Your Controversial Opinions on DT

[TheGreatPretender]

I'd call DT a good live band, but not great.  I mean, they are great if you are merely into watching a handful of guys stand there and play technically proficient music really well, but other than that, from a visual standpoint, there is usually very little about them that is outstanding.

I disagree. I mean, strictly from a musical dexterity point of view, to watch JP or JR play their instruments, and just see the intricacies and the speed of their playing is extremely entertaining. And a much more engaging experience, than the typical band that doesn't use excessive theatrics. I mean, obviously, there's a lot to be said for an Iron Maiden, Alice Cooper or a Disturbed concert, where they put a lot of focus on the visual presentation. But I think DT more than makes up for its lack of theatrics, with their musical dexterity. Of course, it does have its limits, since you either have to be really close to see it, or watch it on the projection screens at the venu. But my point is that given a proper viewing accessibility, I think their musical dexterity has plenty of visual appeal. And yes, recently, I think JLB stepped up his stage presence big time, compared to, say LAB or Score.

[rumborak]

I think that's partially the problem, that they rely on the musical dexterity for their performance a lot. If you're in a big arena, you're forced to watch the screen the whole time. When I do that for prolonged amount of time, I feel like I'm watching a DVD with really bad sound.
The other is probably just plain age. Kev and I have probably seen DT live more than 20 times each (well, at least I have). I *know* they can play the stuff live, I don't need the "live proof" so to speak. So for me it becomes all the more important that the band carries their performances through normal means (crowd interaction, lots of movement onstage etc), and DT is solid middle ground on that one.

[TheGreatPretender]

I think that's partially the problem, that they rely on the musical dexterity for their performance a lot. If you're in a big arena, you're forced to watch the screen the whole time. When I do that for prolonged amount of time, I feel like I'm watching a DVD with really bad sound.
The other is probably just plain age. Kev and I have probably seen DT live more than 20 times each (well, at least I have). I *know* they can play the stuff live, I don't need the "live proof" so to speak. So for me it becomes all the more important that the band carries their performances through normal means (crowd interaction, lots of movement onstage etc), and DT is solid middle ground on that one.

Yeah, but their music is too complex and intricate to be jumping around on stage or spinning their hair while they do their thing. Usually bands that are able to do that, tend to have much simpler style of music. And seeing a couple of dudes with long blonde hair, spinning it while doing their guitar solos, while their vocalist jumps up and runs around all over the stage isn't all that great, if the music isn't stellar. So I wouldn't want JP to sacrifice his musical complexity just so that he can interact with the audience more.

And it really depends on how big the arena is. I mean, if we're talking really huge venues, then I don't see the appeal of being in the nosebleed section, no matter what the band is. Whether it's Iron Maiden, or DT, the nosebleed of a gigantic arena still has very limited appeal to me. Don't even get me started on stadium shows. The only appeal of being in the back of a gigantic football stadium is the sheer novelty of saying, "I saw Queen," or "Michael Jackson" live. I can't even think of a single living celebrity or band that I'd pay money to see in that kind of circumstance.

Point is, when it comes to DT, I wouldn't settle for being in the back anyway. Especially if I did see them 20+ times. So I can understand where you're coming from, but if you can't get a ticket close to the front, I guess you're better off not attending the show at all. And those people who are new to DT, I'm sure they'll appreciate any spot they can get. The first time I saw them, I sat pretty far back, but I still relished the idea of seeing them live, so I loved every moment of it. They didn't need to be jumping all around the stage and interacting with the audience like Dee Snider.

But again, I think that DT's stage presence overall has improved tremendously throughout the years.

[JiM-Xtreme]

I think that's partially the problem, that they rely on the musical dexterity for their performance a lot.

It's not that they "rely" on that factor, it's just that the style of music they play demands it. If I'm going to watch a band play that type of music, then they better nail it or I'm not interested!

[Prog Snob]

I don't see what the big deal is.  It's not like we're talking about KISS here who play the same boring music over and over again. They have their schtick and it's not technical proficiency, it's their stage gimmick.  Dream Theater are different.  They are musicians, not entertainers. I also must say that I've never been to a concert of theirs, and I, too, have seen them over 20 times, and thought them to not interact with the crowd enough especially considering the kind of music they are playing.

[BlobVanDam]

I don't see what the big deal is.  It's not like we're talking about KISS here who play the same boring music over and over again. They have their schtick and it's not technical proficiency, it's their stage gimmick.  Dream Theater are different.  They are musicians, not entertainers. I also must say that I've never been to a concert of theirs, and I, too, have seen them over 20 times, and thought them to not interact with the crowd enough especially considering the kind of music they are playing.

A musician is an entertainer. When you're seeing a band live, they're putting on a show, not just playing the same music you can hear on an album at home. That's why DT has the crazy keyboard stand, the video screen, the backdrop, the custom mic stand and drum heads, etc.
And KISS doesn't play boring music. GTFO.

[TheGreatPretender]

I don't see what the big deal is.  It's not like we're talking about KISS here who play the same boring music over and over again. They have their schtick and it's not technical proficiency, it's their stage gimmick.  Dream Theater are different.  They are musicians, not entertainers. I also must say that I've never been to a concert of theirs, and I, too, have seen them over 20 times, and thought them to not interact with the crowd enough especially considering the kind of music they are playing.

This, very much. Not to take anything away from Kiss or Twisted Sister, I think both are great bands in their own right, but you hear a kiss song on the album, and it's catchy and it's got some cool riffs maybe, but beyond that, it's fairly simple stuff. Same for Twisted Sister. Those bands NEED a good show in order to captivate the audience, and they're great at it, which is why they're still selling tickets. Without their awesome stage shows, they would have very little going for them in terms of a live show.
With Dream Theater, their music deserves the right amount of attention, in order to be played correctly. Take it for what it is, but in light of all of Bruce Dickinson's wonderful stage presence, he throws away half the notes in the songs he performs, just screaming them out theatrically. That's his style and that's how half of Iron Maiden's vocals always have been anyway, so they don't even require the right notes to work effectively. That is not the case for Dream Theater. They're very focused on melody and precision, so if JLB was running around the stage and constantly engaging the audience, but then just theatrically screaming the vocals instead of actually singing them, it would not work nearly as well for Dream Theater.

It's apples and oranges, really.

A musician is an entertainer. When you're seeing a band live, they're putting on a show, not just playing the same music you can hear on an album at home. That's why DT has the crazy keyboard stand, the video screen, the backdrop, the custom mic stand and drum heads, etc.
And KISS doesn't play boring music. GTFO.

Yeah, but who cares about the video screen? No one cares about those videos that DT has in the background anyway...


 

[Prog Snob]

I don't see what the big deal is.  It's not like we're talking about KISS here who play the same boring music over and over again. They have their schtick and it's not technical proficiency, it's their stage gimmick.  Dream Theater are different.  They are musicians, not entertainers. I also must say that I've never been to a concert of theirs, and I, too, have seen them over 20 times, and thought them to not interact with the crowd enough especially considering the kind of music they are playing.

A musician is an entertainer. When you're seeing a band live, they're putting on a show, not just playing the same music you can hear on an album at home. That's why DT has the crazy keyboard stand, the video screen, the backdrop, the custom mic stand and drum heads, etc.
And KISS doesn't play boring music. GTFO.

Yes, they are entertainers, but not in the same way as bands like KISS or One Direction. They bring something different to the stage. That comparison of musicians/entertainers is actually something taken directly from Gene Simmons.  I kind of agree with him there.  The focal point of a DT show is worlds apart from that of a KISS show.  So there will always be a clear cut difference between both worlds.

[Joshin U]

I don't see what the big deal is.  It's not like we're talking about KISS here who play the same boring music over and over again. They have their schtick and it's not technical proficiency, it's their stage gimmick.  Dream Theater are different.  They are musicians, not entertainers. I also must say that I've never been to a concert of theirs, and I, too, have seen them over 20 times, and thought them to not interact with the crowd enough especially considering the kind of music they are playing.

A musician is an entertainer. When you're seeing a band live, they're putting on a show, not just playing the same music you can hear on an album at home. That's why DT has the crazy keyboard stand, the video screen, the backdrop, the custom mic stand and drum heads, etc.
And KISS doesn't play boring music. GTFO.

Yes, they are entertainers, but not in the same way as bands like KISS or One Direction. They bring something different to the stage. That comparison of musicians/entertainers is actually something taken directly from Gene Simmons.  I kind of agree with him there.  The focal point of a DT show is worlds apart from that of a KISS show.  So there will always be a clear cut difference between both worlds.

 This. Same reason why that when people find out that Britney Spears is lip syncing her shows, they don't care, because they aren't really there to watch her SING, they're there to watch her PERFORM. On the other hand, god forbid that DT lip sync, because the fans would be out for blood.  The live playing is the main purpose.

[BlobVanDam]

This, very much. Not to take anything away from Kiss or Twisted Sister, I think both are great bands in their own right, but you hear a kiss song on the album, and it's catchy and it's got some cool riffs maybe, but beyond that, it's fairly simple stuff. Same for Twisted Sister. Those bands NEED a good show in order to captivate the audience, and they're great at it, which is why they're still selling tickets. Without their awesome stage shows, they would have very little going for them in terms of a live show.

How is that not taking anything away from Kiss?  The thing that makes their music great is that it's simple and catchy. If you've ever actually seen anything of Kiss live, you'd see they don't need the stage show to put on a great show at all. Gene and Paul are both born performers, and great frontmen. Paul Stanley is one of the all time rock greats. They've done shows without the theatrics, without the makeup, and the music holds up on its own. And it holds up on its own when I'm cranking their CDs without the benefit of all of that. People go to hear the ton of hits they know and love. That's plenty of incentive to go and see them. Prog fans gonna hate.

Yeah, but who cares about the video screen? No one cares about those videos that DT has in the background anyway...


 

You're not my friend any more. 

[Prog Snob]

I don't see what the big deal is.  It's not like we're talking about KISS here who play the same boring music over and over again. They have their schtick and it's not technical proficiency, it's their stage gimmick.  Dream Theater are different.  They are musicians, not entertainers. I also must say that I've never been to a concert of theirs, and I, too, have seen them over 20 times, and thought them to not interact with the crowd enough especially considering the kind of music they are playing.

A musician is an entertainer. When you're seeing a band live, they're putting on a show, not just playing the same music you can hear on an album at home. That's why DT has the crazy keyboard stand, the video screen, the backdrop, the custom mic stand and drum heads, etc.
And KISS doesn't play boring music. GTFO.

Yes, they are entertainers, but not in the same way as bands like KISS or One Direction. They bring something different to the stage. That comparison of musicians/entertainers is actually something taken directly from Gene Simmons.  I kind of agree with him there.  The focal point of a DT show is worlds apart from that of a KISS show.  So there will always be a clear cut difference between both worlds.

 This. Same reason why that when people find out that Britney Spears is lip syncing her shows, they don't care, because they aren't really there to watch her SING, they're there to watch her PERFORM. On the other hand, god forbid that DT lip sync, because the fans would be out for blood.  The live playing is the main purpose.

Excellent point regarding Britney.  She dances and what not and people care more about that than what the backing musicians are doing. Her fans like singing along with her sappy lyrics. 

[rumborak]

Eh. This thread is right now a "other artists make shit music, so of course they have to make up for it somehow. DT doesn't need that, so they can stand still."

Believe it or not, someone like Frank Zappa made far more challenging music than DT ever made, and still was an excellent entertainer at the same time, all the while performing the music to near perfection. I think DT could take a leaf or two from Zappa's book to make their concerts more engaging.

[BlobVanDam]

Eh. This thread is right now a "other artists make shit music, so of course they have to make up for it somehow. DT doesn't need that, so they can stand still."

Pretty much.
Although MM (and previously MP) and JR are entertaining given the restricted mobility dictated by their instruments, and DT do put effort into other areas of their live shows to make it a good show.

[KevShmev]

Yep, it is possible to be great musicians and entertain at the same time.  One need only look at Queen for proof of that.

Hell, Rush's music is pretty difficult, but you often see Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson interacting and goofing around on stage with faces and whatnot, which entertains the crowd.  Whenever you see JLB or Myung try to interact with JP, he always smiles, but he sort of has that "What is he doing over here?" look on his face, like, "Damn it, he is gonna distract me from playing!"

[Prog Snob]

Eh. This thread is right now a "other artists make shit music, so of course they have to make up for it somehow. DT doesn't need that, so they can stand still."

Believe it or not, someone like Frank Zappa made far more challenging music than DT ever made, and still was an excellent entertainer at the same time, all the while performing the music to near perfection. I think DT could take a leaf or two from Zappa's book to make their concerts more engaging.

Your first paragraph is way off from what anyone here has been saying. As a matter of fact it comes off as a bit dramatic and exaggeratory.

Secondly, you point out one eccentric musician and that means the rest have to follow suit? Like I said, I've never had issue with DT's stage presence.  I don't want them running all over the stage when I am trying to watch them play.  I think they engage the crowd enough and we know that a huge percentage of the crowd are extremely content with the way they personify themselves on stage. 

[TheGreatPretender]

And it holds up on its own when I'm cranking their CDs without the benefit of all of that.

I'm not disagreeing. I could say the same thing about Alice Cooper. But that's the thing, if they just stood there like a bunch of trees, just playing that simple and catchy music, without interacting with the audience and without their immense stage presence, then you might as well just sit there and listen to the CD.

But in DT's case, even if JP just stands there playing the music, without engaging the audience at all, his musical dexterity and skill is still entertaining to watch. And it's not like that's the case anyway. DT still does engage the audience and each other and bring more to the show than just the music itself.

Yep, it is possible to be great musicians and entertain at the same time.  One need only look at Queen for proof of that.

Hell, Rush's music is pretty difficult, but you often see Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson interacting and goofing around on stage with faces and whatnot, which entertains the crowd.  Whenever you see JLB or Myung try to interact with JP, he always smiles, but he sort of has that "What is he doing over here?" look on his face, like, "Damn it, he is gonna distract me from playing!"

Queen was a very special case. With Queen, they really approached their live shows "punk rock" style. They just went up there and did their thing and yes, Freddie brought tremendous stage presence and showmanship. But their catalog was diverse enough that they DID have their simpler, catchier songs to do that with.
Although honestly, there were some live performances by Queen, where I'm watching and eagerly anticipating that high note from Freddie, and instead, he opted not to hit it, and instead settled for an easier note, and personally, I was a little disappointed when things like that happened.

As for Rush, yes, they do entertain the crowd quite a bit, but it's not like DT just stand there doing nothing. I'd say DT shows pretty much the same amount of showmanship as Rush. Not necessarily in the same ways, but in terms of engaging the audience and each other, I'd say they're about equal. I love those moments when JP, JM and JR all come to the front of the stage and do their thing. It's always a highlight of the show.
And when JP does his long, extended guitar solos, such as the one in BAI, he always takes center stage and gets all epic and godly with his performances.
Give them some credit.

[BlobVanDam]

And it holds up on its own when I'm cranking their CDs without the benefit of all of that.

I'm not disagreeing. I could say the same thing about Alice Cooper. But that's the thing, if they just stood there like a bunch of trees, just playing that simple and catchy music, without interacting with the audience and without their immense stage presence, then you might as well just sit there and listen to the CD.

But in DT's case, even if JP just stands there playing the music, without engaging the audience at all, his musical dexterity and skill is still entertaining to watch.

I don't agree with that one bit. That's what you value in the live experience, but that's not an accurate generalization at all, especially for the average audience. A lot of people don't find "musical dexterity" to be a motivator for watching music live. It simply comes down to hearing the songs they know and like.

[TheGreatPretender]

It simply comes down to hearing the songs they know and like.

Well, for the audiences that do feel that way, there should be no reason to complain about Dream Theater's live shows.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

How's the weather up there where you guys' noses are?   

[TheGreatPretender]

How's the weather up there where you guys' noses are?   

It's raining RAAAAAWK. 

[Prog Snob]

How's the weather up there where you guys' noses are?   

I'm Italian, my nose is big enough to always be way up somewhere.   

[jakepriest]

I could watch Rudess all day. He's imo the most entertaining DT member to watch live, even though I am a drummer.

[TheGreatPretender]

I could watch Rudess all day. He's imo the most entertaining DT member to watch live, even though I am a drummer.

Yeah, I'd agree with this. Though I could watch any of them, really.

[rumborak]

As for Rush, yes, they do entertain the crowd quite a bit, but it's not like DT just stand there doing nothing. I'd say DT shows pretty much the same amount of showmanship as Rush. Not necessarily in the same ways, but in terms of engaging the audience and each other, I'd say they're about equal.

I'm not even that big Rush fan, in fact far from it, but sorry, no. Rush smokes DT in terms of drawing you in. Rush makes you feel they invited you to their living room, and you're sitting with them sipping beer and shooting the shit.
As somebody else mentioned, there is *very* little band member interaction in DT. I remember when years ago the forum was all gaga because of the "JM beach ball incident". (somehow a beach ball ended up on stage, JM kicked it back down) I always thought that was somewhat of a sign that the audience was starving for *any* kind of stuff happening on stage.

[mikeyd23]

I could watch Rudess all day. He's imo the most entertaining DT member to watch live, even though I am a drummer.

Haha thats really interesting actually, the drummer in my band came with me to the last DT show I saw (ADTOE tour) and said the same thing.  JR was his favorite part of the show and his favorite member after that concert, even though MM totally blew him away. I have no clue what his reasoning was but that was his impression after his first DT show.

[TheGreatPretender]

Well, I don't know how long "years ago" was, but like I said, I think DT's stage presence has improved tremendously in the recent years. And now that I think about it, maybe it has something to do with lack of MP, and no constantly changing set lists. I mean, it's difficult enough to play their music as it is, but if they have to constantly play and re-learn their back catalog, they probably needed to focus on the music a lot more.
Maybe that's why they were so energetic and present during the ADTOE tour.

[Perpetual Change]

Re: Seeing DT Live, What's Really Important?

I've come to associate seeing Dream Theater live with discomfort. That's not really their fault, but more just an unfortunate consequence of where they are popularity-wise. At least in the States, they're way too big for the more intimate theaters  they once played, but they're still way too small for some of the biggers, nicer venues that have good sound and comfy seats. It seems they have tried to make up for this by enhancing their stage show to be more like a "big name band" stage show, but honestly, when I'm seeing DT, I really don't care about all that. I just want to see the guys play. So for me, all that the new stage show does is increase the price of the ticket.

Almost everytime I've seen DT perform, it's been in these ballroom and conventional hall type venues, where you've got 3-5k people standing or sitting (if they're lucky) in metal folding chairs all night. Personally, I'd love a more intimate show where I can just sit and focus on the band. Recently, I've noticed more than a few prog bands (Steven Wilson, Transatlantic, etc), have been playing seated theaters that only seat about 1-2k, but for seeing intricate music performed without much stageshow going on, those theaters are absolutely perfect. For Steven Wilson in particular, I went back to the very last row, and still felt like it wasn't too far away as I could still see pretty much all the detail of what all the players were doing.

[TheGreatPretender]

In Toronto, they usually perform at Massey Hall, which sits 3500 people (with balcony). Overall, I'd say it's perfect for Dream Theater. The seats are comfortable and the layout is classy, so it suits them very well. But still, in terms of size, I feel like it's a bit small for a band like Dream Theater. Maybe it just has a cozy and intimate feel to it. But 1000 - 2000 people would be WAY too small for a band like DT.

[Perpetual Change]

In Toronto, they usually perform at Massey Hall, which sits 3500 people (with balcony). Overall, I'd say it's perfect for Dream Theater. The seats are comfortable and the layout is classy, so it suits them very well. But still, in terms of size, I feel like it's a bit small for a band like Dream Theater. Maybe it just has a cozy and intimate feel to it. But 1000 - 2000 people would be WAY too small for a band like DT.

Yeah, that sounds pretty ideal, though I don't think 1-2k is always too small. Dream Theater played the Asbury Park conventional hall awhile back, which was the epitome of discomfort, and while it holds closder to 3 or 4k, it seemed to be about 1/3rd capacity. Mostly, the cheap seats in the wings were bought up, and there was a noticeable gap in the middle of more expensive, unoccupied seats (until people started squatting in them).

[TheGreatPretender]

Yeah, that sounds pretty ideal, though I don't think 1-2k is always too small. Dream Theater played the Asbury Park conventional hall awhile back, which was the epitome of discomfort, and while it holds closder to 3 or 4k, it seemed to be about 1/3rd capacity. Mostly, the cheap seats in the wings were bought up, and there was a noticeable gap in the middle of more expensive, unoccupied seats (until people started squatting in them).

That just makes no sense to me at all.

[Perpetual Change]

Yeah, that sounds pretty ideal, though I don't think 1-2k is always too small. Dream Theater played the Asbury Park conventional hall awhile back, which was the epitome of discomfort, and while it holds closder to 3 or 4k, it seemed to be about 1/3rd capacity. Mostly, the cheap seats in the wings were bought up, and there was a noticeable gap in the middle of more expensive, unoccupied seats (until people started squatting in them).

That just makes no sense to me at all.

Like this:
(prices are made-up)

                 STAGE
             -------------
            |     $100      |
              -------------
      /       -------------        \
   /  $25|        $50     | $25    \
/             -------------               \


The $25 and $50 seats were sold, mostly, but toward the back of the $100 seats, there was a big black hole, until during the show the people from $50 jumped up to $100 and the people in the $25 wings moved over toward the center.

Actually, I think Rudess brought it up in an interview, too. Apparently, it happened a lot on the BC&SL tour. I have to dig around for it.

[TheGreatPretender]

Well, I understand what you meant, it just makes no sense to me that DT fans wouldn't spring the extra money to be closer to the front and center. Weird.

[Jaffa]

Eh.  I know PC made those prices up, but using his sample layout as an example, if I wanted to go to that concert, I'd probably go for the $25 seats.  Being front and center is cool and all, but it simply isn't worth an extra $75 to me. 

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

^ I agree.

[TheGreatPretender]

But again, those prices are made up. They would probably be closer to $60, and $40 extra for front and center would be totally worth it to me. Heck, I'm paying $300 for VIP pass and a front row seat, and I think it's totally worth every penny.