the second or third singer of Dream Theater? Or how bout this....is he actually, what, the sixth?!?!?!
Technically they did announce Steve Stone as the official new singer (even though his tenure lasted for one week). After him Chris Cintron was essentially an officially member, they were just gunshy of going public with it. Then there was John Henricks who was almost an official member...or maybe he was. Didn't they basically say he was in the band, he flew back home, and they changed their minds? Their manager was even looking into hair extensions for him.
SO WHAT IS IT?!?!
-
James is actually the first singer of DT. He hit that F# and retroactively erased everyone else from history.
-
I don't know Apple's origins so this is entirely hypothetical, but a guy sitting at home with a personal computer, making software in his spare time, is not a company, until he gets a business license and registers his business.
I'm not gonna claim to know every detail about Apple's business history, but I beg to differ. I think the point that the two Steves said "let's make a company" is the starting point - perhaps with a handwritten agreement between them, or maybe a handshake. And I'd say the same is true for DT. It doesn't have to be until they got a record deal or copyrighted their name.
First of all, I'm not disputing where the band that was going to be Dream Theater started. It's pretty clear that the very moment that MP said "we should start a band" and the other guys said "cool!", that's where it started. What I'm discussing here it's what should've been Dream Theater official anniversary.
And therein lies the problem - it's not a matter of when everybody thinks it should count as the beginning - it's a matter of "when did this band actually start?" In the case of DT, it was the fall of 1985 (or spring of 1986 if you feel that the lineup had to be complete).
You bring a good point, and it's how important the name change was. Well, for me, it's huge. For you, not so much. Most companies celebrate their anniversaries as to when they had their names, Apple was Apple, not Oranges or Steve Jobs and The Wackos. Majesty is Majesty, not Dream Theater even if the name change was as a result of an unforseen(and very lucky IMHO) incident.
So let's say that the band actually came up with the name "Dream Theater" instead of Majesty in 1985, and there wasn't anyone else who trademarked the name, so that they were free and clear to use it when it came time for them to copyright it. That would negate this point of the argument, wouldn't it? So why even bring this point up? The band was the same band as it was with either name - that's a simple fact.
- No tours or significant live performances(MP himself says they were a "basement" band, not playing shows out there).
Hmmm...well I counted a total of 19 shows as Majesty (15 with Chris, 4 with Charlie) as opposed to the total of 8 shows they did with Charlie after the name change, which says something in terms of them doing live performances. And while it's true they weren't playing Radio City Music Hall, the last two shows that they did as Majesty were showcase shows, so I'd say they were significant enough.
But the most important factor for me is, in absence of the former:
- No releases. Neither as Majesty or Dream Theater.
Again, I beg to differ. While they weren't signed to a label at the time, they did release 2 separate demo tapes that they had mass duplicated and sold at shows. To me, that's enough of a release to include that era of their history in figuring out the anniversary. If you're unwilling to count those, then by the same token, you'd have to ignore all the home studio recordings that have been released independently by people since then, since it's basically the same thing.
Hey, it gives us something else to talk about besides, "What was your favorite 12th track on every 11 track DT album?"
I prefer the thread "What is each vegetable's neighbor's step-son's uncle's twice-removed grandfather's 3rd favorite DT song that has the word water included in the lyrics?" :biggrin:
SO WHAT IS IT?!?!
Pac-Man. DUH!!! :loser:
-
That's my main issue. When you've already released a DVD that says "Score / XX / 20th anniversary world tour" right on the front, then that's what you're going with. :lol
To go back on that would only confuse and divide people. Had they chosen from the start to celebrate it based on their first album, then that would be their decision to make. And they can (and have) still celebrate the anniversary of their first album, and it doesn't make it any less important a milestone in their career.
You know what though? Re-reading JLB's quote, it's interesting just how confidently he says it. Not just, "In my opinion, a band's anniversary is their first album," but he's talking about celebrating their 30th in 2019, as if it's something the band had already talked about. I wonder...
He confidently states that the band will still be going then (glad to hear!), and says it would be cool to celebrate it then. I don't get the impression the rest of the band is on it.
He sounds confident in his opinion despite knowing his opinion differs to how the rest of the band feel about it. Obviously 1985 doesn't have any meaning for him personally, because he wasn't there! So I understand that it has no personal resonance for him, unlike the members of the band who met at Berklee and formed a band.
James is actually the first singer of DT. He hit that F# and retroactively erased everyone else from history.
But it's hard to argue with such great thoughts as this. :lol
-
I don't know Apple's origins so this is entirely hypothetical, but a guy sitting at home with a personal computer, making software in his spare time, is not a company, until he gets a business license and registers his business.
I'm not gonna claim to know every detail about Apple's business history, but I beg to differ. I think the point that the two Steves said "let's make a company" is the starting point - perhaps with a handwritten agreement between them, or maybe a handshake. And I'd say the same is true for DT. It doesn't have to be until they got a record deal or copyrighted their name.
Well, see, there you go. It's as simple as people disagreeing on how something is defined. In which case, it's still all a matter of opinion. And like I said, just because a band says, "This band has existed for this long" doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with it, if it goes against that person's definition. I'm willing to entertain the idea of their 25th anniversary in 2010 because the T-Shirt was awesome. But if you ask me, at no point in 1985, did Dream Theater exist.
He confidently states that the band will still be going then (glad to hear!), and says it would be cool to celebrate it then. I don't get the impression the rest of the band is on it.
He sounds confident in his opinion despite knowing his opinion differs to how the rest of the band feel about it. Obviously 1985 doesn't have any meaning for him personally, because he wasn't there! So I understand that it has no personal resonance for him, unlike the members of the band who met at Berklee and formed a band.
Yeah, but it sounds like he's almost sure that it will happen. Like he's sure that if he proposed to celebrate their 30th anniversary in 2019, JP or JM aren't going to say, "But we've been around since 1985. Our 30th anniversary was 4 years ago, so no."
-
James is actually the first singer of DT. He hit that F# and retroactively erased everyone else from history.
Steve Stone could hit a mean B♭ but that put his destiny in an eternal state of purgatory.
-
James is actually the first singer of DT. He hit that F# and retroactively erased everyone else from history.
Steve Stone could hit a mean B♭ but that put his destiny in an eternal state of purgatory.
Is that where he spends eternity telling DT fans to scream for him?
-
Yeah, but it sounds like he's almost sure that it will happen. Like he's sure that if he proposed to celebrate their 30th anniversary in 2019, JP or JM aren't going to say, "But we've been around since 1985. Our 30th anniversary was 4 years ago, so no."
I didn't get that out of it at all. Keep in mind it was in response to a specific question about their 30th anniversary (in Russian, but I assume it was along the lines of what the band's plans were for celebrating the 30th anniversary next year).
To me he sounded alone with his thoughts on when the anniversary is. If he feels that strongly about it now, I get the feeling the band simply won't do anything at all either now or 2019, rather than go with his opinion on the matter, when it goes against what is already established.
But forget that, how about the fact it's almost a decade since the 20th anniversary tour. WTF? When did that happen? It can't be that long ago! The trauma of the Octavarium subforum will be with me forever. :lol
-
I didn't get that out of it at all. Keep in mind it was in response to a specific question about their 30th anniversary (in Russian, but I assume it was along the lines of what the band's plans were for celebrating the 30th anniversary next year).
To me he sounded alone with his thoughts on when the anniversary is. If he feels that strongly about it now, I get the feeling the band simply won't do anything at all either now or 2019, rather than go with his opinion on the matter, when it goes against what is already established.
But forget that, how about the fact it's almost a decade since the 20th anniversary tour. WTF? When did that happen? It can't be that long ago! The trauma of the Octavarium subforum will be with me forever. :lol
See? If you consider JLB's date, then their 20th anniversary was only 5 years ago... Which makes us all younger!
-
:lol You are raising some very compelling arguments here. I approve.
-
(https://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/013/034/yeahsciencebitch.PNG)
-
My $0.02: most bands I listen to (Opeth, Katatonia, Paradise Lost, etc.) have celebrated their anniversaries based on the year they got together, but I think the line-up and name changes make DT's case more complex. That said, Score was supposed to mark their 20th anniversary and they even played a Majesty song, which makes me think 1985 should be considered the year they started.
-
This is the most technical binding discussion I have ever read. It makes me think of two kids discussing who is cooler, Sonic the Hedgehog or Mario?
Sonic, obviously.
I think both perspectives on this thing are kinda flawed. You can count starting the year the band came together, but people rarely knew what year it is. On the other side, you can count starting the year the debut album came out, but that's like saying the band didn't exist prior to it.
-
Given that JLB wasn't around for those years, I don't count his opinion for as much as the founding members. They already celebrated the 20th anniversary in 2005 and released a DVD, so it's already strongly established that it's how they classify it.
This, and I'm not sure why it took 3 pages to get there. JLB can think or say whatever he wants, but it doesn't really hold any more weight than the opinion of my mother on this subject, and she doesn't know anything about DT.
-
I do think Mike Portnoy kind of loved anniversaries, and special shows, and the science of celebration, so I think it is, in retrospect, entirely consistent with his personality that he chose the earliest possible date to count from. I would not at all be surprised if he had the 20th Anniversary setlist planned in his head for months. That said, Score at 20 does just feel right. Something about it, it did feel like the cumulative total of two decades' work, and Score feels more like the end of an era than Black Clouds did, for whatever reason. The discography felt complete, a coherent tome. "End of book one."
With it already written into the band's lore - and how! - that 2005/06 was the 20th anniversary, anything else would feel a bit funky. We've been told so publically and with such panache that 1985 is the point to start from that the shift would look weird. But when I think of Dream Theater, I do think of 1989 as the point where the band starts. It all starts with A Fortune in Lies. Everything before is history, it's gestation, the band was incubating, and gaining form. WDADU is still sort of a prototype, but it's the moment Dream Theater stopped being an idea and started being a tangible "thing," it's minute zero, so I totally get where JLB's coming from, cos I think instinctively I tend to count from 1989, too.
As I've said, though, I don't especially give a fuck where they count from! This tour, in particular, has highlighted that I really couldn't care less how old any particular album is and whether it produces an integer if you divide it by five. Band anniversaries are a bit different, because that's an achievement, that's "Holy crap, we're still doing this" - but while 2015 is thirty years since JP, JM and MP jammed at Berklee, it's equally fair to say 2019 is thirty years of Dream Theater music, and I don't really care whether they celebrate both or neither.
-
Given that JLB wasn't around for those years, I don't count his opinion for as much as the founding members. They already celebrated the 20th anniversary in 2005 and released a DVD, so it's already strongly established that it's how they classify it.
This, and I'm not sure why it took 3 pages to get there. JLB can think or say whatever he wants, but it doesn't really hold any more weight than the opinion of my mother on this subject, and she doesn't know anything about DT.
Nah, it's been said several times already in this thread by me and others. I totally agree, how James feels has little bearing on the question. The only guys who can answer when DT officially started are the ones who've been around since the beginning. It's also worth noting that James has a somewhat vested interest in moving that goal. With his definition he's been the singer for as long as DT "matters". Under the current definition however he joined DT 5 years later.
-
It's also worth noting that James has a somewhat vested interest in moving that goal. With his definition he's been the singer for as long as DT "matters". Under the current definition however he joined DT 5 years later.
JLB was not in the band in 1989.
-
By 1990 though, right? So yes, Charlie "existed", but only for a tiny amount of time if you take the WDADU release as the time marker.
-
This, and I'm not sure why it took 3 pages to get there. JLB can think or say whatever he wants, but it doesn't really hold any more weight than the opinion of my mother on this subject, and she doesn't know anything about DT.
Well, that's going a little far. JLB has still been the defnitive vocalist for DT, one who's been around for over 20 years. Just because he wasn't there for the first couple of years when the band was still being developed and trying to gain attention, doesn't mean that his opinion of DT's history prior to him being around is completely insignificant. I think he deserves a little more respect than that. Scratch that, a LOT more respect.
-
It's no disrespect to James. It's just that he makes judgments on events he wasn't part of.
-
I think the definition of anniversary depends on which band we´re talking about, as many have pointed out here already. But hey, if they celebrated 20 years with Score, changing the criteria now would be a crazy move, almost Spinal Tap-ish...a 20th anniversary in 2006 and a 30th in 2019!!! :omg: :facepalm:
All that said, the whole celebration with special setlists seems to be more a Portnoy thing than anyone else´s, so I would prefer to wait until he´s back in the band to find out how they´ll deal with the issue.
-
It's no disrespect to James. It's just that he makes judgments on events he wasn't part of.
So? It's not like he's unaware of DT's history. Heck, he's probably still more intimately familiar with their history than even Rich Wilson.
I mean, I was never a part of the Glam Metal movement in the 80s, heck, I wasn't even born back then, but from watching documentaries and reading books about it, why can't I make judgments on those events? James might not have been THERE during their early years, but it's not like he's completely oblivious about what it was like for them.
Besides, he's not even making a judgment. He didn't say, "Anything they did before 1989 doesn't matter", he just says that his personal criteria for celebrating a band's anniversary is from the release of their first album.
-
It's no disrespect to James. It's just that he makes judgments on events he wasn't part of.
WTF? In what way is James "making judgments on events he wasn't part of"? The man didn't denounce all of Dream Theater history or kick Chris Collins in the balls or anything, he just said that he, personally, tended to count from the release date of the first album when looking at the timelines of bands. That's a perfectly natural and common way to look at things. He may disagree with the rest of the band on this. He may not. We probably won't know what every band member's opinion on this matter is because it doesn't really matter.
-
I typically would not be inclined to repost something I had already said earlier, but in this case I feel that this is something relevant to this conversation and particularly to theseoafs' post that got lost in a bigger post of mine a few days ago. For your consideration:
They sell, even now, a t-shirt (https://dreamtheater.fanfire.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Store.woa/wa/product?sourceCode=DRAWEBWWUSD&sku=DRA56033) that says on it "New York 1985." ... And if the case is that the entire band does approve all official merchandise, then James was willing to approve the shirt that says they founded in 1985.
-
This reminds me of something -- my University was founded in 1891. However, the first classes were offered in 1892 -- everything that was done in 1891 was administrative stuff. Both years are therefore somewhat important, and as a result, funnily enough, you can walk into the University bookstore and pick out one sweatshirt with "1891" written on it and another sweatshirt with "1892" written on it. The point is that, in any case where an organization convenes to accomplish a goal (whether that goal be to make some prog or to study some math), you encounter different milestones at different times, and different milestones may be differently important to different people. Whether 1891 or 1892 or 1985 or 1989 is most important doesn't really matter.
-
This, and I'm not sure why it took 3 pages to get there. JLB can think or say whatever he wants, but it doesn't really hold any more weight than the opinion of my mother on this subject, and she doesn't know anything about DT.
Well, that's going a little far. JLB has still been the defnitive vocalist for DT, one who's been around for over 20 years. Just because he wasn't there for the first couple of years when the band was still being developed and trying to gain attention, doesn't mean that his opinion of DT's history prior to him being around is completely insignificant. I think he deserves a little more respect than that. Scratch that, a LOT more respect.
Why? What could possibly be wrong with what I said? I said he can think or say whatever he wants, but his opinion doesn't matter that much. The only ones whose opinion on the subject really matters any more than anyone else's are JP, JM, and MP. Everything else flowed from them, and everyone else, even KM, are after the fact, and I doubt that KM even cares one way or the other.
So, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the idea that all opinions are equally valid just baffles me. On this particular subject, there is the opinion of JP, JM, & MP, and then there is the opinion of everyone else.
-
This, and I'm not sure why it took 3 pages to get there. JLB can think or say whatever he wants, but it doesn't really hold any more weight than the opinion of my mother on this subject, and she doesn't know anything about DT.
Well, that's going a little far. JLB has still been the defnitive vocalist for DT, one who's been around for over 20 years. Just because he wasn't there for the first couple of years when the band was still being developed and trying to gain attention, doesn't mean that his opinion of DT's history prior to him being around is completely insignificant. I think he deserves a little more respect than that. Scratch that, a LOT more respect.
Wut?!
You never discount anything in life because you were not around for it. It's the band's history, not James.
Hell I married this girl but the kid she had before isn't mine so the kid doesn't count.
-
I mean, there' no question that James is the next-closest thing to the triumvirate of JP/JM/MP, but James wasn't gonna be around for another 5 years when this picture was taken:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/51/Dream_theater_in_1985.jpg)
-
It's no disrespect to James. It's just that he makes judgments on events he wasn't part of.
WTF? In what way is James "making judgments on events he wasn't part of"? The man didn't denounce all of Dream Theater history or kick Chris Collins in the balls or anything, he just said that he, personally, tended to count from the release date of the first album when looking at the timelines of bands. That's a perfectly natural and common way to look at things. He may disagree with the rest of the band on this. He may not. We probably won't know what every band member's opinion on this matter is because it doesn't really matter.
This. So much, this.
And it's worth mentioning again that most bands do it the way JLB does (in reference to the bolded), so he's not exactly on an island here. :lol
-
It's no disrespect to James. It's just that he makes judgments on events he wasn't part of.
Like you don't!
Not just you - that's all anyone on this board does, ever, all day long! God forbid JLB has a go. Crikey!
-
It's no disrespect to James. It's just that he makes judgments on events he wasn't part of.
WTF? In what way is James "making judgments on events he wasn't part of"? The man didn't denounce all of Dream Theater history or kick Chris Collins in the balls or anything, he just said that he, personally, tended to count from the release date of the first album when looking at the timelines of bands. That's a perfectly natural and common way to look at things. He may disagree with the rest of the band on this. He may not. We probably won't know what every band member's opinion on this matter is because it doesn't really matter.
This. So much, this.
And it's worth mentioning again that most bands do it the way JLB does (in reference to the bolded), so he's not exactly on an island here. :lol
Is that really the way most bands do it? I mean, I don't really pay very close attention to when bands consider themselves to have formed, but I don't think it's just an "okay MP does some unusual stuff sometimes" thing to count from the formation of the band. One example that comes to mind is that Metallica celebrated their 30th anniversary in 2011 despite their debut album having been released in 1983.
Edit: For what it's worth, if I formed a band today and we put out our first album in 2016, I would want to celebrate our tenth anniversary in 2024. I wouldn't necessarily say it would be wrong to do it in 2026, but it would make more sense to me to do it the DT way.
-
It's no disrespect to James. It's just that he makes judgments on events he wasn't part of.
Like you don't!
Not just you - that's all anyone on this board does, ever, all day long! God forbid JLB has a go. Crikey!
You conveniently must have overlooked the myriad posts that stated that whatever *we* think, just as much as what James thinks, is irrelevant. There are three people on this planet who can make the call on when DT started properly, and they made their opinion rather clear with the release of a DVD. All we're doing here is to defend the decision (one we agree with) with what we perceive as the most likely rationale for their decision.
-
This, and I'm not sure why it took 3 pages to get there. JLB can think or say whatever he wants, but it doesn't really hold any more weight than the opinion of my mother on this subject, and she doesn't know anything about DT.
Well, that's going a little far. JLB has still been the defnitive vocalist for DT, one who's been around for over 20 years. Just because he wasn't there for the first couple of years when the band was still being developed and trying to gain attention, doesn't mean that his opinion of DT's history prior to him being around is completely insignificant. I think he deserves a little more respect than that. Scratch that, a LOT more respect.
Wut?!
You never discount anything in life because you were not around for it. It's the band's history, not James.
Hell I married this girl but the kid she had before isn't mine so the kid doesn't count.
Another marriage/child analogy!!!! :metal
-
BTW...
Black Sabbath was just as much Black Sabbath when they were the Polka Tulk Blues band and had a slide guitar and sax player!!!!!! <-------Green font
-
I mean, there' no question that James is the next-closest thing to the triumvirate of JP/JM/MP, but James wasn't gonna be around for another 5 years when this picture was taken:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/51/Dream_theater_in_1985.jpg)
Yes, and when I look at this picture, what I see is 3 good friends who are musicians that would, in the next couple of years, go on to make a band called Dream Theater.
-
Those 3 chums dropped out of college because of the band, and sold more than 1,000 copies of their demo in 1986. Sure, they were just a garage band at that point.
You spoke of respect for JLB; I would say you're showing enormous lack of respect of what those 3 guys achieved before they released WDADU.
-
Hey, I'm not trying to denounce that kind of an accomplishment. But they were still far from being Dream Theater. Like I said, they were still at their caterpillar stage, growing into what DT would eventually become. But at that time, they were still far from it.
-
This is about a stupid of an argument as when Rush's Clockwork Angels was released and it was touted as "their 20th album", which counted their Feedback EP as an "album". To me, CA is their 19th full-length studio album, and not their 20th.
And to me, Dream Theater was established back in 1985.
-Marc.
-
Hey, I'm not trying to denounce that kind of an accomplishment. But they were still far from being Dream Theater. Like I said, they were still at their caterpillar stage, growing into what DT would eventually become. But at that time, they were still far from it.
So they were after WDADU. The "When Dream and Tour Unite" tour had .... 5 concerts. WDADU was essentially no more successful than the Majesty demos. Even less so actually, as they had a pretty solid gigging schedule in 1986 with Chris Collins, with 16 gigs in 5 months.
So, if you want to put some the marker at "where they took off", you have to view IAW as the birthday of DT. The release of WDADU was a complete dud.
-
So they were after WDADU. The "When Dream and Tour Unite" tour had .... 5 concerts. WDADU was essentially no more successful than the Majesty demos. Even less so actually, as they had a pretty solid gigging schedule in 1986 with Chris Collins, with 16 gigs in 5 months.
So, if you want to put some the marker at "where they took off", you have to view IAW as the birthday of DT.
Look, you keep trying to hammer in that if you take a popular band, even if it goes through member changes, style changes, and name changes, not to mention 4 years of growth, before their first album comes out, that band has technically been around from the moment its very first members said, "Let's make a band together." And I disagree, it's as simple as that. It's different for every band. And personally, that day when MP walked in on JP and JM jamming together, and joined them, and they made the decision to drop out and start a band, that was not enough to mark the official birth of Dream Theater in my eyes.
-
But it was enough for the band's eyes, seeing the 20th anniversary tour/show/merch/release and the 25th anniviersary merch.
-
But it was enough for the band's eyes, seeing the 20th anniversary tour/show/merch/release and the 25th anniviersary merch.
And for the third time, I say, I think that's a little pretentious of them to claim. I consider that embellishment.
-
But it was enough for the band's eyes, seeing the 20th anniversary tour/show/merch/release and the 25th anniviersary merch.
And for the third time, I say, I think that's a little pretentious of them to claim. I consider that embellishment.
And as I think as been said umpteen times already, you (and JL) are welcome to your opinions on what you *think* should be the right time (which to me sounds pretentious) as opposed to what the 3 guys who were there right from the start have determined as the beginning of the band that they want to count when doing anniversaries.
-
But it was enough for the band's eyes, seeing the 20th anniversary tour/show/merch/release and the 25th anniviersary merch.
I think MP was a little anniversary happy. He is just aching to do all these "special" shows.
I mean really, it would have killed him to do a show with an orchestra on the 15th anniversary of the band because Score can also mean 20 so ya gotta do it on 20 so that year was the 20th anniversary of the band even though they weren't in the conscience of 98% of the fans for more than 13 years.
-
This will be a great thread to remember once this pointless argument is locked up and archived. :lol An extravagant moment in DTF history.
-
And as I think as been said umpteen times already, you (and JL) are welcome to your opinions on what you *think* should be the right time (which to me sounds pretentious) as opposed to what the 3 guys who were there right from the start have determined as the beginning of the band that they want to count when doing anniversaries.
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"?
-
In that situation, I'd say they've all gone apeshit.
-
This, and I'm not sure why it took 3 pages to get there. JLB can think or say whatever he wants, but it doesn't really hold any more weight than the opinion of my mother on this subject, and she doesn't know anything about DT.
Well, that's going a little far. JLB has still been the defnitive vocalist for DT, one who's been around for over 20 years. Just because he wasn't there for the first couple of years when the band was still being developed and trying to gain attention, doesn't mean that his opinion of DT's history prior to him being around is completely insignificant. I think he deserves a little more respect than that. Scratch that, a LOT more respect.
Why? What could possibly be wrong with what I said? I said he can think or say whatever he wants, but his opinion doesn't matter that much. The only ones whose opinion on the subject really matters any more than anyone else's are JP, JM, and MP. Everything else flowed from them, and everyone else, even KM, are after the fact, and I doubt that KM even cares one way or the other.
So, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the idea that all opinions are equally valid just baffles me. On this particular subject, there is the opinion of JP, JM, & MP, and then there is the opinion of everyone else.
Saying the singer of Dream Theater's opinion on a band matter is as valid as your grandmother is a tiny bit disrepectful. He might not have been there, but he's still an essencial member of the band, to me as much as MP, JP and JM. But hey, no big deal.
Anyway this thread have gone sterile, I'll just say that what strikes me the most weird is a band celebrating their 20th anniversary when they had only been around for 13 years, or 15 if you push me, and no matter what any band member say, I will still find it weird. I mean if they made a party celebrating how much time they are together it's one thing, but "20 years of Dream Theater music" concert with their fans is another. It's not a big deal anyway, just a date after all, and we got a great concert out of it so in the end it was all for the better.
-
But it was enough for the band's eyes, seeing the 20th anniversary tour/show/merch/release and the 25th anniviersary merch.
I think MP was a little anniversary happy. He is just aching to do all these "special" shows.
I mean really, it would have killed him to do a show with an orchestra on the 15th anniversary of the band because Score can also mean 20 so ya gotta do it on 20 so that year was the 20th anniversary of the band even though they weren't in the conscience of 98% of the fans for more than 13 years.
Yes, it was just MP that was anniversary happy. Curse him!
You mustn't have seen this tour's setlist yet.
-
But it was enough for the band's eyes, seeing the 20th anniversary tour/show/merch/release and the 25th anniviersary merch.
I think MP was a little anniversary happy. He is just aching to do all these "special" shows.
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.
-
But it was enough for the band's eyes, seeing the 20th anniversary tour/show/merch/release and the 25th anniviersary merch.
I think MP was a little anniversary happy. He is just aching to do all these "special" shows.
I mean really, it would have killed him to do a show with an orchestra on the 15th anniversary of the band because Score can also mean 20 so ya gotta do it on 20 so that year was the 20th anniversary of the band even though they weren't in the conscience of 98% of the fans for more than 13 years.
Yes, it was just MP that was anniversary happy. Curse him!
You mustn't have seen this tour's setlist yet.
Oh? Is the tour named the "Decade Ago (plus another 5) Anniversary Tour of Two Albums Even Though It Only Encompasses 1/3 of Our Show Tour"? or is it just a nice little reminder of some small milestones?
Answer: The latter (although I think my mocking tour title actually has a nice ring to it)
Also, did you guys realizes this thread was created almost three days ago?!?!?! HAPPY ANNIVERSARY!!!!!
-
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.
-
Rush turns 40 in 2014 even though they formed as a band in 1968. Are they doing it wrong?
-
And The Rolling Stones had their 50th anniversary tour in 2012 because they formed in 1962. Are they doing it wrong?
It's up to the band to decide what they consider the "start" of the band, and DT has already made their choice on the matter.
-
And The Rolling Stones had their 50th anniversary tour in 2012 because they formed in 1962. Are they doing it wrong?
It's up to the band to decide what they consider the "start" of the band, and DT has already made their choice on the matter.
Yet here we have JLB saying that in his opinion, it should be something different. Too bad he's not in the band... Oh wait...
Here's, another perspective on the matter, just watch this scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CL7QETJNk0&list=PL5916A644FBC45AD9#t=1277
-
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.
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.
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.
AMEN!
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.
And AMEN again!
Rush turns 40 in 2014 even though they formed as a band in 1968. Are they doing it wrong?
As Blob already pointed out, different bands treat the anniversary differently. And as I already mentioned earlier in this thread, in Rush's case, it makes more sense for them to consider 1974 to be their starting point, since that's when Neil joined the band. For that matter, Neil's joining the band marks the time that they began to go in more of a progressive direction (which Rutsey wasn't into).
Now if you wanna start counting DT's official starting time from the time they added their new drummer, be my guest. We'll just be waiting another 27 years or so until we can celebrate their 30th anniversary... ::)
-
Rush's first album, Rush was released in 1974 and that's why they celebrate 40 years together not Neil joining. Rush went with their first release.
-
Rush's first album, Rush was released in 1974 and that's why they celebrate 40 years together not Neil joining. Rush went with their first release.
Prove me wrong and I'll admit to being under the wrong impression, but do you have any interviews to point me to that specifically state that they counted 1974 as their beginning point solely because that's when the first album was released? Yes the debut was released in 1974, but as I said, that was the year Neil joined and they became the band that they have been ever since.
-
I'd have to look but I remember Geddy in interviews stating since their first release. I'm at work so I'll check it out when I'm at home later today.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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. :heart
-
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"?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Yes, Master Of Who Decides When Bands Start :lol
-
Yes, Master Of Who Decides When Bands Start :lol
Better recognize!
-
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.
-
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.
-
But why would anyone care.
-
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.
-
Personally, I think we should go back to talking about Kevin Moore.
I wonder when he would have wanted the anniversary to be.
-
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."
-
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.
(https://media.fanfire.com/images/product/zoom/DRA/DRA53084.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
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. :P
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
So, err, that Californian band threatening Majesty was some sort of divine intervention?
-
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. :biggrin:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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! :lol 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.
-
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
-
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. :coolio
-
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?
-
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.
-
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! :tdwn
-
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).
-
Oh, so they should cater to your personal tastes? ;)
I never said that. As I said, all but 4 songs in the setlist are covered by only 3 albums, and 2 of those remaining songs are songs that were played heavily on just the last tour. With how much they're not covering, chances are a lot of fans are missing out on at least some favourites.
They also have to consider that not every fan has been able to see a show of every setlist from every tour, so the fact they played a song off an album a couple of tours ago shouldn't be any deterrent to play a song off the album again. Believe me, I'm certainly not complaining about them giving a rest to something like TSCO or WIMH/TTTSTA. :lol
As I said, a little more balance is all I'd like to have seen. The current setlist is an extreme, and restricted, regardless of what the few albums covered are. Even if those were all albums I loved, that wouldn't make it any more well balanced a setlist, just one I'd personally prefer, just as the inclusion of a huge chunk of Awake makes it one you personally prefer.
-
The "Oh, so they should cater to your personal tastes?" line was meant for adastra, whose post was after yours and right before mine. I didn't quote it cause I thought it would be obvious who I was talking to. :lol :facepalm:
-
The "Oh, so they should cater to your personal tastes?" line was meant for adastra, whose post was after yours and right before mine. I didn't quote it cause I thought it would be obvious who I was talking to. :lol :facepalm:
But......... but.......... my bad. :lol
-
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:
I do think that the three songs that they did NOT play this time around, have a lot of "average tour" potential. The Looking Glass, Behind The Veil and Surrender To Reason all seem like they'd be great candidates for any setlist. And The Looking Glass especially, has become a fan favorite.
-
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.
I think this tour has been pretty kickass in that light, actually. I've only been a fan since the Score era or thereabouts, and I would've been too young to properly experience the SFAM tour anyway. The mini-sets are especially tremendous for recent fans because they give a taste of tours recent fans wouldn't have been able to see. And DT have been pretty good about varying which songs they play from tour to tour, which means other albums will get their time in the sun.
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.
Yeah, crossing my fingers for that too.
-
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.
Nonsense! DT are a band that's still growing. The most important thing is what's happening right now - hence the self title!
Besides, they're playing loads of stuff off Awake, which bombed on release, and nothing from Images and Words, which genuinely is a huge legacy album. They're probing the obscure stuff, it's pretty much the polar opposite of a greatest hits tour.
-
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.
Nonsense! DT are a band that's still growing. The most important thing is what's happening right now - hence the self title!
Besides, they're playing loads of stuff off Awake, which bombed on release, and nothing from Images and Words, which genuinely is a huge legacy album. They're probing the obscure stuff, it's pretty much the polar opposite of a greatest hits tour.
All this.
As it should be.
-
I don't think DT could really have a "greatest hits" kind of format. They're not really the kind of band that attracts casual fans, and besides, I don't think they really have any greatest hits, other than Pull Me Under.
-
I don't think DT could really have a "greatest hits" kind of format. They're not really the kind of band that attracts casual fans, and besides, I don't think they really have any greatest hits, other than Pull Me Under.
Yeah, but they have at least 21 other pretty cool songs.
-
:icy:
-
Besides, they're playing loads of stuff off Awake, which bombed on release, and nothing from Images and Words, which genuinely is a huge legacy album. They're probing the obscure stuff, it's pretty much the polar opposite of a greatest hits tour.
Wot?
Awake peaked at 32 on the Billboard 200, remaining in the charts for six weeks. This would remain the band's highest-charting release in the US until Systematic Chaos in 2007.[1] The album peaked in the top 20 in four countries
(from here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awake_(Dream_Theater_album)#Reception))
I can only speak for the Boston gig, but the amount of cheers was clearly, SFAM -> Awake -> newer material.
-
I don't think DT could really have a "greatest hits" kind of format. They're not really the kind of band that attracts casual fans, and besides, I don't think they really have any greatest hits, other than Pull Me Under.
It's been done - they're not everyone's favourite band. They're well known in metal circles, so a lot of metalheads have surface knowledge of them; might like them but not feel compelled to catch up with everything.
That said, they can and have done greatest hits setlists. When they rotated setlists, they'd set about playing all their signature tracks in new territories. Mentioned this a couple of weeks ago, but I was at the Newport Centre in 2007 - they were saying how it was a decade since they'd last been to Wales. I think they thought it was some distant foreign country, and I also think that was reflected in the set:
1. Constant Motion
2. Panic Attack
3. Endless Sacrifice
4. Surrounded
5. The Dark Eternal Night
6. As I Am
7. I Walk Beside You
8. The Spirit Carries On
9. In the Presence of Enemies
https://www.setlist.fm/setlist/dream-theater/2007/newport-centre-newport-wales-23d6d0d7.html
Staples 'n' singles!
-
If DT were gonna do a greatest hits-type tour, it'd probably look something like this:
Set 1
Pull Me Under
I Walk Beside You
The Dark Eternal Night
On the Backs of Angels
Home
The Looking Glass
As I Am
The Spirit Carries On
Take the Time
Set 2
The Glass Prison
Forsaken
Another Day
Solitary Shell
Peruvian Skies
Octavarium / A Change of Seasons (rotated)
Encore
Metropolis / Learning to Live (rotated)
-
What they did last tour, while I wouldn't say it was the "Greatest Hits" setlist, but aside from ADTOE, it was a "sample a little bit from every album" setlist, and many of those songs were fan favorites. Songs like Ytse Jam, Caught In A Web, LTL, TSCO, etc. So that was a great setlist for anyone who's never seen DT before. That doesn't mean they have to include those songs on every tour, just because they're more popular.
Frankly, while I doubt this will happen, I'm hoping they'll retire Pull Me Under for a couple of tours all together. If they decided to stop writing for a while, and let's say dedicated a couple of years to just touring on and off, without necessarily promoting any new material, personally, I'd like to see more obscure stuff resurface.
I'm hoping in 2017 they'll do a FII anniversary setlist, and include songs like YNM (or even YOM), TAMP, LITS and Anna Lee.
-
I'm hoping in 2017 they'll do a FII anniversary setlist, and include songs like YNM (or even YOM)
I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
-
I'm hoping in 2017 they'll do a FII anniversary setlist, and include songs like YNM (or even YOM)
I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
Considering they played Space-Dye Vest for the first time ever this tour, I would say anything is possible.
-
Looking at things realistically, and taking into account what DT's history with that song has been, I wouldn't.
-
JP liked it! He was in favour of the FII meddling, it challenged him to try a whole load of different things.
-
JP liked it! He was in favour of the FII meddling, it challenged him to try a whole load of different things.
Exactly. As I recall, MP was the only one who had to be dragged into the whole thing kicking and screaming.
-
I'm not sure a lot of fans are dying to hear YNM live :lol
-
I'm not sure a lot of fans are dying to hear YNM live :lol
Maybe not a lot of DTFers, but you never know. I don't exactly hear a lot of praise for Lie, TSF, or TDEN, those still got played. I'd love to hear YNM live. I can imagine them doing something snazzy with it, maybe adding an extended instrumental breakdown or something of the sort.
That, and I want them to play it specifically to troll KevShmev. :biggrin:
-
I'm not sure a lot of fans are dying to hear YNM live :lol
I'm not, but it might become one of those songs that become better liked once they're seen live. Or the crowd might "boo" them to death, anything can happen, so I'll definetely hope that they play it only to see the reactions. :lol
And if they do something for FII, I hope they have some consideration for the B Sides, and not just Raise The Knife. I still wouldn't hold my breath for that, unfortunately. :( Still hope Six Degrees resurfaces, James is in a shape to make Blind Faith shine like it's supposed to!
On the setlist matter, I'm on Blob side and Awake is my favorite album, but I think as an experiment for this tour is a great idea, the good thing about DT is that if you don't like this show you don't have to wait that much before they tour again. I do hope they don't start doing this every tour from now on.
-
I'm not sure a lot of fans are dying to hear YNM live :lol
Yeah.
Let's say the band flat-out loves You Not Me, which would surprise me but isn't strictly impossible, I guess. The thing is that DT doesn't just play shows for their own sake -- they're cognizant of the various things they need to accomplish crafting a setlist. To oversimplify, suppose you could split the songs DT typically plays into three groups:
1) Super-popular songs. These are the ones everyone at a DT show knows, probably because of media exposure of some kind, and most attendees like or love the song. The crowd response is usually enormously positive here. These songs are often recent, but not always. I'd throw Pull Me Under, Metropolis, the fan favorites from SFAM, Constant Motion, the Dark Eternal Night, and to a lesser extent OTBOA, The Enemy Inside, and The Looking Glass in this bucket.
2) Popular songs. You have to be a more devoted fan to know these, but they're well-liked if you have exposure to the band outside of Guitar Hero. Probably put the Count of Tuscany here. Maybe Surrounded. Breaking All Illusions. Trial of Tears. Maybe, uh, Blind Faith or the Glass Prison or something. I don't know. Crowd reaction to these should be more restrained but still positive.
3) Less popular songs. An interesting group: for a number of reasons (including limited familiarity among the audience with the song), crowd reaction is minimal. The first one that comes to mind here is Scarred, which was dropped from the CiM tour because the crowd would lose interest during the song -- no fault of Scarred's, because it's an excellent song, but it's sort of long and complex and goes in a lot of different directions very quickly, and so you're not likely to get into it if you're a casual fan hearing it for the first time. Maybe New Millennium should go here, along with a few of the more obscure songs from FII. Raise the Knife probably goes here for obvious reasons.
Maybe you don't agree with this grouping but it seems at least slightly accurate to me (though the divisions between the three groups are somewhat blurry). Anyway, there's a place in the setlist for all of these kinds of songs, but where I'm going with this is that You Not Me doesn't belong in any of these groups. It's a song that a lot of DT fans aren't familiar with, and it's probably not entirely unfair to say that the majority of DT fans who know the song don't like it very much. It's not considered a hidden gem. It's not adored by a significant portion of the fanbase. It's usually only mentioned as a joke or as an example of the influence the studio had over the album's songwriting. There's no one clamoring for its return live (unlike, say, Space Dye Vest had). Playing You Not Me just wouldn't make any sense. It's not a crowd-pleaser. It's not well-liked. What would be the point?
-
I'm not sure a lot of fans are dying to hear YNM live :lol
Maybe not a lot of DTFers, but you never know. I don't exactly hear a lot of praise for Lie, TSF, or TDEN, those still got played. I'd love to hear YNM live. I can imagine them doing something snazzy with it, maybe adding an extended instrumental breakdown or something of the sort.
That, and I want them to play it specifically to troll KevShmev. :biggrin:
Actually, they'd be trolling themselves, since half of the crowd would running for the men's room or the beer stand, and the other half would be sitting there with bewildered looks on their faces, wondering why the band is playing such a song at a live show. :lol :lol
-
*snip*
You hit the nail on the head :clap:
Most casual fans don't know YNM, and very few of the diehards consider it a great song, so there's no point in playing it. I mean, I don't think it's a horrible song and I wouldn't mind if they did play it, but I'm sure they're aware of - or at least can guess - the status it has among the fans.
-
Most casual fans don't know YNM, and very few of the diehards consider it a great song, so there's no point in playing it. I mean, I don't think it's a horrible song and I wouldn't mind if they did play it, but I'm sure they're aware of - or at least can guess - the status it has among the fans.
I can't think of very many die hards who consider Lie a great song either, they still played it.
And again, this has been proven time and again, the general consensus on the forums is not always one of general public. We do not represent the majority of DT's fanbase.
-
Most casual fans don't know YNM, and very few of the diehards consider it a great song, so there's no point in playing it. I mean, I don't think it's a horrible song and I wouldn't mind if they did play it, but I'm sure they're aware of - or at least can guess - the status it has among the fans.
I can't think of very many die hards who consider Lie a great song either, they still played it.
And again, this has been proven time and again, the general consensus on the forums is not always one of general public. We do not represent the majority of DT's fanbase.
You're missing the point. It's not just that nobody thinks YNM is a great song -- it's that nobody really likes it. It's the black sheep. You either don't know about the song or you make fun of it (though that's painting with a very broad brush).
-
You're missing the point. It's not just that nobody thinks YNM is a great song -- it's that nobody really likes it. It's the black sheep. You either don't know about the song or you make fun of it (though that's painting with a very broad brush).
Except that quite a few people think it's not that bad, so this assessment is not very accurate. And that's on this forum alone. Sure, I doubt it would make anyone's top 50, but I doubt DT looks at those breakdowns to decide their setlists. I happen to enjoy it quite a bit, on a casual basis.
What are you gonna tell me next? That nobody likes Constant Motion, or Forsaken?
-
Uh, no. Those songs are very well-liked. You're delusional if you think You Not Me is well-liked.
-
Most casual fans don't know YNM, and very few of the diehards consider it a great song, so there's no point in playing it. I mean, I don't think it's a horrible song and I wouldn't mind if they did play it, but I'm sure they're aware of - or at least can guess - the status it has among the fans.
I can't think of very many die hards who consider Lie a great song either, they still played it.
I don't find the comparison good, because Lie appears on one of DT's most popular albums and I've seen way more love for it than YNM. It may be divisive like TDEN, for example, but it gets plenty of appreciation. Besides, it's a kick-ass and energetic live song and I can't imagine YNM going down nearly as well at a DT concert.
-
Besides, it's a kick-ass and energetic live song and I can't imagine YNM going down nearly as well at a DT concert.
Well, personally, I've never actually heard YNM being played LIVE, so I can't say how it would translate on stage. But as much as I enjoy Lie, and have always been curious about seeing it live, I never expected that it would come off as energetic.
As for a DT concert, from what I've seen, I expect fans to eat up whatever DT throws at them.
-
Considering You Not Me on the same group as Lie, Constant Motion or Forsaken is completely off. Those song can be divisive, but they have almost universal approve of the casual fan base, even if they are not loved to death, and the amount of haters is at the very least as large as the lovers. And I knew from the very begining that Lie would translate very well live, it actually would've surprised me if it didn't.
You Not Me, despite a lot of people saying it's not the worst song ever, it still isn't liked by the vast majority of people. I'd like to see it live only out of curiosity of the fan reaction, but if I were on the band I'd never play it for other reasons than trolling a little(just like U2 seemed to do with In A Little While if I don't remember wrong)
And if you want more opinions other than DTF, search the song on YouTube or the FII album as a whole, you won't find much appretiation either.
-
Uh, no. Those songs are very well-liked. You're delusional if you think You Not Me is well-liked.
Conflating us with the greater fanbase is always, always a mistake. We're the geekiest and most hardcore, we're the Comic Book Guy of DT fans.
We're not completely alien, we're not completely out of sync and I think it's true that there aren't many people who'd be going, "OHH! You Not Me!! They played our song, they finally played it!!" - but the idea that the whole room would see it as this chalice of shit is relatively unfounded. There's no reason to believe it's much more or less fondly regarded than a song like Burning My Soul - which has been played almost as often as Constant Motion, more often than In the Name of God or Misunderstood... even here, the hotbed of You Not Me's unpopularity, only 30% of us would agree it's DT's worst song. That's still a pretty decent percentage, but even in the middle of the echo chamber it's far from unanimous.
Do I think they're likely to play it? No, not especially - and ever less likely in a fixed setlist! But I can't see anything to suggest it's this huge black mark against the sacred catalogue - it's not some forbidden song with a secret past. It's just an old song that's a bit hit and miss.
Case in point:
(https://i58.tinypic.com/10fdgko.jpg)
Won't link, as it's official material, but a selection of comments:
"2:44 - 3:10 Pwnsome."
"underrated album, good song. i know how many people fell the demos are better, but in my personal opinion i like more the album versions (except for burning my soul and hell's kitchen)"
"Let us say You Or Me is a pretty fucking good version, but it is too long and too worked, ideal for the progressive metal fans. As a final product, this song is much better, more concise. And the chorus is much more powerful! Good work from Child trimming the unnecessary edges off :-) You or Me is an amazing version too, although."
"i wish THIS song was played on live"
"The bass is awesome in this song."
There are negative comments, too, but like fuck is it going to empty a room. These are people who know enough about DT to know who Desmond Child is. The fan base is a lot bigger than some forum!
-
Rob speaks the truth, as usual.
-
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.
...and the majority of Dream Theater fans would miss out on that. What sense does that make? I can see doing WDADU on one night only but both of those other albums are very popular. That one off stuff should be done sparingly because it kinda sucks when you wanna see something and can't manage to make it to that one off show or maybe didn't even know about it (since they don't advertise some of these surprises)
-
rob, I think you're overstating my case here. I never said anything like this:
the idea that the whole room would see it as this chalice of shit is relatively unfounded
That's not my position and you should re-read my posts if you think that's what I've said. DT aren't going to be booed off the stage if they play You Not Me. Here's what I've said:
1) Nobody seems especially fond of You Not Me in the same way that people are fond of other "deep cuts" from DT albums.
2) It's often cited as being a particularly bad song in DT's catalog. You say "only 30% of DTF'ers think it's the worst DT song" like that's totally inconsequential -- actually, that's huge, especially considering a good portion of the comments in that thread are "voted no, but only because Prophets of War exists" and so on and so forth.
3) Generally speaking, it's not a song casual fans know about or are into.
So we've got a song that isn't from the album currently being supported, that casual fans probably don't know about, that is often cited as a particularly bad symptom of a very controversial time in DT's history, that the average hardcore fan either dislikes or doesn't care much about, and that no one is really clamoring for. What I'm saying is that there's no reason to play it. Pretty much any other song in DT's catalog would be a more sensible use of those 5 minutes. JP undoubtedly knows that and isn't going to pull it out.
-
A good reason to play it would be for novelty's sake. Since it's a song that's so rarely played, and like I said, if they were to give a little attention to FII's anniversary, then I don't see why they wouldn't pull out this one song that's been totally buried in their discography.
I mean, let's say they did do a few songs from FII as means of anniversary? What are they gonna play? New Millennium and Trial of Tears? We already have a live version of those songs on LAB, along with Hollow Years (which is also on OIALT), and Trial is being played again this year and will be on the upcoming live release. Lines in the Sand is on Chaos in Motion. I guess they could play Burning My Soul, Hell's Kitchen, TAMP and Anna Lee. But aside from Hell's Kitchen, it's not like either one of those is a "fan favorite" either.
-
Well, I don't think they're going to do anything too significant for FII's anniversary, at least not like this tour. I foresee a switch back to the standard format. If they were to do that, my bet would be on Hell's Kitchen/Lines in the Sand, though Lines in the Sand has already been captured on a live release. TAMP and Anna Lee are possibilities too (though I hope not TAMP because I don't care for it). Hollow Years has also (to my knowledge) not been performed in quite a while, though it was documented on LAB. Keep in mind that DT has not been overly concerned with redundancy from tour to tour (hey, WIMH/TTSTA).
But I also don't think novelty is a good reason to perform the song. I think it's an extremely questionable choice for a live tune, and novelty doesn't really change that. If novelty is how we're going to decide DT's setlists, then they should perform Maiden's Quest for Fire five times in a row.
-
Well, it's a 4 minute song, so it wouldn't kill you.
-
Again. Not saying it would kill anyone. Saying it's a bad choice for a live song, and one that will therefore not get played.
-
Because in YOUR opinion it's a bad choice for a live song? I'm not saying it's gonna get played for sure, but there are no guarantees one way or the other, so don't sound so sure.
-
rob, I think you're overstating my case here. I never said anything like this:
the idea that the whole room would see it as this chalice of shit is relatively unfounded
That's not my position and you should re-read my posts if you think that's what I've said. DT aren't going to be booed off the stage if they play You Not Me. Here's what I've said:
Apologies! I actually had KevShmev's comment in my head when I wrote that particular line -
"Actually, they'd be trolling themselves, since half of the crowd would running for the men's room or the beer stand, and the other half would be sitting there with bewildered looks on their faces, wondering why the band is playing such a song at a live show. :lol :lol"
I was completely aware it wasn't your post, but I sort of had it in my head that I was kind of responding to the room. That's my mistake, and I was wrong to cram a whole bunch of opinions into the same box! I do think you're overstating the case, I think there's this fan myopia, that all that's here is all there is, and if anyone was a true fan they'd be here, which is absolutely not the case. If it were, DT would be pulling sub-Adrenaline Mob size crowds, but still. That was some rubbish netiquette from me.
2) It's often cited as being a particularly bad song in DT's catalog. You say "only 30% of DTF'ers think it's the worst DT song" like that's totally inconsequential -- actually, that's huge, especially considering a good portion of the comments in that thread are "voted no, but only because Prophets of War exists" and so on and so forth.
I did concede that 30% was "still a pretty decent percentage," but the point stands that we're in one of the least YNM-charitable corners of the internet and we're racking up less than one in three "Worst... song... EVERS!" I also agreed that it's unlikely to be a particularly good use of setlist - and "ever less likely in a fixed setlist!" Terrible grammar on my part, but I've done quite a lot of agreeing with you, on balance! I was just addressing the strapline really - "Delusional if you think it's well-liked." And while I still do contest that, I probably didn't quote the best post nor person.
-
I did concede that 30% was "still a pretty decent percentage," but the point stands that we're in one of the least YNM-charitable corners of the internet and we're racking up less than one in three "Worst... song... EVERS!"
Eh. To be honest, I think you're kind of misrepresenting the results of that poll. According to the results of that thread, 25% of DTFers think You Not Me is DT's worst song. That doesn't mean that the other 75% all think YNM is amazing, it just means that the other 75% have other songs they like less. In that context, I think 25% is a pretty astonishing number. There are more than a hundred songs in Dream Theater's discography, and 25% of the forum is in agreement in singling out YNM as the worst. That's... pretty damning. Imagine how much higher the number would be if the poll asked how many people placed YNM in their bottom ten.
-
Rob speaks the truth, as usual.
That.
-
As for a DT concert, from what I've seen, I expect fans to eat up whatever DT throws at them.
No, that's just you, Mr. I Think Even DT's Worst Stuff Is Better Than Every Other Band's Best Stuff, which explains you defending You Not Me. ;) :P
I did concede that 30% was "still a pretty decent percentage," but the point stands that we're in one of the least YNM-charitable corners of the internet and we're racking up less than one in three "Worst... song... EVERS!"
Eh. To be honest, I think you're kind of misrepresenting the results of that poll. According to the results of that thread, 25% of DTFers think You Not Me is DT's worst song. That doesn't mean that the other 75% all think YNM is amazing, it just means that the other 75% have other songs they like less. In that context, I think 25% is a pretty astonishing number. There are more than a hundred songs in Dream Theater's discography, and 25% of the forum is in agreement in singling out YNM as the worst. That's... pretty damning. Imagine how much higher the number would be if the poll asked how many people placed YNM in their bottom ten.
Very well said. :tup :tup
I'd be shocked if any other individual song would even get 10% if we ran a thread just like that for every other DT song.
-
No, that's just you, Mr. I Think Even DT's Worst Stuff Is Better Than Every Other Band's Best Stuff, which explains you defending You Not Me. ;) :P
I like the song, so yeah, I'm gonna defend it. What's wrong with that?
-
I think Rob is a little off and a little right. Few people actually said that the song was the worst thing ever, but the point made by the majority here is that it's not worth it's spot on the setlist, and I think they have a point, even if I don't completely agree on. It's not a song anyone it's dying to hear and it has more than it fair share of haters, probably among the most hated songs in the catalogue even outside DTF(it's got its fame somewhere, this forum didn't create it). And this place is the most tolerant towards FII I've seen so far, so I wouldn't say that the fact that we're "DT nerds" goes against the song.
Besides, there isn't almost any real casual DT fans, at least not among concert goers. DT is not a band that's over the radio or on the news or whatever that people go and see because they know 10 songs because they overheard them or like one album, unless you count the girlfriend/friend just coming along. Hard to know for sure, but I'm pretty confident that this band number of hardcore fans per casual ratio is one of the highest there are for a band this size. I would guess that at least 50% of the audience has heard every album song at least once. It's not exactly A Vision or Eve, it's on the regular albums!(and it's the second track, not the 11th)
Still, as I said before, it might be one of those songs that gains better appreciation after it's played live, it certainly has the potential. I don't think it would be a big deal if they included it, it's just 5 minutes, if BMUBMD worked well live, this song can.
-
I did concede that 30% was "still a pretty decent percentage," but the point stands that we're in one of the least YNM-charitable corners of the internet and we're racking up less than one in three "Worst... song... EVERS!"
Eh. To be honest, I think you're kind of misrepresenting the results of that poll. According to the results of that thread, 25% of DTFers think You Not Me is DT's worst song. That doesn't mean that the other 75% all think YNM is amazing, it just means that the other 75% have other songs they like less. In that context, I think 25% is a pretty astonishing number. There are more than a hundred songs in Dream Theater's discography, and 25% of the forum is in agreement in singling out YNM as the worst. That's... pretty damning. Imagine how much higher the number would be if the poll asked how many people placed YNM in their bottom ten.
I've actually been inflated them to 70:30, when it's 75:25 - it was 72:28 when I checked, so I've consistently rounded up! - but yes, I agree. 30%, or 25%, is, as I've said three times now, a pretty decent percentage. It's also not a complete pasting, from some of the people most liable to give it one. It's not sunshine and rainbows, but it's also not... um... green fog and frogspawn?
(ETA: ragh grammar!)
-
I think Rob is a little off and a little right. Few people actually said that the song was the worst thing ever, but the point made by the majority here is that it's not worth it's spot on the setlist, and I think they have a point, even if I don't completely agree on. It's not a song anyone it's dying to hear and it has more than it fair share of haters, probably among the most hated songs in the catalogue even outside DTF(it's got its fame somewhere, this forum didn't create it). And this place is the most tolerant towards FII I've seen so far, so I wouldn't say that the fact that we're "DT nerds" goes against the song.
Besides, there isn't almost any real casual DT fans, at least not among concert goers. DT is not a band that's over the radio or on the news or whatever that people go and see because they know 10 songs because they overheard them or like one album, unless you count the girlfriend/friend just coming along. Hard to know for sure, but I'm pretty confident that this band number of hardcore fans per casual ratio is one of the highest there are for a band this size. I would guess that at least 50% of the audience has heard every album song at least once. It's not exactly A Vision or Eve, it's on the regular albums!(and it's the second track, not the 11th)
Still, as I said before, it might be one of those songs that gains better appreciation after it's played live, it certainly has the potential. I don't think it would be a big deal if they included it, it's just 5 minutes, if BMUBMD worked well live, this song can.
The thing is, like you said, it's only 5 minutes long. If people don't want to sacrifice a measely 5 minutes (even in a 1.5 hour set), they're plain greedy. I wish DT songs that I'm not crazy about hearing were only 5 minutes long.
-
Ohhhh, those five minutes stack up...
Again, it's the kind of thing they could have had a bit more fun with when they were doing rotating setlists. It is a bit of a wildcard, but it's the kind of thing where it's short enough to slip it into a couple of gigs early on a tour and see how it goes down. Elbow in the water.
-
Ohhhh, those five minutes stack up...
How do you mean?
-
And this place is the most tolerant towards FII I've seen so far, so I wouldn't say that the fact that we're "DT nerds" goes against the song.
Ohhh, you overestimate our kindness. More YouTube comments! This time from You Or Me - surely invitation, if invitation were needed, to jump on the finished version.
"I love this version. But I do like the chorus on the album version as well. I do enjoy this chorus"
"Almost better than You Not Me."
"i like you not me better this song"
"DAMN PRODUCERS F***ING UP DT'S GREAT MUSIC!!!! not to say the new version sucks, but its not the way DT would have liked it, therefore it is not a direct interpretation of what these great musicians put into the writing process. in short, the fact that it is reworked removes its musical value and meaning. and i'm just glad theyre writing independently now :)"
"Hmm.. Being a DT fan, the intro to this demo version is better than the final, but as much as I might get thumbs-down'd for this, I think re-writing the chorus to what it is now was a good idea. (bear in mind I heard the final version first so that might've swayed my choice) Nonetheless I still think You Not Me is a decent song."
" prefer 'You Not Me', a good chorus is missed on this version."
"...Uhm. Okay, this is way better. But I like the FII version too. Am I mad? XD I love also You not me."
"Both versions are awesome, "You Not Me" and "You Or Me". And of course, contrary to stupid comments here, Falling Into Infinity is an amazing album, one of their best for sure."
"I prefer the oficial you or me, is more powerfull... (yeah) but, this demo is not too bad... refine a litle bit more."
"i always likes you not me exept i hated the chorus . didnt fit the song at all. this version rocks the socks off the other one. glad i found out about the demos, i think the producer/ record company REALLY screwed up on infinity. i will have to listen to rest of album to see tho lol."
"Honestly, I prefer the "You NOT Me" chorus: it's more catchy. Yet, as far as all the rest is concerned (especially the arrangements, which make the song sound deeper and correspond better to the Falling into Infinity "spirit")), I prefer this one as a whole... I think.:)"
"2:56 gives me shivers :S"
They've been given a stick to beat YNM with, but even the people who dig You Or Me... are often perfectly happy with You Not Me! I don't want to whitewash it, there's the other type of comment, too - "desmond child=mad," "I like this chorus a lot better; the other one was total ass," and my personal favourite, "FUCK Kevin Shirley!!!!!!" What did Kevin Shirley do?! But I'm not having to dig, particularly, to find praise for YNM. I just had to go where a wide cross-section of people go, and click "More."
Just cos we talk about DT more doesn't mean we like them more! In a world of DT fans, we're a nation of cynics. We're not completely at odds with the fanbase, we're not some eldritch world where up is down and black is white, but You Not Me's awfulness is basically a caricature, an exaggeration that we take a cathartic pleasure in proliferating.
Ohhhh, those five minutes stack up...
How do you mean?
Minutes disappear! Three hours is a long time, yes, but there's also a lot of stuff to get through.
-
You Not Me's awfulness is basically a caricature, an exaggeration that we take a cathartic pleasure in proliferating.
:clap:
-
Ohhhh, those five minutes stack up...
How do you mean?
Minutes disappear! Three hours is a long time, yes, but there's also a lot of stuff to get through.
As much stuff as they choose to have. Let's take the Luna Park set, for example. Let's say they eliminated A Fortune In Lies, and replaced it with YNM, would it really be such a gigantic make or break deal for people? I mean, if replacing one short song you love with one short songs you hate will change your mind against buying a ticket... Then I don't even see why you're a fan, seeing as how there are still so many other songs to enjoy.
What I'm saying is, I don't think the inclusion of one short song would be a make or break situation for very many people. IF the band had the urge to resurrect it, and breathe new life into it. If JP one day said, "Hey, let's put You Not Me on the setlist. That was a fun song, I miss it," then I don't think, "Oh, but I heard that a lot of fans don't like it," is going to dissuade him.
-
Probably not, but why waste that spot in the set on a song that they know a lot of fans clearly do not care for. And it's likely that they don't think much of it either since it was barely played on the FII tour IIRC and has not been played since (and it is not the same as them not playing Space Dye Vest until recently, since that was not played for other reasons). Saying, "it's only five minutes, so why not throw it in the set," is like saying every other band ought to just toss their shittiest song into live sets for the hell of it because, hey, it's only one song. Why waste that time playing some bad song when they could spend it playing something, anything!, that is so much better?
Oh, and rob, while your posts are often full of win, I don't think posting comments from YT links, since I think most of those people comprise the dumbest people on earth, is the way to go here. :lol :biggrin:
-
Because that's how they see it? As 'some bad song'? I highly doubt it. Again, JP said he liked how the song turned out. In fact, the reason they haven't played it is probably because of the whole Desmond Child situation, and who was the most opposed to it? Portnoy. So I wouldn't be terribly surprised if that was the reason and he was the one who was adamant about not playing it.
I highly doubt JP sees ANY of their past works as 'bad'. Don't project your opinion on the band itself.
-
Oh, and rob, while your posts are often full of win, I don't think posting comments from YT links, since I think most of those people comprise the dumbest people on earth, is the way to go here. :lol :biggrin:
Hahaha - thank you, I try! But, I'm not trying to convince anyone they're wrong about You Not Me, just that the spectrum's wider than this website. YouTube is accessed by a far wider range of people, and there'll be more YouTubers at a show than DTFers - they're another imperfect nation, but they're more statistically representative than we are.
Especially the thumbs up-down graph - that's not even commenters, that's just viewers who have YouTube accounts. You Or Me currently has 216 thumbs up versus 3 thumbs down: that's 98.63% of the vote. You Not Me has 494 up, 5 down: 98.997995992%. That's a number that really wants to be rounded up to 99%. That's still a skewed sample, it's a percentage of the people who sought it out to listen to it, but it's got 95,404 views - 20x as many views as DTF has members. DT aren't playing to an auditorium full of people who hate You Not Me every night. That's a fact.
Whatever you think of YouTube's citizens, I think it's a bit marvellous that even on a website that notoriously turns people into psychopaths, no fight's broken out, it's basically civil. The only homophobic comment is at YNM's cost, actually!
-
Maybe a bunch of us DTFers should go and give that song a thumbs down. :lol
I suspect that many of those votes come from new fans who search for anything and everything DT-related on the 'net and YT. Existing fans like us aren't gonna bother going to YT to listen to the songs when we already have the CDs, much less take the time ;) to go there just to give songs thumbs up and downs, ya know?
TheGreatPretender, I am sure Portnoy is the main reason why it was never played, since once he gets it in his head that a song shouldn't be played for whatever reason - like not playing Anna Lee because it is too much of a Derek song, which, to me, is a strange reason to not play it - that's it. :lol But I doubt JP, who apparently is the main set list writer now, is looking at You Not Me as a song he is just dying to work into the set list any time soon, especially DT has over 100 songs and 12 albums to choose from, many of which haven't been played at all in recent years. Plus, I can just see JLB saying, "You aren't really gonna make me sing that chorus, are you?", if JP ever proposed the idea of playing it. :rollin :rollin
-
TheGreatPretender, I am sure Portnoy is the main reason why it was never played, since once he gets it in his head that a song shouldn't be played for whatever reason - like not playing Anna Lee because it is too much of a Derek song, which, to me, is a strange reason to not play it - that's it. :lol But I doubt JP, who apparently is the main set list writer now, is looking at You Not Me as a song he is just dying to work into the set list any time soon, especially DT has over 100 songs and 12 albums to choose from, many of which haven't been played at all in recent years. Plus, I can just see JLB saying, "You aren't really gonna make me sing that chorus, are you?", if JP ever proposed the idea of playing it. :rollin :rollin
I don't see why JLB would say that. ???
Look, I'm not saying they're dying to play it or that we should expect it, I'm just saying to outright shut down the idea, to say, "No, there is absolutely no way in hell they would ever play it. It's outside the realm of possibility," is a little baseless to me. Maybe they will play it for FII's anniversary, and maybe they won't. Maybe they'll play the B-Sides, like You OR Me, and Speak To Me (that would be awesome). Maybe not. But nothing is absolutely impossible at this point.
-
Maybe a bunch of us DTFers should go and give that song a thumbs down. :lol
I suspect that many of those votes come from new fans who search for anything and everything DT-related on the 'net and YT. Existing fans like us aren't gonna bother going to YT to listen to the songs when we already have the CDs, much less take the time ;) to go there just to give songs thumbs up and downs, ya know?
They don't have the disc for You Or Me unless they've got the FII demos or the Hollow Years single, and You Or Me's only doing marginally worse on the polls. As in, 0.3% different! Looking at the comments, the people listening to You Not Me clearly aren't rank amateurs - and with YOM, the kind of people who are interested enough to listen to the original demo are absolutely the kind of people who are fervent enough to buy tickets.
I do absolutely accept that YouTube research is not representative, either - it's a different level of skew, but a reduced level of skew. That said, it's had 100,000 active listeners, that's a pretty robust sample, and only three have - until today, perhaps! - felt compelled to go, "No, I really don't like this, Thumbs Down." It's more representative than us 'orrible lot. Think of DTF as a special snowflake, if it helps, but we hype each other up, and tend to beget people who are a bit like us. The people who will stick around are the people who feel like they fit in, but we really are not the beating heart of this fanbase! We're a mad cackling fringe, and it's wrong to assume the crowd thinks like us.
-
I'm not sure a lot of fans are dying to hear YNM live :lol
I want to hear it live. badly.
-
Hey, guys. I love bashing You Not Me as much as the next guy, but we already have a thread for that (kinda). Let's steer this one back on topic.
-
Well, the topic was anniversaries, and all I said was that it would be nice if they dedicated a part of the set to FII anniversary in 2017, and included YNM into it.
-
Well, the topic was anniversaries, and all I said was that it would be nice if they dedicated a part of the set to FII anniversary in 2017, and included YNM into it.
That's fine, you're not in trouble. :biggrin:
-
I hope hefdaddy doesn't give me the axe, but I just wanted to contribute with the fact that JP when interviewed I think around the Black Clouds tour about working with Desmond Child, he said it was a cool experiment and he was all up for it and enjoyed it, but in the end it didn't worked out that well. But when he said that it didn't worked well I'm 99% sure it was about the song not achieveing what it was supposed to do: being a hit, not that it was a bad song.
Still, they have tons of good material on the FII era(both albums and B Sides) to chose that song, especially if it's a fixed set.
-
Still, they have tons of good material on the FII era(both albums and B Sides) to chose that song, especially if it's a fixed set.
The thing is, most of that LIVE material already exists in audio and video form. Out of all the FII + B-Sides, here are the songs that we have official concert footage of:
New Millennium, Hollow Years, Peruvian Skies, Burning My Soul, Lines In The Sand, Just Let Me Breathe, Anna Lee, Trial of Tears, Raise The Knife, Cover My Eyes, Speak To Me... Any other ones I'm missing? So all that's left is You Not Me, Heck's Kitchen, Take Away My Pain, The Way It Used To Be, Where Are You Now. Of course, that doesn't mean that they'll necessarily play stuff that has never been played, but on the current tour, for Awake's anniversary, we did get both Lie and Space-Dye Vest, that have never seen proper video time of day. IF they decide to honor FII at all, I don't think it's all that farfetched.
-
Abort! Abort! New location: https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=41382.0
We can now go back to using this thread to count to thirty.
-
What a ride this thread has been. :tup