The Mike Mangini Thread (Thanks & Farewell)

[RodrigoAltaf]

  Yeah, in hindsight, I am SO glad you didn't ask that!

 One thing I learned the hard way is that it's not enough to say things right in another language - with no grammatical mistakes etc. You need to learn to convey the TONE in a conversation. That's really tough, and one of the last things a non-native speaker like myself will fully understand. That's why I'm super cautious in this interview not to rub people the wrong way. That question was intended as humor, but it would have to be conveyed at a point in the interview where he would be super relaxed to talk about DT. I never got the sense that he wanted to address DT in the interview, so that moment never materialized. 

[pg1067]

All that kind of thing gets really murky in a band context.  I don't want to derail this and go too far off on a tangent, especially given the actual subject matter of the thread, as I don't want to distract from that.  But since this has come up a few times, here's a bit of insight:

[truth and logic]

Bosk asked me to take a look at this (or suggested I might find it interesting).

Since there are a lot of new folks floating around DTF these days, I'll share my background.  By coincidence, Bosk and I were admitted to the California State Bar on consecutive days in 2001.  His bar number is just over 600 lower than mine.  For the first 12 years of my career, I worked for a firm in West Los Angeles that is well known for representing clients in the entertainment field, including record companies and musicians.  I represented Sony Music, Warner Music, UMG, the members of Third Eye Blind, and Rob Halford (among many others).  I'm familiar with the ownership structure of Judas Priest (at least as of 10-12 years ago) and the origins of Third Eye Blind as a legal entity (and one of the first things I did as a new lawyer was to dig through some old dusty boxes from when the firm represented the Doors to find the original partnership agreement signed by all four members).

Everything Bosk said is accurate.  In the case of Dream Theater (and a lot of other bands), there are two corporations.  One handles the music side of things (it's the entity that contracts with record companies), and the other handles touring and merchandise.  I can't remember the exact names, but I believe one is called Ytse Jams, Inc. and is mentioned in the liner notes of all the recent albums.  Each of these corporations has a set of by-laws that outline how the corporations are governed and managed.  In addition, there may be what's typically called a band agreement to which the individual band members would be parties.  That agreement may outline things like songwriting credit, continuing entitlement to royalties if a member leaves, etc.

The term "full member" has no universal meaning.  For example, at the time I represented Rob Halford, Scott Travis, despite having been in the band over 20 years at that point (longer than any other drummer in the band's history), and despite appearing to all the world as something more than a "hired gun," was "only" a contract employee of one of the JP entities (I've heard that may have changed since then.

I have no knowledge of the various agreements that cover the inner workings of Dream Theater.  However, my educated guess is that, when MP left the band, the corporate entities and/or the other four members had to buy out his interest in the two corporations.  The negotiations for this buy-out were occasionally mentioned in the media, and I would LOVE to know how things played out.  Ultimately, my assumption is that MP received a chunk of cash (possibly along with payments over time) in exchange for his ownership interest in the legal entities.  Whether MP retained his ownership and control over copyrights in DT musical compositions is hard to guess at, but there was a lot of discussion around whether the remaining band members may have agreed to refrain from playing certain songs without MP in the band.  This would be similar to the well-publicized agreement between Queensryche and Geoff Tate regarding performances of Operation: Mindcrime.

Anyway, none of us know whether MM came on as an owner of the DT corporations.  The public statements about MM being a "full member" have no relevance to that issue.  If MM was/is an owner, then there have been or will be the same sort of negotiations that went on with MP (or maybe they streamlined the agreements to make it easier).  If not, then it would simply be a matter of what his independent contractor ("employment") agreement says.  And, as before, I would really LOVE to see the agreements.

And, last, with MP rejoining, will he regain his ownership in the DT corporations (essentially undoing the "divorce" of a decade-plus ago)?  Again, we'll never know.

I'm kinda brain-fried and tired right now, so I hope that was somewhat coherent and not boring (even though it may not have shed much light on anything).

[nobloodyname]

I found that post to be genuinely insightful, nice one.

[MirrorMask]

I too appreciate a lot these details, and I find them damn interesting.

For sure, however, the average fan intends someone being a "full member" when they "feel" fully integrated in the band. I consider Scott Travis the drummer and "a member" of Judas Priest, the knowledge that he is a contracted employee does not change my perception that he is an integral part of the band (he's the guy that came up with the Painkiller intro!!!).

Same with Mangini; he's been there for 13 years. He played on 5 albums and he was about to start his sixth. The band talked nicely about him. I considered him the drummer and a "full member" of Dream Theater, regardless of his legal status in the DT corporation.

[Stadler]

Each of these corporations has a set of by-laws that outline how the corporations are governed and managed.  In addition, there may be what's typically called a band agreement to which the individual band members would be parties.  That agreement may outline things like songwriting credit, continuing entitlement to royalties if a member leaves, etc.

One other point, for the "fans":  these agreements - the by-laws, what are called "operating agreements" - have the protocols for how the corporate business is undertaken.  I would imagine that rock bands are less than diligent on the corporate formalities of meetings and notice and such, but when members leave (or are added) the formalities (sometimes) have to be followed.  Often, these agreements have clauses that only come into effect at certain points of the negotiations, or with certain triggers including (but not limited to) litigation.   In laymen's terms, sometimes the parties - even if they agree and there is no real dispute - cannot do what they want to have done without certain things happening first.   I don't know for certain, and I'm not speculating, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Ozzy-Tony Iommi litigation was a prerequisite for certain things to happen from a corporate standpoint in the famous "Black Sabbath" name case.  I have some reason to believe (which I'd rather not discuss) that the lawsuit filed in 2010 when Mike left was for these purposes.   Laymen often have this perception that lawsuits are always adversarial and often have the flavor of being a "dick" move, and that often couldn't be further from the truth.

[gzarruk]

I wonder what's going to happen to Eric (drum tech) now that MM is out and MP has his own tech (even though Eric also worked with MP for the OVM days).

[IgnotusPerIgnotium]

Did the band ever really consider MM a real member, or just a hired gun? I always considered him a full member. To hear the band basically say 'Thanks for getting us through this rough patch! Later!' feels like such a slap in the face. The guy was their drummer and he was damn good at it.

Yeah but they did the same thing to Derek so..

[ReaperKK]

A lot of great posts here. Pg you mentioned third eye blind, I would've loved to know what went down when there when their guitarist broke from the band.

[Stadler]

Did the band ever really consider MM a real member, or just a hired gun? I always considered him a full member. To hear the band basically say 'Thanks for getting us through this rough patch! Later!' feels like such a slap in the face. The guy was their drummer and he was damn good at it.

Yeah but they did the same thing to Derek so..

We don't know what was discussed, though, and as I've said a number of times, this gig comes with the specter of the previous member looming in the background.  Everyone knew that going in.

[cramx3]

I found that post to be genuinely insightful, nice one.

Agreed, it was not boring, it was coherent and informative.

For sure, however, the average fan intends someone being a "full member" when they "feel" fully integrated in the band. I consider Scott Travis the drummer and "a member" of Judas Priest, the knowledge that he is a contracted employee does not change my perception that he is an integral part of the band (he's the guy that came up with the Painkiller intro!!!).

Same with Mangini; he's been there for 13 years. He played on 5 albums and he was about to start his sixth. The band talked nicely about him. I considered him the drummer and a "full member" of Dream Theater, regardless of his legal status in the DT corporation.

Yeah, I kind of agree with this and I think we are mixing things up with formalities and legal definitions.  MM from the perspective of the band, seemed like what we would call a "full time member" as in he took part in PR, was in all the pictures, was presented the same as any other band member.  There's plenty of examples of bands with obviously not "full time members" I can think of Blind Guardian who NEVER show their keyboardist (who's been with them forever, or bassist (I believe they have a new one now, but the previosu guy was there for a long time) in any promotional output and they never treat those guys the same as the guitarist and drummer. Of course, as stated, it means nothing in a legal sense, but I think we all agree that the legal sense and the "band sense" there's likely a difference.

Each of these corporations has a set of by-laws that outline how the corporations are governed and managed.  In addition, there may be what's typically called a band agreement to which the individual band members would be parties.  That agreement may outline things like songwriting credit, continuing entitlement to royalties if a member leaves, etc.

One other point, for the "fans":  these agreements - the by-laws, what are called "operating agreements" - have the protocols for how the corporate business is undertaken.  I would imagine that rock bands are less than diligent on the corporate formalities of meetings and notice and such, but when members leave (or are added) the formalities (sometimes) have to be followed.  Often, these agreements have clauses that only come into effect at certain points of the negotiations, or with certain triggers including (but not limited to) litigation.   In laymen's terms, sometimes the parties - even if they agree and there is no real dispute - cannot do what they want to have done without certain things happening first.   I don't know for certain, and I'm not speculating, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Ozzy-Tony Iommi litigation was a prerequisite for certain things to happen from a corporate standpoint in the famous "Black Sabbath" name case.  I have some reason to believe (which I'd rather not discuss) that the lawsuit filed in 2010 when Mike left was for these purposes.   Laymen often have this perception that lawsuits are always adversarial and often have the flavor of being a "dick" move, and that often couldn't be further from the truth.

I would imagine that bands not knowing their own by-laws is a reason for some nasty break ups and follow up lawsuits. But this is also likely when bands complain about the "business side" of music.  There's countless examples of bands signing contracts not understanding what they've agreed to.

[IgnotusPerIgnotium]

We don't know what was discussed, though, and as I've said a number of times, this gig comes with the specter of the previous member looming in the background.  Everyone knew that going in.

What I'm trying to say is that there's no easy to sack a member, it always brings some kind of scorn with it, even if MM left with the best terms. I don't know about looming figures in the background, but they share something in common, both were solid players and they never caused anything serious to actually be driven out of the band. These are simple and plain internal decisions, eventually they are going to be asked how they came up with letting go MM and we'll know the spicy details.

[faizoff]

Thanks for the awesome read bosk and Paul! it's always great to read about the inner workings of a band at the management and corporate level.

[Dedalus]

We don't know what was discussed, though, and as I've said a number of times, this gig comes with the specter of the previous member looming in the background.  Everyone knew that going in.

What I'm trying to say is that there's no easy to sack a member, it always brings some kind of scorn with it, even if MM left with the best terms. I don't know about looming figures in the background, but they share something in common, both were solid players and they never caused anything serious to actually be driven out of the band. These are simple and plain internal decisions, eventually they are going to be asked how they came up with letting go MM and we'll know the spicy details.

Yes. The next interviews with the band or with MM will necessarily need to address this subject. Obvious questions for any interviewer who knows how to do their job. Whether they want to respond is another thing. But asking is mandatory.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

Was going back and forth on whether to even say this, but since there's been a lot of conversation about the business side of things, I do hope that they gave Mike a pretty decent "severance package" when he left. I know we're not 100% sure what exactly happened, whether or not he was even fired, etc. But I think everyone knows what I mean. If the split was truly amicable, I think a little exit bonus would be more than deserved.

[cramx3]

Was going back and forth on whether to even say this, but since there's been a lot of conversation about the business side of things, I do hope that they gave Mike a pretty decent "severance package" when he left. I know we're not 100% sure what exactly happened, whether or not he was even fired, etc. But I think everyone knows what I mean. If the split was truly amicable, I think a little exit bonus would be more than deserved.

Yeah I mentioned that yesterday, hoping he got some sort of severance package as well.  Obviously we don't know the situation to know anything about that, just hope he was treated well on the way out, which I do think was the case given that there seems to be no bad blood. As much as I do feel a bit bad for him, there's nothing I've seen to suggest he wasn't treated professionally and respectfully during this.

[Architeuthis]

I think DT has enough class to treat MM with deep respect.  I do remember though, JP saying that he is a member of the band and not a hired drummer. In the audtion video when MM got the call, they said welcome to the DT family!
Even a year or two ago JP silenced the speculation of MP's return saying it's not happening and that Mike Mangini is a permanent member and their drummer.
I'm thinking that MM is backing out on his own accord. He doesn't like touring as much as Portnoy, and probably even knows it would be to the bands benefit to have MP back into the fold.  I could be wrong, just speculation.
I'm sure Mike Mangini will be fine and could get just about any job he wants. He can go back to teaching, or excel in many musical projects. He has quite a resume..

[hefdaddy42]

 

[Skeever]

I think Jordan plays with a good amount of feel. Yeah he plays too many notes sometimes but he doesn't sound robotic to me at all.

[KevShmev]

We don't know what was discussed, though, and as I've said a number of times, this gig comes with the specter of the previous member looming in the background.  Everyone knew that going in.

What I'm trying to say is that there's no easy to sack a member, it always brings some kind of scorn with it, even if MM left with the best terms. I don't know about looming figures in the background, but they share something in common, both were solid players and they never caused anything serious to actually be driven out of the band. These are simple and plain internal decisions, eventually they are going to be asked how they came up with letting go MM and we'll know the spicy details.

Yes. The next interviews with the band or with MM will necessarily need to address this subject. Obvious questions for any interviewer who knows how to do their job. Whether they want to respond is another thing. But asking is mandatory.

I wouldn't count on that.  It might be broached in a very delicate manner, but it wouldn't be done in a "we need answers!" kinda way.  Most interviewers nowadays seem to not want to lose access, so they avoid tough questions that might get them blacklisted.  All it takes is asking one tough question, and not only does that musician no longer willing to grant you interviews, but they might tell their musicians friends to avoid you as well, and the next thing you know, it is a challenge to get anyone to let you interview them.  It's too risky.

[Dedalus]

We don't know what was discussed, though, and as I've said a number of times, this gig comes with the specter of the previous member looming in the background.  Everyone knew that going in.

What I'm trying to say is that there's no easy to sack a member, it always brings some kind of scorn with it, even if MM left with the best terms. I don't know about looming figures in the background, but they share something in common, both were solid players and they never caused anything serious to actually be driven out of the band. These are simple and plain internal decisions, eventually they are going to be asked how they came up with letting go MM and we'll know the spicy details.

Yes. The next interviews with the band or with MM will necessarily need to address this subject. Obvious questions for any interviewer who knows how to do their job. Whether they want to respond is another thing. But asking is mandatory.

I wouldn't count on that.  It might be broached in a very delicate manner, but it wouldn't be done in a "we need answers!" kinda way.  Most interviewers nowadays seem to not want to lose access, so they avoid tough questions that might get them blacklisted.  All it takes is asking one tough question, and not only does that musician no longer willing to grant you interviews, but they might tell their musicians friends to avoid you as well, and the next thing you know, it is a challenge to get anyone to let you interview them.  It's too risky.

Mainly in the prog world. Some sites seem to be afraid to criticize certain artists in reviews. I imagine some people avoid difficult questions.

But I don't know, I think Mike Mangini will have to explain for the rest of his life why he's out of DT. It's like Andreas Kisser explaining every week why Max Cavalera left the band, even 27 years after the fact.

[TAC]

But I don't know, I think Mike Mangini will have to explain for the rest of his life why he's out of DT.

No he won't because there's literally no mystery behind the move. He has nothing to explain.

[Dedalus]

But I don't know, I think Mike Mangini will have to explain for the rest of his life why he's out of DT.

No he won't because there's literally no mystery behind the move. He has nothing to explain.

Maybe it's due to the language. The "will have to explain" was not meant to be taken literally. 

I'll try to explain.

I didn't mean he OWED an explanation. Andreas Kisser shouldn't either. But that doesn't stop him from being asked the same thing in practically every interview for 27 years.
I imagine that many interviewers will want to ask MM the details of his departure from the band.

If the interview is for some media in South America, then I am absolutely certain that this will be asked. 

[TAC]

I understood just fine I think. I mean, what details are you looking for? They brought MP back and let him go. There's really not much of a story here.
Are you looking for financial details, or for him to repeat the conversation with whoever told him?

I guess he could be asked about no longer being in DT, or how he felt about his time in DT.

[Dedalus]

I understood just fine I think. I mean, what details are you looking for? They brought MP back and let him go. There's really not much of a story here.
Are you looking for financial details, or for him to repeat the conversation with whoever told him?

I guess he could be asked about no longer being in DT, or how he felt about his time in DT.

Well, according to many members of this illustrious forum, we don't know for a fact what happened. So obviously the interviewer is going to want to clarify this, what really happened?
It will get a lot of clicks.

To me it seems obvious.

I know some YouTubers from my country who have already interviewed guys from the band (JLB and JR) who will ask questions about this at the first opportunity.

[TAC]

Yay clicks!

[Dedalus]

Yay clicks!

Yeah... guys need to eat. 

[TAC]

In this interview from this past Tuesday, Mike talks about working with Jordan in the past tense..
https://youtu.be/CFNO2SwiXFk?si=gTa-UrzZHm1e5kKU&t=645

[gzarruk]

The only question I'd like to get answered at this point if when did all of this happen? We surely just found out a couple days ago, but some of the comments made by a few of the individuals involved make it sound like everything happened some time ago.

[MirrorMask]

DT's last show with Mangini was at the end of July.

August is more or less vacations time, and probably that's when JP realistically started to openly discuss with the other guys the chance to bring MP back.

It must have happened in September, with the business side of things being dealt with and the announcement with all the "red tape" done.

We'll hardly ever know, but I would be surprised if they went into a summer tour knowing already they were gonna let Mangini go. Maybe JP had a wishful desire, a "what if" in his mind, a "wouldn't it be nice" kind of thing which probably was there since LTE3, but my guess is they decided over August / September.

[Architeuthis]

So glad you're amused..

[TAC]

DT's last show with Mangini was at the end of July.

August is more or less vacations time, and probably that's when JP realistically started to openly discuss with the other guys the chance to bring MP back.

It must have happened in September, with the business side of things being dealt with and the announcement with all the "red tape" done.

We'll hardly ever know, but I would be surprised if they went into a summer tour knowing already they were gonna let Mangini go. Maybe JP had a wishful desire, a "what if" in his mind, a "wouldn't it be nice" kind of thing which probably was there since LTE3, but my guess is they decided over August / September.

I think this is all fair. 

[RodrigoAltaf]

DT's last show with Mangini was at the end of July.

August is more or less vacations time, and probably that's when JP realistically started to openly discuss with the other guys the chance to bring MP back.

It must have happened in September, with the business side of things being dealt with and the announcement with all the "red tape" done.

We'll hardly ever know, but I would be surprised if they went into a summer tour knowing already they were gonna let Mangini go. Maybe JP had a wishful desire, a "what if" in his mind, a "wouldn't it be nice" kind of thing which probably was there since LTE3, but my guess is they decided over August / September.

I don't know the details, but Mike started talking more about his solo album in September, so your guess is VERY close to how it might have happened.

[Dellers]

Mike has done a truly great job, I'm sad to see him go. While MP fits the band like a glove I have to admit that AVFTTOTW is the single album in my collection regardless of band or genre where I enjoy the drums the most. Especially his stereo cymbal work is really entertaining at times. I don't hear that anywhere else.

[EPIC Outro]

Even though the 40th anniversary of DT is just around the corner, I feel there is a strong likelihood Mike Mangini makes some kind of appearance on that tour.

I think a 40th anniversary tour appearance by MM now is much more likely than an MP appearance on such a tour had MM remained in the band.

[pg1067]

A lot of great posts here. Pg you mentioned third eye blind, I would've loved to know what went down when there when their guitarist broke from the band.

You mean Kevin Cadogan or Tony Fredianelli?

When Cadogan left, he and the band got into litigation.  This was before my time, so I only had very limited knowledge as to what that was about.  Interestingly (probably only to me), the Cadogan litigation spawned additional litigation relating to insurance coverage.

The litigation I was involved with was a dispute between the band (primarily Stephan Jenkins) and their longtime manager, Eric Godtland.  That case was about a month away from going to trial when Fredianelli left the band.  I have to be careful with what I say, but Fredianelli leaving threw a real wrench into the works, and the case was resolved by a confidential settlement.  One of the big issues in the case was the LACK of a proper contract between Godtland and the band, and this resulted in yet another litigation between the band and its longtime attorney.  Fredianelli then filed his own lawsuit against the band/Jenkins, but my firm wasn't involved with either of those cases.  I read some public documents long after the fact, but it looked like Fredianelli had some serious issues and ended up going through multiple attorneys and, ultimately, representing himself.  Nevertheless, he won a small part of the case following a jury trial.