DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
Dream Theater => Dream Theater => Topic started by: stephendawson on July 07, 2014, 07:15:57 AM
-
As stated in the title of the thread I would just like to say how fantastic the gig was in Sheffield and the issue I have is very small.
The show finishes with Finally Free which is an awesome choice to finish with. I was really looking forward to the end of this track where IMO MP exhibits his finest work on a Dream Theater record (that said, Dream Theater members greatest moment could be a thread all on its own). Unless my ears deceived me MM did not play the song as MP did on the record. We all know that MM is an exceptionally talented drummer and I assume he would be more than capable of replicating MP's work.
Does anyone know the reason for this alteration or have I made a terrible mistake?
-
From live clips I've seen of the song with MM, I didn't really like the way those drum parts were played compared to the way MP does either.
My guess is that they have to do it differently because they're now using a click track to keep everything in sync for lighting/video etc. I think on the Metropolis 2000 DVD, MP says that the rest of the band keeps that section together while MP does the crazy drum fills and the timing comes from them, but that wouldn't work with their current more complex tour setup. MM needs to keep the tempo for the rest of the band so it doesn't drift out.
So it has nothing to do with MM not being capable of replicating the parts, because I have no doubt he could, I think it's that the stage show doesn't allow him to do it the same way MP did.
-
I just watched the St. Petersburg YouTube video of the song. JLB does the "audience, sing the chorus" thing and points his microphone into the audience. Problem is, the backing track continues with him singing, with the main vocal line. I guess they used it to make the vocals richer during the chorus, but it's kinda unfortunate because it looks as if JLB was lip-synching.
-
it's kinda unfortunate because it looks as if JLB was lip-synching.
Good thing nobody's just going to watch that single portion of the video clip then, eh?
-
Glad you enjoyed the show dude, I myself was there as well and it's the second time I've seen them on this tour!
In answer to your question re: the ending of Finally Free, I'm willing to bet that it was cut short purely because the other guys aren't into jamming as much as MP was. MP always seemed to have this love for grooving on certain sections and really letting them build (the extended jam/break in Beyond This Life at Budokan probably the best recorded example).
I'm quite surprised your "issue" with the show wasn't the fact that the intro tape didn't work for the first 45 seconds or so, and for the first part of Blob's incredible opening animation there was pure SILENCE before the music suddenly cut in and made everyone jump!
Another very minor thing that bothered me was the EM animation was off-sync with the music, and the two parts that are supposed to go with JM's bass fills were a few seconds behind.
These weren't the only issues with the pre-recorded sound/visuals throughout the night, but it didn't spoil the show for me in the slightest. The band were absolutely on top of it, and even though the setlist turned out to be exactly the same as last time for me I still really enjoyed it.
-
My guess is that they have to do it differently because they're now using a click track to keep everything in sync for lighting/video etc.
Why wasn't this an issue from 2007-2010? The lighting and video was just as complex then.
I'm pretty sure the lighting is still cue-based and requires each chase to be manually initiated. Isn't the lighting designer the same guy they've had since at least 2000?
-
It's defiantly a more advanced show now more than 2007 to 2010.
-
DT concerts have gotten much more visual, that's for sure. Wasn't it ToT where they introduced screens?
-
The Six Degrees tour had that weird shaped screen, didn't it?
-
The video screen was introduced in the Oakdale, the gig before LSFNY. For those two gigs they rented a bunch of visual stuff.
I think that on the rest of the tour they used TVs, as one can see on LSFNY.
Video screens were used from World Tourbulence on I believe.
-
I remember MP justified the introduction of the VIP tickets (which in turn meant no more autograph sessions after concerts, and thus drew harsh criticism from the fans) with that they had to recoup the money spent on screens.
-
I remember MP justified the introduction of the VIP tickets (which in turn meant no more autograph sessions after concerts, and thus drew harsh criticism from the fans) with that they had to recoup the money spent on screens.
Oh god. I better not get started on those VIP tickets...
-
It's defiantly a more advanced show now more than 2007 to 2010.
Definitely *.
-
Thanks Kotowboyz.
-
My guess is that they have to do it differently because they're now using a click track to keep everything in sync for lighting/video etc.
Why wasn't this an issue from 2007-2010? The lighting and video was just as complex then.
I'm pretty sure the lighting is still cue-based and requires each chase to be manually initiated. Isn't the lighting designer the same guy they've had since at least 2000?
They've had the heavy visuals/lighting for a while now, but it was all operated manually back then, because the songs were at live tempos. Now they run to a click track, so everything is synced up in advance, so I don't believe there's any manual interaction once the song has started.
So instead of the video/lighting needing to sync up to the music, the music now needs to sync up to the lighting/video.
-
Huh, I thought I saw some synchronization errors/variation in the lighting that one would only see in humans. Perhaps I was wrong.
Anyways I'm pretty sure that the current lighting shows could easily be done at live tempo, and if not, they would still look as good, but different.
Too bad we won't see much of this anymore: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNhgYqFnH0o
-
I get why some might not like them doing this, as it eliminates the chance for a little spontaneity that used to happened here and there, but the obvious positive here is that the band is more likely to be locked in on a nightly basis, resulting in more consistency from show to show, and the static set list helps in that regard, too.
-
My guess is that they have to do it differently because they're now using a click track to keep everything in sync for lighting/video etc.
Why wasn't this an issue from 2007-2010? The lighting and video was just as complex then.
I'm pretty sure the lighting is still cue-based and requires each chase to be manually initiated. Isn't the lighting designer the same guy they've had since at least 2000?
They've had the heavy visuals/lighting for a while now, but it was all operated manually back then, because the songs were at live tempos. Now they run to a click track, so everything is synced up in advance, so I don't believe there's any manual interaction once the song has started.
So instead of the video/lighting needing to sync up to the music, the music now needs to sync up to the lighting/video.
^Exactly that. The tour production this time out is really cool, and I am glad to have seen it. I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, it helps keep the show very consistent and tight (for the most part), and having the backing tracks makes for a "bigger, fuller" sound. On the other hand, the band is constrained to stay married to the backing track. That is not necessarily a problem in and of itself, and LOTS of bands do that, so maybe it's not an issue except in the overactive imaginations of the fans. The band seems to like doing it this way too. But I still can't help feeling like maybe they would be more loose without it.
Huh, I thought I saw some synchronization errors/variation in the lighting that one would only see in humans. Perhaps I was wrong.
Anyways I'm pretty sure that the current lighting shows could easily be done at live tempo, and if not, they would still look as good, but different.
Too bad we won't see much of this anymore: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNhgYqFnH0o
But it isn't just lighting. It is lighting and video and, perhaps most importantly, backing tracks.
-
Huh, I thought I saw some synchronization errors/variation in the lighting that one would only see in humans. Perhaps I was wrong.
Anyways I'm pretty sure that the current lighting shows could easily be done at live tempo, and if not, they would still look as good, but different.
They could do it as they did in the past, but I don't think it was ever easy!
Equipment problems can still cause sync issues even without human interaction. When you think about it, it's a ton of hardware and software to keep synchronized together for an entire show. There's always something that can go wrong.
-
I get why some might not like them doing this, as it eliminates the chance for a little spontaneity that used to happened here and there, but the obvious positive here is that the band is more likely to be locked in on a nightly basis, resulting in more consistency from show to show, and the static set list helps in that regard, too.
Yeah, that was kinda my point too. And when I talked to them about it, they seemed pretty enthusiastic about it. But then again, it's not like John Petrucci or Mike Mangini are going to say, "Yeah, Jerry, you know, we're trying to keep our game faces on and be positive about it in the media, but the truth is, this sucks and we can't wait for the tour to be over so we can go back to the way it used to be."
-
But it isn't just lighting. It is lighting and video and, perhaps most importantly, backing tracks.
Yes, I know, but I was disregarding them because backing tracks suck :P
-
I get why some might not like them doing this, as it eliminates the chance for a little spontaneity that used to happened here and there, but the obvious positive here is that the band is more likely to be locked in on a nightly basis, resulting in more consistency from show to show, and the static set list helps in that regard, too.
Yeah, that was kinda my point too. And when I talked to them about it, they seemed pretty enthusiastic about it. But then again, it's not like John Petrucci or Mike Mangini are going to say, "Yeah, Jerry, you know, we're trying to keep our game faces on and be positive about it in the media, but the truth is, this sucks and we can't wait for the tour to be over so we can go back to the way it used to be."
Right. The band is obviously pleased with this approach, so I don't see the real issue here. I mean, if you are really going to a show and letting the fact that the occasional backing track is used negatively affect your enjoyment of the show, then you're kind of missing the point of going in the first place, IMO.
Also, I just think some fans get hung up on seeing different songs in the set list every night when they log on to the 'net, as if playing totally different songs from night to night is the bomb, regardless of the negatives that might come from that approach (certain cities missing out on special songs/events, the band not being as locked in on playing a song they rarely play, etc.).
-
For me, anyway, the problem with the way they do it now isn't the lack of rotating set lists, but simply no room for derivation AT ALL. No extended solo sections, no impromptu jams, nothing whatsoever to make any one show different from any other.
-
Yeah. I was chatting with PC the other day and he made the interesting point that there's no more "look what happened at last night's gig" YT videos at all anymore. Every gig is almost exactly the same as the previous night.
-
Exactly.
-
I just think some fans get hung up on seeing different songs in the set list every night when they log on to the 'net, as if playing totally different songs from night to night is the bomb, regardless of the negatives that might come from that approach (certain cities missing out on special songs/events, the band not being as locked in on playing a song they rarely play, etc.).
You and I will never see eye to eye in this regard as I love the rotating setlists. That said, I know that we'll never see the setlist variation that we did when MP was in the band, but even some variation from show to show is nice, like what they did on some legs of the Dramatic tour, where they had an A and B setlist. At least there was some variation and for those of us who enjoyed going to multiple shows, it gave us something different to see. Even if they were to take that same batch of songs and further shake things up (intermixing songs from the A and B setlists, perhaps dropping out some songs that were in both, so that there might be 4, 5 or 6 standard setlists), it would not be a major negative thing. The guys would still have everything rehearsed to a T and it would provide more unpredictableness like what we were used to in the past.
And frankly, one could still complain that some cities missed out on special things on this tour - specifically that only Boston got something especially special. Yeah it was for a DVD shoot, but still, nobody else got that. :P
For me, anyway, the problem with the way they do it now isn't the lack of rotating set lists, but simply no room for derivation AT ALL. No extended solo sections, no impromptu jams, nothing whatsoever to make any one show different from any other.
I'll be the first to agree with the lack of derivation at all from show to show (which is why I personally wish there was some song swapping), but truth be told, there has been a change over the course of the tour. If you were to listen to ToT from the beginning of the first European leg of the tour, and compare it to how it was played towards the end of the North American tour, you'd see that they're stretching it out more now, allowing for maybe a little variation. Nonetheless, it's far less than what me, you and many others would like to see.
-
What I don't understand is, playing to a click track isn't an all or nothing thing. Take for example Finally Free; there is no reason why the click couldn't just stop at the end section, and the band simply listens to MM's playing. The video at that point is rather irrelevant, so no sync is needed.
As far as I've been able to discern, the only free section is MM's drum solo.
-
I'm pretty sure the drum solo is played to a click. It's been pretty much the same all tour, as evidenced by the fact that the multi-cam rig had some sync issues from being from different shows.
-
What I don't understand is, playing to a click track isn't an all or nothing thing. Take for example Finally Free; there is no reason why the click couldn't just stop at the end section, and the band simply listens to MM's playing. The video at that point is rather irrelevant, so no sync is needed.
As far as I've been able to discern, the only free section is MM's drum solo.
I agree with this. I think the outro could have been done free no problem. The video and lighting could just be looping whatever pattern at that point.
I wouldn't mind the click tracks so much if they did away with the backing tracks (or at least most of them), and varied the tempos a bit.
I struggle to tell the difference between the studio version of OTBOA and the LALP version. It gains nothing live. And TSCO feels like it's being held back during the big build up at the end at studio tempo.
-
Click sucks.
Nobody goes to a DT concert to see the lights and video performance. Itīs all about the music and see those 5 super musicians play. And having a clip that trigger playback sections makes it feels canned. I hate that.
Anyway, I still wonīt miss a single DT concert near my town, but I hope they get rid of click tracks asap.
-
I just think some fans get hung up on seeing different songs in the set list every night when they log on to the 'net, as if playing totally different songs from night to night is the bomb, regardless of the negatives that might come from that approach (certain cities missing out on special songs/events, the band not being as locked in on playing a song they rarely play, etc.).
You and I will never see eye to eye in this regard as I love the rotating setlists. That said, I know that we'll never see the setlist variation that we did when MP was in the band, but even some variation from show to show is nice, like what they did on some legs of the Dramatic tour, where they had an A and B setlist. At least there was some variation and for those of us who enjoyed going to multiple shows, it gave us something different to see. Even if they were to take that same batch of songs and further shake things up (intermixing songs from the A and B setlists, perhaps dropping out some songs that were in both, so that there might be 4, 5 or 6 standard setlists), it would not be a major negative thing. The guys would still have everything rehearsed to a T and it would provide more unpredictableness like what we were used to in the past.
And frankly, one could still complain that some cities missed out on special things on this tour - specifically that only Boston got something especially special. Yeah it was for a DVD shoot, but still, nobody else got that. :P
Actually, I did like the rotating set lists that they always used to, but I get why they do it this way now. In other words, I liked it both ways, and I think it's fair to say that there are positives and negatives to both ways.
And honestly, I did like the way they did it on the ADTOE better, with a mostly static set list, but with a few songs swapped in and out each night (similar to what Rush did on their last tour as well). I guess, for me, the set list they played this year was so damn awesome that I was fine with seeing them not mess with it at all. Song for song, this year's set list is the best one I've seen out of them since the 6DOIT tour (which had mostly awesome set lists).
Nobody goes to a DT concert to see the lights and video performance. Itīs all about the music and see those 5 super musicians play.
Speak for yourself. The lights and video make it a much better show, rather than four guys just standing there wanking away for three hours.
-
The term "click track" is also a bit misleading. In all likelihood the click track has some version of the full song on them. The problem with just having a click is that once you're out, there's no way of telling the position. Gavin Harrison talks about that in one of his interviews, where he says he's essentially listening, and playing along to, a rich music track with his own voiceover that reminds him of important upcoming sections.
-
The term "click track" is also a bit misleading. In all likelihood the click track has some version of the full song on them. The problem with just having a click is that once you're out, there's no way of telling the position. Gavin Harrison talks about that in one of his interviews, where he says he's essentially listening, and playing along to, a rich music track with his own voiceover that reminds him of important upcoming sections.
I could be mistaken, but I recall an interview with MM near the start of the ADTOE tour where he said his click track was both the metronome and the song, but then he preferred having just the song.
The end result is the same in terms of pros and cons for the audience, but if I was a drummer, I'd much rather have a real song in my ear than a metronome. And given the length and complexity of DT's music, as opposed to just a constant tempo 4/4 throughout, it would leave too much room to make a mistake.
-
I actually think it would be really interesting to hear what MM hears during a DT show... In fact that would be a cool bonus thing to release to the fans "MM's Guide Tracks" for the current DT tour. It would interesting to hear how much of the song is in there along with the metronome, how much vocal cues are included and for that matter what the vocal cues do (count in different sections, remind him of tough sections coming up, actually count through entire odd-meter sections, etc...)
Maybe a lot of fans wouldn't even understand what that would be, but a small group of fans would really enjoy that, especially drummers, I'm sure. Just a random thought, :lol
-
What I don't understand is, playing to a click track isn't an all or nothing thing. Take for example Finally Free; there is no reason why the click couldn't just stop at the end section, and the band simply listens to MM's playing. The video at that point is rather irrelevant, so no sync is needed.
As far as I've been able to discern, the only free section is MM's drum solo.
In principle, I tend to agree with you. Especially since that song is all the way at the end of the set anyway. It seems like it would be a simple thing to transition out of the structured click and go freeform. But then again, while this seems like common sense, I also must admit that I have no clue about how the hardware and software they are using integrates with the entire audio/visual stage setup, and have no idea what it actually takes to operate such a system on the scale that it takes for their live show, so I concede that there may be very good reasons why it might not be practical, and that I am completely clueless about those reasons.
Nobody goes to a DT concert to see the lights and video performance. Itīs all about the music and see those 5 super musicians play.
Fine if you don't like it, but the way you are setting up the argument is silly. Of course nobody goes to a DT concert to see the lights and video. But that's just a strawman argument. Plenty of people who go to shows go for the entire experience. Yes, the music is primary. But the stage production can significantly enhance (or detract from) the experience, which can in turn significantly elevate the music. The band and many fans feel that their present production does indeed enhance the entire experience.
-
I actually think it would be really interesting to hear what MM hears during a DT show... In fact that would be a cool bonus thing to release to the fans "MM's Guide Tracks" for the current DT tour. It would interesting to hear how much of the song is in there along with the metronome, how much vocal cues are included and for that matter what the vocal cues do (count in different sections, remind him of tough sections coming up, actually count through entire odd-meter sections, etc...)
Maybe a lot of fans wouldn't even understand what that would be, but a small group of fans would really enjoy that, especially drummers, I'm sure. Just a random thought, :lol
That's a great idea. I'd definately pay good money for that. It would interesting, and for sure helpful to play along to. I'd especially love to have all the stems for the songs, but that's a whole different story.
-
What I don't understand is, playing to a click track isn't an all or nothing thing. Take for example Finally Free; there is no reason why the click couldn't just stop at the end section, and the band simply listens to MM's playing. The video at that point is rather irrelevant, so no sync is needed.
As far as I've been able to discern, the only free section is MM's drum solo.
In principle, I tend to agree with you. Especially since that song is all the way at the end of the set anyway. It seems like it would be a simple thing to transition out of the structured click and go freeform. But then again, while this seems like common sense, I also must admit that I have no clue about how the hardware and software they are using integrates with the entire audio/visual stage setup, and have no idea what it actually takes to operate such a system on the scale that it takes for their live show, so I concede that there may be very good reasons why it might not be practical, and that I am completely clueless about those reasons.
Nah, there's really no technological reason. A click track is technologically nothing else than a multi-track machine that you hit "Play" on to start the song. After that it just runs until the end of the song. So, if you don't want a click at the end, you do little more than select & cut in the program and delete the clicks at the end.
My best guess is, they simply didn't think people would care about this specific section to be free-form.
-
Nah, there's really no technological reason. A click track is technologically nothing else than a multi-track machine that you hit "Play" on to start the song. After that it just runs until the end of the song. So, if you don't want a click at the end, you do little more than select & cut in the program and delete the clicks at the end.
Well, yes, in terms of a basic click. But what I am saying is that they are using more than a basic click. What we are referring to as the "click track" is integrated with the lighting, video, and sound hardware and software, along with who knows what else. Neither you nor I have any clue about how that all works and fits together. There could very well be aspects about it that we just aren't aware of, so I am not willing to be dogmatic about how "easy" it is to just shut it off at the end of a show, despite how simple it might seem to an outsider like me. However...
My best guess is, they simply didn't think people would care about this specific section to be free-form.
You could be 100% correct.
-
I'm pretty sure the drum solo is played to a click. It's been pretty much the same all tour, as evidenced by the fact that the multi-cam rig had some sync issues from being from different shows.
Been meaning to come back to this, but forgot.
Interestingly, the drum solo isn't to click, or at least not all of it. I actually did the experiment a while ago where I would line up two YouTube videos to be in sync. This works perfectly for all the songs (I.e. they never deviate), but doesn't work for the drum solo.
My best guess is, given how the drum solo goes straight into the rest of EM right after, MM might restart the click track somewhere in the middle of the solo. Would be interesting to identity actually; maybe when he also triggers the bell sounds?
EDIT: Yeah, I would guess somewhere around there. For the polyrhythmic stuff he's probably back on the click.
-
Huh. Could also be Eric running the click.
I've always wondered how they went back on mistakes, like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcYvKaY_0AM .
-
https://www.youtubedoubler.com/?video1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dkpur3peFew4&start1=33&video2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DcP4jio_Jnkk&start2=21&authorName=dtdoubled
-
I didn't know such a site existed. That's pretty cool. :tup
-
Hah, drum solo is totally free form apparently:
https://www.youtubedoubler.com/?video1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dkpur3peFew4&start1=396&video2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DcP4jio_Jnkk&start2=382&authorName=dtdoubled
Mike adds another measure in one video, right before they go into EM.
-
For me, anyway, the problem with the way they do it now isn't the lack of rotating set lists, but simply no room for derivation AT ALL. No extended solo sections, no impromptu jams, nothing whatsoever to make any one show different from any other.
Yes, but that's why they're not fucking up as much (or at all really) as they used to. That AND now MP isn't there to play the songs 1.5 times faster than they were originally recorded - that's definitely helping the guys play as tight and as flawlessly as possible too.
-
They never really fucked up very much anyway, so I am not sure what that matters. Also, I agree that MP used to play too fast on occasion, but I don't think that would be a problem with MM.
-
Yeah they were hardly a band who made loads of mistakes. And even on the rare occasion they did mess up, that just adds some uniqueness to that particular show, and they always seemed to respond well with humour in those circumstances.
-
Click sucks.
Nobody goes to a DT concert to see the lights and video performance. Itīs all about the music and see those 5 super musicians play. And having a clip that trigger playback sections makes it feels canned. I hate that.
:hefdaddy :hefdaddy :hefdaddy :hefdaddy :hefdaddy
-
I think the videos give the show a nice extra dimension - watching them play for 3 hours with just a backdrop wouldn't be as exciting.
-
When I saw them in February the videos were some of the highlights of the show. Great visuals that really complemented the performance of the band.
-
I didn't even look at the videos this time.
-
It'd be redundant to have a drum solo at the end of Finally Free when they have one in Enigma Machine.
-
It'd be redundant to have a drum solo at the end of Finally Free when they have one in Enigma Machine.
It's not really a drum solo in the same sense though, it's more a section where the drums take a lead role in the arrangement. If it were two unaccompanied drum solos, I'd see the point, but I don't consider it a redundancy in this case.
And I'd rather them ditch the one in EM, if that mattered.
-
This last Rush Tour, Neil split up his drum solo into 3 spots. They were short, concise, and felt fresh so I don't have a problem with it at all.
-
I actually preferred MM's solo in EM to the song itself :P
-
I actually preferred MM's solo in EM to the song itself :P
Yeah, me too.
I actually prefer Raw Dog to Enigma Machine.
-
I actually preferred MM's solo in EM to the song itself :P
Yeah, me too.
I actually prefer Raw Dog to Enigma Machine.
That's supposed to be in green text, right?
-
Nope. I'm serious. I like Raw Dog. I don't get the dislike for it.
-
For me, anyway, the problem with the way they do it now isn't the lack of rotating set lists, but simply no room for derivation AT ALL. No extended solo sections, no impromptu jams, nothing whatsoever to make any one show different from any other.
Yes, but that's why they're not fucking up as much (or at all really) as they used to. That AND now MP isn't there to play the songs 1.5 times faster than they were originally recorded - that's definitely helping the guys play as tight and as flawlessly as possible too.
Will you knock it off with unnecessary blaming MP for everything you find wrong? Good grief. Sure MP may have played the songs a little faster, but never anything enough to screw them up. And quite frankly, I think playing the songs at a slightly faster pace can do wonders for the liveliness of the show. Two examples that come to mind are Maiden's Live After Death and Rush's Grace Under Pressure Tour live albums, which happen to be two of my favorite live recordings. The songs have so much more energy in them because they are played at a slightly faster rate. The one sole exception I've found would be the live version of Disappear on L@B which was played too fast for a song dripping with that emotion - incidentally, JR was the one who set the pace for that song, not MP.
Playing them at the same exact pace as the studio recordings makes the songs come off uninspired and mechanical, which is the one thing that I noticed when I saw them on this last tour. Not to say that the show in itself wasn't great or that they didn't put on good performances, but there was something missing in terms of excitement, and I attribute it to them playing at the rate as on the album.
-
???
Playing the songs as they were written is unexciting? ???
-
Nope. I'm serious. I like Raw Dog. I don't get the dislike for it.
Dangit Tim - how DARE you go against the grain!!!! Where's that controversial thread...?
-
???
Playing the songs as they were written is unexciting? ???
In short, I'd say to some degree, yes. Playing the songs slightly faster gives them more energy than they had. Tell you what - go back and compare The Spirit of Radio from the Grace Under Pressure Tour video to the studio version and tell me the live version doesn't come off as more exciting? Or Revelations from the Live After Death video as compared to the studio version. If you agree, I attribute that not just to the live setting, but to the songs being performed slightly faster. Again, it's one reason why I'm certain those two live albums are my favorites in terms of energy.
-
???
Playing the songs as they were written is unexciting? ???
Actually, yes. Some songs on LALP are downright plodding because they are played at CD speed. There is a reason why just about any band on this planet plays their songs faster live than what's on the album. It's the energy of the live setting that then gets reflected in the rendition of the song.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Scotty!
-
???
Playing the songs as they were written is unexciting? ???
Actually, yes. Some songs on LALP are downright plodding because they are played at CD speed. There is a reason why just about any band on this planet plays their songs faster live than what's on the album. It's the energy of the live setting that then gets reflected in the rendition of the song.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Scotty!
Thank you rumbo! :tup
-
Okay, but DT usually already plays enough speedy songs and sections that speeding up even more stuff is not necessary for their shows to be exciting. I am not saying I am opposed to them doing it...not at all. I am just saying, given that their shows are already pretty high energy, I don't see the issue here.
Personally, I'd be fine with them ditching the extended solo sections in songs that are already long. Trial of Tears from the this year is a good example. The song is already over 13 minutes, with three solo sections (opening guitar solo, and then the guitar and keys solos in the middle), and making one of those solo sections five minutes longer was kind of a snoozer for me; I couldn't wait for them to end it so we could get to the meat of the song. Granted, given the nature of that intro, with the floating keys and percussion stuff, it begs to be extended live, and I get why they do it, but I am just saying, as a fan, I don't find that stuff that interesting to watch live.
-
???
Playing the songs as they were written is unexciting? ???
Actually, yes. Some songs on LALP are downright plodding because they are played at CD speed. There is a reason why just about any band on this planet plays their songs faster live than what's on the album. It's the energy of the live setting that then gets reflected in the rendition of the song.
The "Happy Holidays" release suffers quite a bit from this too.
-
I'm glad LALP was brought up here. I LOVE listening to Live Albums, but LALP is the one I have the most trouble with. It actually doesn't "sound" live.
-
I don't think the Boston gig DVD will be any different. All songs were played to click there too.
-
I don't think the Boston gig DVD will be any different. All songs were played to click there too.
Well, the mix might help it a little. Who knows? You are probably right.
-
Nope. I'm serious. I like Raw Dog. I don't get the dislike for it.
Dangit Tim - how DARE you go against the grain!!!! Where's that controversial thread...?
Yeah, right. I think I said it all the time. How can Enigma Machine catch all this praise when Raw Dog catches the shit. It's like OMG they put an instrumental on an album. Really? If that's their idea of an instrumental, just write lyrics over it. It's not like EM sucks. I do enjoy it, but I thing Raw Dog gets a Raw Deal. :biggrin:
-
Okay, but DT usually already plays enough speedy songs and sections that speeding up even more stuff is not necessary for their shows to be exciting. I am not saying I am opposed to them doing it...not at all. I am just saying, given that their shows are already pretty high energy, I don't see the issue here.
Playing songs that originally have a faster tempo is not the same thing as playing songs at a slightly faster speed than they were originally recorded. And yes there is an issue, or else you wouldn't see people making comments about the performances coming off sterile, even tho perfect, or comments about how some songs on LALP are plodding. Nobody is asking them to play the songs 1.5 times faster or even just as fast as they played Metropolis at the Boston show in 2003 (to allow enough time for an encore without going past curfew), but just slightly faster can make the difference.
BTW, I'm still curious as to your thoughts on the live performances vs. the studio originals of those two songs - what do you think?
-
Nope. I'm serious. I like Raw Dog. I don't get the dislike for it.
Dangit Tim - how DARE you go against the grain!!!! Where's that controversial thread...?
Yeah, right. I think I said it all the time. How can Enigma Machine catch all this praise when Raw Dog catches the shit. It's like OMG they put an instrumental on an album. Really? If that's their idea of an instrumental, just write lyrics over it. It's not like EM sucks. I do enjoy it, but I thing Raw Dog gets a Raw Deal. :biggrin:
I certainly don't think Raw Dog is a great song, but I don't mind it and I wouldn't put it at the bottom of my list of DT favorites. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the hate for it is subconsciously because MP was largely behind it being put together and because it's his swansong with the band, considering how much unnecessary blame is attributed to MP on this board.
-
I think that's exactly right, Scott.
No, Raw Dog doesn't have the beauty of Erotomania, or the innocent passion of Ytse Jam, but I think it rocks. :metal
I think it's an awesome testament to their King Crimson influence. And I don't even like KC. It's a hell of a lot better than Lark Tongues, which is a waste of tape.
-
Nope. I'm serious. I like Raw Dog. I don't get the dislike for it.
That surprises me, seeing as how many people dislike it. I went and listened to it again after seeing your comment and don't really see why it's as despised as it is. I personally find it rather boring, but it's not as bad as some people say IMO. I think EM is more interesting and I love the spy-ish vibe I get from it, but after all, that's completely subjective.
-
Nope. I'm serious. I like Raw Dog. I don't get the dislike for it.
That surprises me, seeing as how many people dislike it. I went and listened to it again after seeing your comment and don't really see why it's as despised as it is. I personally find it rather boring, but it's not as bad as some people say IMO. I think EM is more interesting and I love the spy-ish vibe I get from it, but after all, that's completely subjective.
It's all subjective. It's cool. If you want boring, there's always Hell's Kitchen. :biggrin:
-
Nope. I'm serious. I like Raw Dog. I don't get the dislike for it.
That surprises me, seeing as how many people dislike it. I went and listened to it again after seeing your comment and don't really see why it's as despised as it is. I personally find it rather boring, but it's not as bad as some people say IMO. I think EM is more interesting and I love the spy-ish vibe I get from it, but after all, that's completely subjective.
It's all subjective. It's cool. If you want boring, there's always Hell's Kitchen. :biggrin:
This post perfectly illustrates why post count is important. If you post enough crazy, far-out opinions, you will eventually just luck into posting something sane and rational. This is that post.
-
Nope. I'm serious. I like Raw Dog. I don't get the dislike for it.
That surprises me, seeing as how many people dislike it. I went and listened to it again after seeing your comment and don't really see why it's as despised as it is. I personally find it rather boring, but it's not as bad as some people say IMO. I think EM is more interesting and I love the spy-ish vibe I get from it, but after all, that's completely subjective.
It's all subjective. It's cool. If you want boring, there's always Hell's Kitchen. :biggrin:
This post perfectly illustrates why post count is important. If you post enough crazy, far-out opinions, you will eventually just luck into posting something sane and rational. This is that post.
Except you picked the wrong post Bosk! :loser:
-
Nope. I'm serious. I like Raw Dog. I don't get the dislike for it.
That surprises me, seeing as how many people dislike it. I went and listened to it again after seeing your comment and don't really see why it's as despised as it is. I personally find it rather boring, but it's not as bad as some people say IMO. I think EM is more interesting and I love the spy-ish vibe I get from it, but after all, that's completely subjective.
It's all subjective. It's cool. If you want boring, there's always Hell's Kitchen. :biggrin:
I agree with you 100% on that.
-
Nope. I'm serious. I like Raw Dog. I don't get the dislike for it.
That surprises me, seeing as how many people dislike it. I went and listened to it again after seeing your comment and don't really see why it's as despised as it is. I personally find it rather boring, but it's not as bad as some people say IMO. I think EM is more interesting and I love the spy-ish vibe I get from it, but after all, that's completely subjective.
It's all subjective. It's cool. If you want boring, there's always Hell's Kitchen. :biggrin:
This post perfectly illustrates why post count is important. If you post enough crazy, far-out opinions, you will eventually just luck into posting something sane and rational. This is that post.
:lol
You know it, bro!
-
Interesting how Raw Dog was brought in comparison to Enigma Machine. I think both suffer from the same bad concoction: Meandering progressions, and lackluster, over-the-top solos.
-
Hell's Kitchen? Boring? The fuck?
-
Hell's Kitchen? Boring? The fuck?
-
Boring compared to some other instrumentals they've done I think. Petrucci's solo is great, but the rest of the band doesn't do much of anything interesting, that I can hear, at least. It's only 4 minutes though, so it doesn't feel drawn out as long as Raw Dog. I still enjoy HK, but less so than a good bit of other DT songs.
I haven't listened to FII for a while though, and was presently surprised by HK went I listened to it again. That album has grown on me quite a lot recently... I used to rank it much lower.
-
Hell's Kitchen is all about the atmosphere.
-
Hell's Kitchen is all about the atmosphere.
It seems most of FII is that way, which is something I had a hard time coming to terms with when I first listened to the album. I felt the same about Octavarium's intro, but I've definitely started to appreciate that sort of thing more.
-
???
Playing the songs as they were written is unexciting? ???
Actually, yes. Some songs on LALP are downright plodding because they are played at CD speed. There is a reason why just about any band on this planet plays their songs faster live than what's on the album. It's the energy of the live setting that then gets reflected in the rendition of the song.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Scotty!
I agree, and I mentioned this when it first came out. I think the majority of songs were fine, but TROAE, OTBOA, TSCO in particular come across really flat to me on LALP.
OTBOA sounds lifeless to me on ADTOE, but I was hoping it would translate well live. Vocals aside, I couldn't tell the two renditions apart. The outro of TSCO didn't elevate the song and felt like it was being held back and all at the one level. And TROAE just felt that bit too restrained, especially once it hit the instrumental section.
Due to the differences in performance, what works perfectly in the studio doesn't necessarily work as well live, so I think sometimes a slightly faster tempo is necessary to get the right live energy and recapture the feel of the song. I don't know that there's any formula to it, it just depends on the song.
There were some songs that MP played much too fast for my liking (mostly the ballady stuff), but they were always free to find what tempo worked live, and you were getting something different to just the studio version. Those kinds of little changes are often what makes seeing a live show for me interesting.
-
Nope. I'm serious. I like Raw Dog. I don't get the dislike for it.
Dangit Tim - how DARE you go against the grain!!!! Where's that controversial thread...?
Yeah, right. I think I said it all the time. How can Enigma Machine catch all this praise when Raw Dog catches the shit. It's like OMG they put an instrumental on an album. Really? If that's their idea of an instrumental, just write lyrics over it. It's not like EM sucks. I do enjoy it, but I thing Raw Dog gets a Raw Deal. :biggrin:
I certainly don't think Raw Dog is a great song, but I don't mind it and I wouldn't put it at the bottom of my list of DT favorites. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the hate for it is subconsciously because MP was largely behind it being put together and because it's his swansong with the band, considering how much unnecessary blame is attributed to MP on this board.
I strongly disagree. I don't think that any of the dislike for Raw Dog has anything to do with MP whatsoever. Most people just don't like it. MP wasn't the only musician in the room when that piece was written and recorded, and I have never seen him singled out for the blame for how it turned out.
-
Raw Dog was a quick instrumental whipped up for a bonus disc with a video game. I think the circumstances are largely to blame for it not being a great track. Would anyone expect the next Metropolis in that situation?
EM on the other hand has no such excuse for being that weak. :P
-
Raw Dog is a fine song when it happens to come on if I have my ipod on shuffle. I just never have the desire to listen to it. I don't have much of a desire to listen to instrumentals anyway so that doesn't even necessarily have anything to do with the song Raw Dog in and of itself.
-
BTW, I'm still curious as to your thoughts on the live performances vs. the studio originals of those two songs - what do you think?
I'm not a Maiden fan, so I have no opinion on that one.
As for The Spirit of Radio, it's always a little more exciting live, but I don't think the P/G video version is really faster, so much as Peart plays some of the fills at a faster and more furious pace, which is definitely cool. The pace of the song sounds about the same to me, or maybe it's just that they always play it a tad faster live and I am just used to it. Most of the songs on that concert video do have crazy energy, though. :tup :tup
-
So the solution is that DT speeds up the click track I guess? :justjen
-
Or they could dump the click track along with the backing tracks (harmonizer pedals?) and feed off the audience energy to match the tempo.
-
So the solution is that DT speeds up the click track I guess? :justjen
In cases where the video timing is tightly tied to the song, yes. Otherwise, what Grizz said:
Or they could dump the click track along with the backing tracks (harmonizer pedals?) and feed off the audience energy to match the tempo.
-
My complaints: Ending the first set with Breaking All Illusions instead of The Bigger Picture and playing to a click.
Honestly was a phenomenal show though. Great stuff.
-
I'm not a Maiden fan, so I have no opinion on that one.
As for The Spirit of Radio, it's always a little more exciting live, but I don't think the P/G video version is really faster, so much as Peart plays some of the fills at a faster and more furious pace, which is definitely cool. The pace of the song sounds about the same to me, or maybe it's just that they always play it a tad faster live and I am just used to it. Most of the songs on that concert video do have crazy energy, though. :tup :tup
It's amazing how much faster the Maiden song was played live in comparison to the studio version, which is plodding and I never liked much. The live version actually makes it appealing to me. Not that it matters to you!
Regarding the Rush track, check it out for yourself to see the difference in tempo:
https://www.youtubedoubler.com/?video1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D5QylVq8enyk&start1=118&video2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DjQUDiCiNlqQ&start2=4&authorName=Sped+up+Rush+for+KevShmev
It's not that much, but it's enough that it makes a difference!
-
So the solution is that DT speeds up the click track I guess? :justjen
In cases where the video timing is tightly tied to the song, yes. Otherwise, what Grizz said:
Or they could dump the click track along with the backing tracks (harmonizer pedals?) and feed off the audience energy to match the tempo.
I can understand people wanting slightly faster version but ditching the backing tracks that give it the more full sound? no thanks.
-
I can understand people wanting slightly faster version but ditching the backing tracks that give it the more full sound? no thanks.
And have to do it old school - like actually live?!?!? *shock* *horror*
Really they don't need a timed click track to make it happen. If Rush, a band of 3 guys now in their 60s, can pull of triggering various samples live, then you should be able to expect a younger band that has 2 more members (especially one referred to as "the wizard") should be *more* than capable of doing the same. I'm not buying it. Remember JP's motto: WWRD?
-
I wasn't put off at all from the backing tracks. Seen it with Rush and it enhances the show. I think it took Rush time to balance playing with a click track and then having extended parts of songs for certain songs. Also changing the setlist on the second leg was a smart thing to do.
-
For me, they have played all of their tours up until now without a click, even with video productions, and they have always put on great shows. I wish they would go back to playing without it, and just be the great musicians they are.
-
Exactly that. They played TDOE without click live, so clearly they are perfectly able to play their own stuff.
The backing tracks add very little IMHO, but take away all the spontaneity.
-
Well for us DT fans, them not changing the setlist from night to night adds to the lack of spontaneity as well.
-
I'm not a Maiden fan, so I have no opinion on that one.
As for The Spirit of Radio, it's always a little more exciting live, but I don't think the P/G video version is really faster, so much as Peart plays some of the fills at a faster and more furious pace, which is definitely cool. The pace of the song sounds about the same to me, or maybe it's just that they always play it a tad faster live and I am just used to it. Most of the songs on that concert video do have crazy energy, though. :tup :tup
It's amazing how much faster the Maiden song was played live in comparison to the studio version, which is plodding and I never liked much. The live version actually makes it appealing to me. Not that it matters to you!
Regarding the Rush track, check it out for yourself to see the difference in tempo:
https://www.youtubedoubler.com/?video1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D5QylVq8enyk&start1=118&video2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DjQUDiCiNlqQ&start2=4&authorName=Sped+up+Rush+for+KevShmev
It's not that much, but it's enough that it makes a difference!
Okay, cool.
As for the Maiden thing, that description reminded me of Judas Priest's Victim of Changes, where the studio version is very plodding, while the live version is so much faster, it's almost like a different song. :metal
-
And BTW I agree with all of you about the click track. I don't want it either.
-
I think good examples of songs that benefit from a faster pace are Sacrificed Sons (the second half), Octavarium (second half), and TTTSTA. The Test was sped up on Budokan and Score and makes the song infinitely more fun live. At LaLP, it lacked the energy those 2 live albums gave it.
They never sped the song up, but TSCO also lacks a LOT of energy on LaLP as opposed to Score or LSFNY or even the studio version, honestly. It just lacks the feeling of the entire song, imo.
Speeding songs up for the hell of it is nonsense, but speeding them up a little to make them more energetic and fun live is perfectly fine and way more fun, imo.
-
I can understand people wanting slightly faster version but ditching the backing tracks that give it the more full sound? no thanks.
And have to do it old school - like actually live?!?!? *shock* *horror*
Because .003478% of their sound ISN'T live, then the band is not considered "actually live?"
-
I saw another great show at Sonisphere last weekend, especially considering it was a festival set. My VERY minor complaints are:
- MM's ride is always mixed way too low - I've seen DT v. MM six times now, and it happens every time.
- MM needs to use his crash instead of his hi-hats for the bit at the start of Overture 1928 where it all kicks in
That is all.
-
I can understand people wanting slightly faster version but ditching the backing tracks that give it the more full sound? no thanks.
And have to do it old school - like actually live?!?!? *shock* *horror*
Because .003478% of their sound ISN'T live, then the band is not considered "actually live?"
Actually, yeah.
Maybe it's the old fogeys around here, but we grew up with, and watched, all of our bands *live*, that is what you heard was what was being played.
And yes, let's put it acrimoniously, who can at this point tell for sure what's live anymore st a DT show and what isn't? There's videos where James holds the microphone into the audience, and yet you can hear him singing, because they decided to fill the chorus with overdubbed vocal lines. At the Boston gig they didn't even hear the orchestra because it was "easier for them that way". Call it what you will, but live it ain't.
-
Sure it is. Just because you have a few things going on a backing track to fill out the sound doesn't mean what you are hearing isn't mostly live.
I am curious though if they do a backing track that plays straight through, like U2 did with some of those 90s songs, or if they do what Rush does, which is trigger stuff on stage at various points in songs. It might sounds like semantics, but there is a difference.
-
I can understand people wanting slightly faster version but ditching the backing tracks that give it the more full sound? no thanks.
And have to do it old school - like actually live?!?!? *shock* *horror*
Because .003478% of their sound ISN'T live, then the band is not considered "actually live?"
Actually, yeah.
Maybe it's the old fogeys around here, but we grew up with, and watched, all of our bands *live*, that is what you heard was what was being played.
And yes, let's put it acrimoniously, who can at this point tell for sure what's live anymore st a DT show and what isn't? There's videos where James holds the microphone into the audience, and yet you can hear him singing, because they decided to fill the chorus with overdubbed vocal lines. At the Boston gig they didn't even hear the orchestra because it was "easier for them that way". Call it what you will, but live it ain't.
It's always a minor distraction for me watching a show figuring out what's live and not live. When I know that it's 100% live, I can relax more and enjoy the musicianship fully, but when I know that what I'm hearing isn't all necessarily coming from the musicians on stage, then I'm constantly on the listen for what's real and what's not. Not that it's usually hard to tell, and I'm observant anyway, but it's a bit less honest to me (when it's vocals they could/should be doing live, at least), and for me that's not what a live show is about.
-
Consider me dumbfounded. For people to give that much credence to the idea that a small percentage of a vocal harmony that is prerecorded loses the live feel makes me lose hope in humanity.
I mean, we're not talking about every chorus having every word prerecorded. We are talking about 20-30% of the choruses having a line or two harmonized. If thats not your thing, cool, I respect that. But to say that it is not actually live?
Can we just go back to talking about our hairstyle preferences for JLB because I feel that that discussion may have more legitimacy.
-
Consider me dumbfounded. For people to give that much credence to the idea that a small percentage of a vocal harmony that is prerecorded loses the live feel makes me lose hope in humanity.
I mean, we're not talking about every chorus having every word prerecorded. We are talking about 20-30% of the choruses having a line or two harmonized. If thats not your thing, cool, I respect that. But to say that it is not actually live?
Can we just go back to talking about our hairstyle preferences for JLB because I feel that that discussion may have more legitimacy.
QFT.
-
Consider me dumbfounded. For people to give that much credence to the idea that a small percentage of a vocal harmony that is prerecorded loses the live feel makes me lose hope in humanity.
I mean, we're not talking about every chorus having every word prerecorded. We are talking about 20-30% of the choruses having a line or two harmonized. If thats not your thing, cool, I respect that. But to say that it is not actually live?
Can we just go back to talking about our hairstyle preferences for JLB because I feel that that discussion may have more legitimacy.
QFT.
-
I was excited when I started hearing backing tracks in the early version of ADTOE videos well before Luna Park was out, I just think it adds some colour to fill in parts of the entire spectrum of sound that you're hearing and ultimately enhance parts of a song. And whether it was performed at that moment, or earlier on and triggered as a tool to assist the presentation, I don't think it detracts from the experience unless focusing on these things is deliberately part of your experience. I get where you guys are coming from with 'authenticity' and even stretching that to 'honestly'. But DT have been doing this for so long, this is what they want to be doing now, they've done it old school for so long that they're probably quite excited about the prospect of expanding their performances and essentially opening up more freedom for what's actually possible for them as individuals and as a group during live shows. And that is them being true. Now they're playing more tightly than ever before and taken it to another level, so hell yeah? :metal
I can understand people wanting slightly faster version but ditching the backing tracks that give it the more full sound? no thanks.
And have to do it old school - like actually live?!?!? *shock* *horror*
Because .003478% of their sound ISN'T live, then the band is not considered "actually live?"
Actually, yeah.
Maybe it's the old fogeys around here, but we grew up with, and watched, all of our bands *live*, that is what you heard was what was being played.
And yes, let's put it acrimoniously, who can at this point tell for sure what's live anymore st a DT show and what isn't? There's videos where James holds the microphone into the audience, and yet you can hear him singing, because they decided to fill the chorus with overdubbed vocal lines. At the Boston gig they didn't even hear the orchestra because it was "easier for them that way". Call it what you will, but live it ain't.
It's always a minor distraction for me watching a show figuring out what's live and not live. When I know that it's 100% live, I can relax more and enjoy the musicianship fully, but when I know that what I'm hearing isn't all necessarily coming from the musicians on stage, then I'm constantly on the listen for what's real and what's not. Not that it's usually hard to tell, and I'm observant anyway, but it's a bit less honest to me (when it's vocals they could/should be doing live, at least), and for me that's not what a live show is about.
I might say it doesn't bother me and I'm happy about the way the shows are. But I still play that little game while watching Luna Park, and I'm listening for your singing JP. :lol
Anyway, when I think on it, one way to look at it; is that these features can add a lot to a live experience and is hardly gonna be the sole focus of ones attention at the time, but some of those techniques don't translate as well on a DVD where we expect everything to look perfect.
-
For me, anyway, the problem with the way they do it now isn't the lack of rotating set lists, but simply no room for derivation AT ALL. No extended solo sections, no impromptu jams, nothing whatsoever to make any one show different from any other.
Yes, but that's why they're not fucking up as much (or at all really) as they used to. That AND now MP isn't there to play the songs 1.5 times faster than they were originally recorded - that's definitely helping the guys play as tight and as flawlessly as possible too.
Will you knock it off with unnecessary blaming MP for everything you find wrong? Good grief.
First of fucking all, don't tell me what to do. I stated something that I noticed based on fact - Mike Portnoy did NOT play to a click track. FACT. Mike Portnoy used to (most of the time) play the songs at a tempo slightly faster (occasionally much faster) than originally written/recorded. FACT. Doing so, in turn, made some of the more difficult passages even MORE difficult for JR, JP, and JM to play, because of the increased speed in which they had to play them. FACT.
I stated those facts in such a way that did not disrespect Mike Portnoy or any one else for that matter. I blame MP for things that I find he was to blame for. He's a drummer, therefore he sets the tempo for the song, therefore if the song is being played too fast, or too slow, or just right, then he is to blame. Do NOT tell me to knock anything off. I was not bashing Mike Portnoy.
-
MM could be a better drummer than MP, but not the right one for DT for sure.
Click sucks, people (and not only blind haters) always accused DT for being too "cold" in their music and on stage...well, now i'm really close to agree with those people, MP was the heart of the band, maybe the only "unpredictable" one, if you know what i mean...now i have the feeling of a pre-cooked show, something like a food in a microwave, no passion and same story night after night (and having the same setlist in this leg surely doesn't help to prove i'm wrong...)
i'm a bit disappointed with all this stuff, i LOVE DT12 (but to be honest i don't like that much drums on that record, and the drum sound is horrible) but i think that it could have been a better record with MP in the band, or at least a better tour for sure!
-
I disagree on the statement that MP's drumming would have improved DT12. MP's drumming had become stale and predictable leading up to the split, I very much doubt that would have changed.
Fully agree though that the click track has pushed a band which has been accused of coldness (and even before the click track I somewhat agreed), pushed themselves a good chunk further into that direction.
-
..., or at least a better tour for sure!
It is great how opinions differ. I have seen DT on Saturday in Hamburg, this was my second concert of the tour. It was my 21th DT concert up to date (the first one being during the FII Tour), so I feel like I am able to see the progress in the concerts they have made during the years.
In the old days like on the FII tour we had lava lamps on the stage. During the Scenes Tour the band had TV screens for the "video show". On the SDoIT Tour there was one screen with pics on it (were there animated videos?!?) ...
A tour like this current one is simply another dimension, and this can only be done with a clicktrack which guides everybody (inclusive light techs) through the show. And for me it worked extremely well. A stunning show with incredibly well animated videos, the best light show they had. I even enjoyed the show twice even though the setlist remained unchanged. I was a big sucker for the changing setlists, but I must admit to myself that I prefer an evening-with-show this spectacular way over a DT show with support act and changing setlists. I mean this tour gives us 2.45 min of DT live with everything you could ask for, when it comes to a great show.
Today, the tempo of the songs always seemed to be right, whereas some of the songs seemed incredibly rushed with MP.
For me this is the best DT show I have ever seen (and I have seen every tour since FII). And MM is a huge part of the reasons, which I enjoyed the show that much.
-
I disagree on the statement that MP's drumming would have improved DT12. MP's drumming had become stale and predictable leading up to the split, I very much doubt that would have changed.
Fully agree though that the click track has pushed a band which has been accused of coldness (and even before the click track I somewhat agreed), pushed themselves a good chunk further into that direction.
I agree on the statement regarding MPs drumming, sometimes I could even airdrum to the parts while listening to them for the first time.
For me the disadvantage of the use of a click track is way outperformed (can you say that?) by the positive aspects which come with the clicktrack - e. g. the improved visual aspect of the current tour design.
-
I'll admit that my opinion on the set list staying the same all year might be a bit different if the set list weren't this great.
If nothing else, the static set list takes the fun out of following the tour online, as it used to be fun to log on after every show to see what they played, cause you never knew what they might play, but for fans at the shows, I think we are getting it a bit better than we were the last few tours with Portnoy, for reasons I have stated before.
-
A tour like this current one is simply another dimension, and this can only be done with a clicktrack which guides everybody (inclusive light techs) through the show.
This is false as I've pointed out before.
-
In the old days like on the FII tour we had lava lamps on the stage. During the Scenes Tour the band had TV screens for the "video show". On the SDoIT Tour there was one screen with pics on it (were there animated videos?!?) ...
I see you left out every single tour since where they have had full video. :P They had just as much in the video and lights without a click track, but it was more work for the crew to handle it all live rather than rely on the automation. Not to downplay the production of this tour though, as I think video-wise it is their most impressive all around from what I've seen, but that's not specifically due to click tracks. It does allow some tighter integration, but it's not a necessity, as they've proven on past tours.
For me some of the tempos aren't right with a click track, too plodding for the live setting, the difference now being that the tempo will be the exact same amount off at every single show with no chance of deviation. Some of the tempos were too fast with MP, but it of course varied, and it was still mostly not a problem, as it's mostly not a problem now.
But some songs on LALP just failed to get to that live energy level at all for me, like they were being held back by a click track when they were begging for that little bit more. The outro of TSCO was musical blue balls. And I know that every rendition of that song from now on will be exactly the same for me. As every other song will be. Great for consistency, but not particularly exciting imo. Those little deviations are what make a live version of a song to me.
-
If nothing else, the static set list takes the fun out of following the tour online, as it used to be fun to log on after every show to see what they played, cause you never knew what they might play, but for fans at the shows, I think we are getting it a bit better
Yeah I agree. It's not uncommon to read that people are saying that this was the best they've seen them, and the last two shows I've seen are easily two of my favorites. But following the tour online, which was great fun, is now basically on existent.
But some songs on LALP just failed to get to that live energy level at all for me,
I was saying just that a bit back.
-
In the old days like on the FII tour we had lava lamps on the stage. During the Scenes Tour the band had TV screens for the "video show". On the SDoIT Tour there was one screen with pics on it (were there animated videos?!?) ...
I see you left out every single tour since where they have had full video. :P They had just as much in the video and lights without a click track, but it was more work for the crew to handle it all live rather than rely on the automation. Not to downplay the production of this tour though, as I think video-wise it is their most impressive all around from what I've seen, but that's not specifically due to click tracks. It does allow some tighter integration, but it's not a necessity, as they've proven on past tours.
totally agree...Iron Maiden never used the click on stage and the show have always been full of pyros and light effects & cool stuff even back in the 80s where they used to speed up the songs as much as possible
-
Maybe it's the old fogeys around here, but we grew up with, and watched, all of our bands *live*, that is what you heard was what was being played.
No, not really. Bands back in the '80s used a plenty of techniques to add to their onstage sound, whether it be hidden offstage musicians of singers (technically still "live," but still not entirely genuine in terms of having all the sound you are hearing coming solely from the musicians you see onstage), prerecorded backing tracks or effects, playing to a metronome or click, or whatever. That mostly did not bother me. In fact, the converse bothered me more--for example, where a band only has one guitarist, and their albums would have layer upon layer upon layer of harmonized guitar parts that cannot be replicated live, and the result was a very thin, lackluster live performance. And let's not forget that the members of Dream Theater themselves are "old fogeys" who were listening to and watching live music during that era.
Count me in the camp that has no problem with this.
But some songs on LALP just failed to get to that live energy level at all for me, like they were being held back by a click track when they were begging for that little bit more.
Wait, why are we now assuming Luna Park was played to a click? Am I forgetting something, or didn't they only just start using the click on the AFTR tour?
-
But some songs on LALP just failed to get to that live energy level at all for me, like they were being held back by a click track when they were begging for that little bit more.
Wait, why are we now assuming Luna Park was played to a click? Am I forgetting something, or didn't they only just start using the click on the AFTR tour?
That's what I thought to.
-
But some songs on LALP just failed to get to that live energy level at all for me, like they were being held back by a click track when they were begging for that little bit more.
Wait, why are we now assuming Luna Park was played to a click? Am I forgetting something, or didn't they only just start using the click on the AFTR tour?
That's what I thought to.
I'm pretty sure I was hearing of the click track during the ADTOE tour.
-
You can line up LALP tracks with the album tracks with YouTube Doubler, and they never drift. So yeah, all tours with MM have been with click.
-
You can line up LALP tracks with the album tracks with YouTube Doubler, and they never drift.
And it sounds like that. There's nothing about LALP that makes me think I'm listening to a Live album.
-
Well the sound engineers seriously fucked up LaLP.
-
I thought it was fairly well known that they've been playing to a click since 2011 as demonstrated in the Happy Holidays release. (See Count of Tuscany). It seems that particular example still has room for deviation because the 'ambient' section is somewhat extended and possibly a bit more freeform.
Anyway, I just wanted to consider what it means for a performance to be 'cold'. Because it's a term I slightly disagree with, but I respect it's application to reflect some peoples experiences, but I also think it's an incomplete definition for this situation and almost cold to use the term in general. :lol
So, there's the thing where DT have had issues with casual music listeners that will say their music has so soul or something to that effect, and they just don't get it. They might describe it as 'cold'? Music sounds cold when you're not feeling it right? So it's obviously a subjective perspective. Because when you're into it, you can even follow irregular time changes that might come off jarring at first, and with familiarity, turn it into something groovy. What becomes colder about the performance? I find it hard to believe it could be described as 'less natural' when it's bringing out the best in the musicians and tightening up the whole show. The musicians aren't rushed or pushed, they're playing comfortably and more often locked in and 'channeling' the songs more consistently than ever. And that's cold?
As previously said by others; bands have been using backingtracks, overdubs and even sometimes on the fly live pitch correction for as long as technology has been able to keep up with our demands and I'm talking when it was very much uncool and bands were more secretive about it. What about a solo musician than plays say; 4 instruments at once using delay effects, triggers and samples to essentially be creating enough sounds that it could sound like a band with multiple instrumentalists playing at once. That's impressive right? Is there a significant difference in the way this is perceived than if a full band was using similar techniques to enhance the listening experience?
I'll admit that my opinion on the set list staying the same all year might be a bit different if the set list weren't this great.
If nothing else, the static set list takes the fun out of following the tour online, as it used to be fun to log on after every show to see what they played, cause you never knew what they might play, but for fans at the shows, I think we are getting it a bit better than we were the last few tours with Portnoy, for reasons I have stated before.
Also, I completely agree with this. It's not as exciting to follow online, but the overall experience of attending the shows seems to have generally improved for a lot of people.
-
<snip>
I find it hard to believe it could be described as 'less natural' when it's bringing out the best in the musicians and tightening up the whole show. The musicians aren't rushed or pushed, they're playing comfortably and more often locked in and 'channeling' the songs more consistently than ever. And that's cold?
<snip>
I agree. I suppose I can understand how someone would come to that conclusion, but I disagree. I personally have the most fun playing to a click. It's so crisp and satisfying to lock in to the met and play. It always makes me happy, and I can't help but smile. I can, however, see how speeding up the click might make it more energetic or fitting for a live setting, but I don't have a problem with the click itself.
-
But some songs on LALP just failed to get to that live energy level at all for me, like they were being held back by a click track when they were begging for that little bit more.
Wait, why are we now assuming Luna Park was played to a click? Am I forgetting something, or didn't they only just start using the click on the AFTR tour?
It's not an assumption, interviews with MM have confirmed it since the start of the ADTOE tour. I thought this was common knowledge on DTF by now. And at the time LALP was released, I put the songs side and side, and there is literally zero deviation from the studio versions. I can't even tell the studio and live versions of OTBOA apart, aside from the vocals, which sounded much better live.
-
But some songs on LALP just failed to get to that live energy level at all for me, like they were being held back by a click track when they were begging for that little bit more.
Wait, why are we now assuming Luna Park was played to a click? Am I forgetting something, or didn't they only just start using the click on the AFTR tour?
It's not an assumption, interviews with MM have confirmed it since the start of the ADTOE tour. I thought this was common knowledge on DTF by now. And at the time LALP was released, I put the songs side and side, and there is literally zero deviation from the studio versions. I can't even tell the studio and live versions of OTBOA apart, aside from the vocals, which sounded much better live.
Aren't the intro and outro of Surrounded freeform on LALP?
-
Aren't the intro and outro of Surrounded freeform on LALP?
I think so. All of Surrounded sounds just dandy on LALP. There are a few other intros/outros that could benefit from doing the same imo, where it wouldn't mess up the sync for backing tracks etc later on.
-
Aren't the intro and outro of Surrounded freeform on LALP?
I think so. All of Surrounded sounds just dandy on LALP. There are a few other intros/outros that could benefit from doing the same imo, where it wouldn't mess up the sync for backing tracks etc later on.
I agree. Surrounded is probably one of my favourite parts of LALP.
-
Nothing wrong with clicks + backing tracks for me. I'm struggling to think of many bands who don't use clicks nowadays, my band does it too. And I've seen plenty of amazing energetic sets from these bands. I think what Periphery do is raise the tempo of the songs a few bpm to give them more of a live energy. Perhaps that's something DT could do.
The ONLY point it was distracting for me during their 2014 was the verse backing vocals during The Mirror. They were far too high in the mix and it looked odd Petrucci singing with them. That's all, though.
-
Count me into the group that has no issue with DT playing to a click live. It seems like it has tightened up the performances of the musicians and allowed every player (James as well) to convey their particular part comfortably and with confidence. Obviously, DT were great players and performers live without the click, but with the click everything seems a bit tighter.
That being said, I agree that bumping the click up a few BPMs on certain songs wouldn't hurt to give them a little more of that live push. When my band plays out we do play to click with certain background parts looped and we do this for a couple songs. Actually now that I'm thinking about it, I cant remember the last time I played out with a band that didn't use click. In my experiences it seems like its becoming the norm among bands in order to keep tempos right and keep everything as tight as possible.
-
Well, again, my only problem with them playing to a click/backing track is that there is no room for deviation from it. You are chained to it. Which means that there is nothing different from one show to the next. There is nothing special about any one show, other than the fact that it may be the show YOU attend.
-
I think that's only a problem when you have a show like the current tour, where the whole set, video (and maybe lighting if it's midi controlled) is cued from it. In 2012 they had differing setlists so there was some variation.
-
Well, again, my only problem with them playing to a click/backing track is that there is no room for deviation from it. You are chained to it. Which means that there is nothing different from one show to the next. There is nothing special about any one show, other than the fact that it may be the show YOU attend.
Well that is sort of what I look for when DT tours....
-
Well, again, my only problem with them playing to a click/backing track is that there is no room for deviation from it. You are chained to it. Which means that there is nothing different from one show to the next. There is nothing special about any one show, other than the fact that it may be the show YOU attend.
I honestly think that has more to do with the lighting and video shows being tied so closely to the click track than the actual use of a click track itself. The band still has the ability to do extended instrumentals as intros and outros very easily with the click by simply having MM turn it on or off and times. Heck if they desired to, they could still easily throw in extended jams or improvised breaks in the middle of songs if they wanted to. I've actually done that before with a programmed click track. You basically program the click through the first part of the song and then have it stop where you think to might want to jam or extend the section, then you just program another click to follow the remaining part of the song that MM can punch back in at the end of the jam and boom! There you have it. Its basically just splitting the click track for a song into two parts, that's all. Now that I'm thinking about it, that's pretty much what they are doing with EM this tour by having the "jam" in the middle be a drum solo.
I kinda get the feeling the band doesn't have a huge interest in building in the extended jam times into the set anymore; since its still pretty easy to do with the click and they really haven't been doing it. Maybe since they didn't do much of that on this tour, they will work it into the next tour more.
-
Thanks for explaining about the click tracks, I was completely unaware of these.
How would playing with a click track make it difficult for MM to replicate MP performance at the end of finally free?
-
Thanks for explaining about the click tracks, I was completely unaware of these.
How would playing with a click track make it difficult for MM to replicate MP performance at the end of finally free?
MP's drum parts at the end of that song let loose and the drums basically take the lead there, and don't really provide as clear a rhythm for the rest of the band to play to. I believe MP explains on the Metropolis 2000 DVD commentary that the rest of the band keeps that section together, and then MP has to come back in to their timing.
Playing it exactly as on the album would be a bit hard with a click track, because only MM hears the click track, not the rest of the band. The rest of the band hears MM's drums, and each other, and play from that. If the band is unable to sense the tempo from the drums, then they could drift out of sync with the click track.
I believe that's why MM modifies that section live to be a more standard rhythm, but intensifies by playing a faster beat, rather than ripping out the big drum fills, because he'd be fully capable of playing it as on the album. Personally I didn't like the changed ending, but I get that it was probably necessary to do it that way.
-
That makes sense, but if they really, really wanted to have MM play something more similar to MP's studio part they totally could.
That issue can easily be changed though by having the rest of the band hear the click for that section of the song. It would just require the monitor tech to feed the click into each band members in ear mix.
Or like I said earlier just have the click programmed to end right before that big fill section. There's no looped parts after that section they would have to line up with therefore they could easily extend/jam/feel out that section without a tempo restriction.
-
Personally, I don't mind the click track or the resultant mechanical nature of the shows - this is the best I've ever seen DT and I'm happy to sacrifice something of the spontaneity for shows this good.
That said, I feel they might be making a big mistake in not changing the setlist for this second European leg. Really, the minimum they should have done was swap two songs in the first half - that would have been enough. An awful lot of the people at Sheffield were at the February shows, and having seen this show three times, next tour I'm only going to see them once. I suspect that if the next tour has a second leg, they'll be playing to a lot of half-empty venues, as I'm sure I'm not the only fan who'll be staying away.
And if that happens, promoters will only book them into smaller venues next time (if at all), and that's not good for the band or the fans.
-
Their production is so big and detailed and the rehearsals to get everything synched up perfectly were probably so taxing that they didn't want to go to the effort of doing a different one, or even changing anything with it at all.
-
That makes sense, but if they really, really wanted to have MM play something more similar to MP's studio part they totally could.
That issue can easily be changed though by having the rest of the band hear the click for that section of the song. It would just require the monitor tech to feed the click into each band members in ear mix.
Or like I said earlier just have the click programmed to end right before that big fill section. There's no looped parts after that section they would have to line up with therefore they could easily extend/jam/feel out that section without a tempo restriction.
Ending the click track at that point would be my preferred solution, but they probably wanted to keep everything consistent and synced up and running smoothly. That section was probably a tough one to keep together, and they chose to change it in a way that made the show run more smoothly.
-
That makes sense, but if they really, really wanted to have MM play something more similar to MP's studio part they totally could.
That issue can easily be changed though by having the rest of the band hear the click for that section of the song. It would just require the monitor tech to feed the click into each band members in ear mix.
Or like I said earlier just have the click programmed to end right before that big fill section. There's no looped parts after that section they would have to line up with therefore they could easily extend/jam/feel out that section without a tempo restriction.
Ending the click track at that point would be my preferred solution, but they probably wanted to keep everything consistent and synced up and running smoothly. That section was probably a tough one to keep together, and they chose to change it in a way that made the show run more smoothly.
I totally agree with you. The point is, they had other options to make the section more true to MP's part and it seems like they decided keeping the show and the production tight was a higher priority. I'm not saying that's good or bad, it just seems like the way they leaned.
-
Their production is so big and detailed and the rehearsals to get everything synched up perfectly were probably so taxing that they didn't want to go to the effort of doing a different one, or even changing anything with it at all.
If they have the songs advance automatically (as in the lighting/video guy doesn't press the green GO circle at the start of each song) with their current visual setup I have no respect for this live crew.
Seriously, that's just fucking lazy.
-
Not necessarily.
-
Their production is so big and detailed and the rehearsals to get everything synched up perfectly were probably so taxing that they didn't want to go to the effort of doing a different one, or even changing anything with it at all.
If they have the songs advance automatically (as in the lighting/video guy doesn't press the green GO circle at the start of each song) with their current visual setup I have no respect for this live crew.
Seriously, that's just fucking lazy.
Or resourceful? Cost effective? Tours are expensive. If they can find a way to cue it automatically via MIDI or whatever means and save paying out for someone's salary then I can see why they would.
-
Even if the cost is the same, I see nothing wrong with a system that is more automated where the personnel present to monitor it are more troubleshooters than having to advance it manually. My I.T. guy doesn't have to come in and start my computer every morning or open and close programs for me, but he is a star if something breaks down and I need him to jump in and troubleshoot something. That's not laziness; he just has a different role than someone who is hands-on all the time.
-
That makes sense, but if they really, really wanted to have MM play something more similar to MP's studio part they totally could.
That issue can easily be changed though by having the rest of the band hear the click for that section of the song. It would just require the monitor tech to feed the click into each band members in ear mix.
Or like I said earlier just have the click programmed to end right before that big fill section. There's no looped parts after that section they would have to line up with therefore they could easily extend/jam/feel out that section without a tempo restriction.
Ending the click track at that point would be my preferred solution, but they probably wanted to keep everything consistent and synced up and running smoothly. That section was probably a tough one to keep together, and they chose to change it in a way that made the show run more smoothly.
Who knows what the underlying reason eventually is for not changing things up, but they're definitely so resistant to it that they'd rather play the Boston gig without hearing any of the orchestra at all. That part kinds blows my mind actually.
-
Who knows what the underlying reason eventually is for not changing things up, but they're definitely so resistant to it that they'd rather play the Boston gig without hearing any of the orchestra at all. That part kinds blows my mind actually.
Why does that blow your mind? The orchestra was there to accompany DT, not the other way around. DT didn't need to hear the orchestra for cues because the orchestra was following them, so why would they need to hear them?
I know when Metallica did S&M the orchestra was not in their in-ears at all either. That doesn't seem that weird to me.
I wonder if DT had the orchestra in their in-ears for Score...?
-
The show isn't that complex that they couldn't swap TSF and TOT for two other songs and leave the rest unchanged.
-
The show isn't that complex that they couldn't swap TSF and TOT for two other songs and leave the rest unchanged.
I'm with you there.
-
The show isn't that complex that they couldn't swap TSF and TOT for two other songs and leave the rest unchanged.
Why TSF and TOT though? The first has never been played prior to this tour and the second is a fan-favorite that's been absent for a long while.
-
Well, what i can say is that the show i saw yesterday was absolutely amazing (even for the 3rd time seeing it). But what i'm really pissed off about are those useless meet and greets. Of course it is an experience to see your heroes from this close and say something to them, and have early access to the venue etc. But what is bugging me is the fact that the band doesn't give a shit about what you say to them. Everything is extremely forced (even Rick the tourmanager couldn't even smile once).
Jordan, Mike Mangini and John Petrucci (JP is my idol) were extremely closed and the only thing they did were signing the stuff you took with you and showing less interest as the Meet and Greet went on.
Me: Hey John, how are you? Do you still lift?
JP: Sometimes
Me: *ok he's a bit closed or annoyed or whatever, better ask another question* Is it hard for you to keep your routine while on tour?
JP: It's challenging
I was like what the hell?! And then he went on signing the stuff from the guy behind me. The only one i had a real fun conversation with was JLB. We talked about his participation on The Theater Equation and how excited and honored he is to do it. JR and MM were extremely closed and after 10 minutes they were all gone.
-
On the one hand, I agree, that has to be frustrating, but on the other hand, they are only human; you cannot expect them to be all smiles and friendly 24/7, especially right before or after a 3-hour show (not sure if they are before or after the show this time around). I know, I know, they should put on happy faces considering the fans are paying extra for this, but like I said, they are only human.
Also, remember that it is called meet and greet. Saying hi or hello is a greeting; having a conversation is more than that, and if they have a conversation with every single fan who goes through the meet and greet line, it would take forever. They almost have to keep their answers short and sweet.
-
For some reason I love reading the Meet & Greet stories of disappoionted fans.
-
I've always felt meet and greets were for either very wealthy or very gullible people. Obviously the experience is something like a cattleshoot where you get to wait in line and eventually shake hands with the guys.
-
No offence to the band or the people who go to M&G, but i'm so against it as an idea, i mean paying to get to shake their hands and have a photo? No thanks, i feel like this would be ok for a pop star or something, but for a metal band it seems so out of place as a mentality.
-
I think it was introduced to cover the full video and better lighting introduced in 2004.
-
Knowing what it is, it's not something that appeals to me very much.
-
I did a M&G once and it has fulfilled me. It was exactly what I thought it would be. Nothing mind blowing happened and I got the opportunity to get some autographs and show my appreciation. I didn't expect anything more.
-
I've never been on meet and greet,I prefer to spend that money on another DT show.Many times I met them before or after the concert.
-
I think it was introduced to cover the full video and better lighting introduced in 2004.
That's what MP claimed when addressing the massive flak DT got for the VIP+M&G stuff. I never bought it, not for a second.
-
I think it was introduced to cover the full video and better lighting introduced in 2004.
That's what MP claimed when addressing the massive flak DT got for the VIP+M&G stuff. I never bought it, not for a second.
I know people will say that it's just because I'm friends with MP, but I do believe it (keeping in mind that MP's always been pretty upfront with everything) - at least initially. At this point (and for the last few tours), maybe not.
It's worth noting that originally, there was a limit to how many people could purchase the platinum package at each show - I think maybe 20. And the M&G was much better than before - I know because I did it at the LA show in 2006. You took a couple photos with the guys and then once everyone had their pictures taken, fans mingled with the band for somewhere between 10-20 minutes (similar to how the traditional aftershows are still handled today).
These days, from the descriptions by other fans, it sounds like everything is in an assembly line and there's almost a complete lack of personality to the whole thing. And I don't think there's a limit to the number of platinum packages sold, or at the very least, there's a lot more available per show than in the past.
BTW, for those wondering what the original explanation was for allowing the VIP seating, here's MP's comments about it:
https://www.mikeportnoy.com/forum/tm.aspx?high=&m=397307&mpage=1#397307
Make of it what you will, especially considering the changes that have been made to the M&G experience since it was first instituted.
-
That's pretty cool that you're friends with MP, Scott. I didn't know that. I haven't been here long though.
I don't have a problem with the idea of the M&G if it's actually a good value, but I guess it may be worth more to some than others. I will say though, despite being human, I would still try to put on a smile. I would like to think I would be happy to be in a band like DT and have people pay just to talk to me, or at the very least say "it's been a rough and tiresome couple of weeks, but we appreciate your support."
Avril Lavigne is a great example of how not to do a meet and greet. Paying to take a picture and not even being able to make physical contact? No thanks.
-
I forked out for the Gold VIP just to get a decent seat. Getting something signed by the band was a bonus I was really excited about - shame it was such a lousy poster. Don't feel any desire to fork out that much just to meet them for a fleeting moment.
-
I understand why bands sell (and fans buy) VIP packages and it might be a cool thing, but at the same time I find the notion of paying money to meet someone kind of ridiculous. Personally I've always wanted to keep distance to the musicians I appreciate (not just DT), maybe because I'm afraid they'd turn out to be pricks in person. I'm a shy guy anyway, so the meet-and-greets would be awkward as hell for me :lol
-
M&G is what it is - it's almost an industry standard as to how it works and who attends it. If they didn't have one, people would bitch about them being unwilling to meet their fans. If the number of attendees were restricted by bigger limitations on the number of tickets and/or money, people would complain that it's hard to get in or that it costs way too much. Now, as it is, people complain about them not having time to talk to anyone for real, but then again if they did involve themselves in longer conversations all the time, the rest would complain about some moron not taking the hint and hogging all the talking time :lol
M&G's are regulated the way they are regulated. If it's not worth your money, don't bother buying the ticket, but a band of Dream Theater's size can't exactly have an informal come-all signing session + meetup + acoustic gig + beer tasting + karaoke night in a local record store. Though I'm sure that, if they did, someone would complain that it wasn't informal enough.
-
I understand why bands sell (and fans buy) VIP packages and it might be a cool thing, but at the same time I find the notion of paying money to meet someone kind of ridiculous. Personally I've always wanted to keep distance to the musicians I appreciate (not just DT), maybe because I'm afraid they'd turn out to be pricks in person. I'm a shy guy anyway, so the meet-and-greets would be awkward as hell for me :lol
So much this. In principle I understand what it's all about, but for me, the notion to pay to meet someone is beyond me. And that's not just for DT or musicians in general. I'm willing to pay to see/hear them performing but that's it.
And I always like to think that the musicians that I listen to are generally nice and intelligent persons. I know that this is not always so, but I don't want to find out personally.
-
I've hung around after shows and met a lot of my favourite musicians. Some of them can be a bit awkward, some of them are really warm and friendly, but they've all signed stuff and chatted.
-
I met MP last week, after the Winery Dogs gig in Camden. He was warm and friendly indeed, especially after such a ridiculously hot gig.