Mike Portnoy's The Shattered Fortress - Overture 1928, Strange Deja Vu - Live!!!

[Evai]

MP should have had 3 keyboard players as well.  If it takes 3 guitars to be JP then it makes (non)sense to do 3 for JR as well.  Would have been funny.

Ya don't need extra guitarists/keyboardists when you have the power of backing tracks

[ytserush]

Better than I expected but still not enough for me to either catch the show (I think the New York show was on a Sunday night) or even buy a CD/DVD.

 I'm happy Mike got to fulfill a dream and I don't mind looking back sometimes but this wasn't really a situation that would move me to do that.

For what it's worth, I  think I'd rank the Sons of Apollo live album above this.

[DarkLord_Lalinc]

MP should have had 3 keyboard players as well.  If it takes 3 guitars to be JP then it makes (non)sense to do 3 for JR as well.  Would have been funny.

Ya don't need extra guitarists/keyboardists when you have the power of backing tracks

This statement feels unfair. Both JP and JR made the band sound surprisingly full without any backing tracks while MP was in the band. Even though they use backing tracks nowadays, both JP and JR have always made the band sound bigger than it actually is on stage.

Also, the video is very cool and it's an amazing tribute (I never got to see a Shattered Fortress show myself) and I get why he released this when he did, but I feel it would've felt better to see MP share a video from the old Live Scenes From New York days. He's always had the "I wanted to share this show but DT wouldn't let me...but hey, I don't hold any grudges! So here's a gift to all of you MP Warriors" thing going on and that just keeps feeling weird to me. Not trying to sound bitchy, this is a super cool gift, but there's that.

Also, I agree wholeheartedly with the JLB sentiment. The man is dangerously underrated. Ross Jennings still has a young voice and is an amazing singer, but I'd rather have an old JLB singing DT over basically any other singer. Ross did an incredible job, but he doesn't sound nearly as dynamic with his vocals as JLB does. Maybe James has lost a buttload of range and power (and this is undeniable), but his use of dynamics is as good and mature as it's always been.

[Setlist Scotty]

This statement feels unfair. Both JP and JR made the band sound surprisingly full without any backing tracks while MP was in the band. Even though they use backing tracks nowadays, both JP and JR have always made the band sound bigger than it actually is on stage.

Which is exactly why they shouldn't need them now...

[KevShmev]

This statement feels unfair. Both JP and JR made the band sound surprisingly full without any backing tracks while MP was in the band. Even though they use backing tracks nowadays, both JP and JR have always made the band sound bigger than it actually is on stage.

Which is exactly why they shouldn't need them now...

True, but some things in life you have or use because they are a luxury, not because you necessarily need them.

[JRuless]

This statement feels unfair. Both JP and JR made the band sound surprisingly full without any backing tracks while MP was in the band. Even though they use backing tracks nowadays, both JP and JR have always made the band sound bigger than it actually is on stage.

Agreed. Thats also the reason I like te 'clean-band' approach of DOT. Hopefully as it will be applied live. Not a fan of backing tracks.  Have seen DT many times without them and the pureness is gold, because they CAN sound big live.
Which is exactly why they shouldn't need them now...

[YtseJam]

I never understood why people play guitars without a headstock. 

[cramx3]

I never understood why people play guitars without a headstock. 

Why?  I don't play guitar but does it make a difference or is it just a look thing.  I remember someone joking about this because Haken plays on small stages and can use the extra space saved 

[hefdaddy42]

It's also a weight thing.  It makes the guitar lighter.

It's no big deal, just a stylistic choice.  Some players like single cutaways, some prefer double cutaways, some like single coil pickups, some prefer humbuckers, some like traditional guitars, others prefer headless, some like flying Vs, some like basswood while others prefer mahogany.

Whatever.

[Lynxo]

Guitars without a headstock tend to have better intonation, not to mention they're a lot more comfortable to play when all the guitars weight is shifted to the body.
Other than that, I guess some people don't like the aesthetics but that's another issue.

[pg1067]

It's also a weight thing.  It makes the guitar lighter.

Guitars without a headstock tend to have better intonation, not to mention they're a lot more comfortable to play when all the guitars weight is shifted to the body.

I can't speak for guitars, but I once played a Steinberger headstockless bass at a music store.  It felt heavier than any of my basses and was the most awkward bass I've ever played.  Add that to "they look stupid," and you can see why they only had a brief period of popularity in the 80s.

[MirrorMask]

Guitars without a headstock tend to have better intonation, not to mention they're a lot more comfortable to play when all the guitars weight is shifted to the body.
Other than that, I guess some people don't like the aesthetics but that's another issue.

Thank you for a nice and in-depth explanation of the actual and concrete benefit of a guitar without a headstock, which serves as a useful insight for people who aren't musicians.


















I still think they suck and they're horrible to see 

[Setlist Scotty]

I still think they suck and they're horrible to see 

And I think they look cool. 

[Stadler]

I'm not sure I'd assume that that three guitars was strictly an artistic decision.  He wanted Eric Gillette in the band... I suppose he could have told BOTH Haken guitar players to take the night off (Gillette later worked with the Diego and the bass player by themselves), but if he wasn't going to do that, what do you do?  Have them draw straws?   Have them alternate nights?   Fistfight?  It's not the worst decision in the history of mankind to say "hey, let's all do this."

[cramx3]

Well they left out Ray (drummer of Haken) so maybe they should of had him on a smaller drum set to the side 

I think the idea of three guitarist was to help them learn the material quicker.  I kind of recall that first show on the cruise being put together real quickly by these guys. 

[KevShmev]

I'm not sure I'd assume that that three guitars was strictly an artistic decision.  He wanted Eric Gillette in the band... I suppose he could have told BOTH Haken guitar players to take the night off (Gillette later worked with the Diego and the bass player by themselves), but if he wasn't going to do that, what do you do?  Have them draw straws?   Have them alternate nights?   Fistfight?  It's not the worst decision in the history of mankind to say "hey, let's all do this."

That was always what I figured.  He couldn't have one Haken guitarist and not the other, and there is no way he wasn't gonna invite Eric Gillette, so going with all three made the most sense.

[Trav86]

I’ve never been into tribute/cover bands.

[Setlist Scotty]

I’ve never been into tribute/cover bands.

So if Ozzy was to do a set just of Sabbath songs, you'd skip it?

[TAC]

I’ve never been into tribute/cover bands.

So if Ozzy was to do a set just of Sabbath songs, you'd skip it?

If we’re talking 2019 Ozzy, yes I world skip it.

Speak Of The Devil though...

[Dublagent66]

Yeah, that's like not listening to or seeing Roger Waters after Pink Floyd.

[Chino]

I’ve never been into tribute/cover bands.

I think it depends on who the tribute is too and why. When it's for an act like Bon Jovi or Weezer, I don't really see the appeal for a cover band. But if it's for an act that's long dead or knocking on death's door, I give it a pass. There's a Beetles cover band called Rain that puts on a phenomenal show and I try to catch them any time they're in the area.   

 

[pg1067]

I think it makes a big difference when it's the former drummer plus a bunch of people, as opposed to the former singer with a backing band.

I can't really comment on Floyd/Waters because I don't like them in the slightest, but Ozzy doing Speak of the Devil was awesome (although he didn't really want to do it).  In this case, I don't really care about MP plus a bunch of guys (who, to me, are no-names), esp. since the singer was no better than average.  Nor would I really care to see Ozzy NOW doing the Speak of the Devil set.

One of my favorite current bands, YYNOT, started as a Rush tribute band, which is awesome because there is no more Rush (and because they have about the only singer I've ever heard who can really pull off vintage Rush songs).  Don't need a DT cover band because DT still exists and is strong.

[bosk1]

I think it makes a big difference when it's the former drummer plus a bunch of people, as opposed to the former singer with a backing band.

I get what you are saying.  But to me, it depends on who the drummer is and what his role was in creating the songs.  Most drummers don't necessarily have the input and are such driving creative forces in the music's writing and creation as MP.  That alone makes it a much different scenario than, say, Bobby Blotzer's Ratt.

[Setlist Scotty]

I think it makes a big difference when it's the former drummer plus a bunch of people, as opposed to the former singer with a backing band.

I get what you are saying.  But to me, it depends on who the drummer is and what his role was in creating the songs.  Most drummers don't necessarily have the input and are such driving creative forces in the music's writing and creation as MP.  That alone makes it a much different scenario than, say, Bobby Blotzer's Ratt.

Bosk took the words out of my mouth. MP was far more than just the drummer of DT. He was one of the leaders of the band and was heavily involved in all aspects of DT's inner workings, not to mention his creative input lyrically, musically and arranging, as well as being a focal point in the band. You can't say the same about Ozzy. Sure, he was *the* focal point about the band, but he wasn't the leader of the band nor did he even write the lyrics to most (if not all) of the songs he sang, nevermind getting involved in the songwriting. That puts MP in a different category than GNR's Steven Adler.

[bosk1]

Yup.  And people's mileage may vary as to how much, if anything, that actually means to them.  That's fine.  But, to me, again, this isn't just "some drummer in a cover/tribute band doing a bunch of songs."  To me, it's much more than that.

[pg1067]

I think it makes a big difference when it's the former drummer plus a bunch of people, as opposed to the former singer with a backing band.

I get what you are saying.  But to me, it depends on who the drummer is and what his role was in creating the songs.  Most drummers don't necessarily have the input and are such driving creative forces in the music's writing and creation as MP.  That alone makes it a much different scenario than, say, Bobby Blotzer's Ratt.

Bosk took the words out of my mouth. MP was far more than just the drummer of DT. He was one of the leaders of the band and was heavily involved in all aspects of DT's inner workings, not to mention his creative input lyrically, musically and arranging, as well as being a focal point in the band. . . .  That puts MP in a different category than GNR's Steven Adler.

Factually, all of that is correct, but it doesn't mean a lot to me when it comes to getting on the stage and performing.

By analogy, I'd be far more interested in seeing Geddy Lee perform Rush songs with two guys who aren't Alex and Neil than I would seeing Alex or Neil do the same thing.

[SwedishGoose]

I think it makes a big difference when it's the former drummer plus a bunch of people, as opposed to the former singer with a backing band.

I get what you are saying.  But to me, it depends on who the drummer is and what his role was in creating the songs.  Most drummers don't necessarily have the input and are such driving creative forces in the music's writing and creation as MP.  That alone makes it a much different scenario than, say, Bobby Blotzer's Ratt.

MP doing the complete AA suite and some other cool songs that he wrote the lyrics for was to me so far away from cover bands that it can't be conpared.

The AA suite had never been performed in it's entirity but MP had planned to do it with DT on the next tour. Well, there was no next tour as he quit the band instead.

DT would never do the AA suite  as it was a personal thing for Mike.

I for one am really glad that Mike did this and that I got the chancr to see it live, up close. It was awesome!!!

[Dublagent66]

Being a Rush fan for more than 33 years, any of the 3 members performing without the other two is inconceivable.  It doesn't even factor into any equation of discussion in the context of what MP is doing.  An entirely different animal altogether.

[pg1067]

DT would never do the AA suite  as it was a personal thing for Mike.

I suspect the actual reason why DT will never perform the AA suit in full is because they won't want to devote an hour of concert time to a single suite of songs, none of which are generally regarded among the band's best, and one of which (IMO) is the single worst thing they ever recorded (Repentance).

Being a Rush fan for more than 33 years, any of the 3 members performing without the other two is inconceivable.  It doesn't even factor into any equation of discussion in the context of what MP is doing.  An entirely different animal altogether.

Performing?  Performing as solo artists and incidentally doing a Rush song or two?  Or performing under the Rush name?  Alex has regularly performed in the four years since Rush ceased to exist (although I don't know whether he's performed any Rush material).  Both Geddy and Alex have said that it's likely that they'll continue their music careers and may, in fact, do things together.  Whether they incidentally include any Rush material in any live performances they may do remains to be seen, but it's never been ruled out.  Both Geddy and Alex have said emphatically that they'll never perform as Rush without Neil.

But my point remains that I'd rather see Geddy do Rush material with others than see Alex or Neil do Rush material with someone other than Geddy singing.  Similarly, I'd rather see JLB perform DT material with other than I would see MP performing DT material with others.

[PetFish]

DT would never do the AA suite  as it was a personal thing for Mike.

So the person who writes the lyrics to a song gets the final say forever in whether or not it can be played?  Seriously?

75% of the AA Suite music was written by other people (and most of the suite is actually music, not lyrics) so why shouldn't they play it?  Saying "cuz it's personal" for someone who isn't even in the band any longer is a ridiculous reason to scrap an hour of music.  I agree that it's an hour that would probably be better spent playing other songs but if DT decided to do a "one night only" thing with the entire suite then that's perfectly fine and dandy.

What about A Change of Seasons?  Is that one supposed to be off limits as well since it's "personal" for MP?  Spoiler:  they've already done it with Mangini.

Also, as much as I can't stand the lyrics of The Best of Times, I hope DT plays it live some day.

[SwedishGoose]

Of course they can and will play any songs in their back catalogue. However the AA suite is something more as a whole than in it's individual parts.

No I don't think they are prohibited from doing the suite, I just think they would not do it as:

1. Takes up too much time
2. The suite as a whole is too much MP and they would not want to do it

Anyway..... glad I got to see Mike doing it as I had looked forward to DT doing it.

Also glad that DT did A Change of Seasons (saw the IaWaB tour twice)

[MoraWintersoul]

75% of the AA Suite music was written by other people (and most of the suite is actually music, not lyrics) so why shouldn't they play it?  Saying "cuz it's personal" for someone who isn't even in the band any longer is a ridiculous reason to scrap an hour of music.

Because, without MP's concept, those songs likely wouldn't exist.

DT doesn't reuse old riffs or passages unless they're tying them together. MP is the one who had the idea to spread out his 12 steps story over multiple albums and tie them all together musically, so throughout the entire decade they would periodically sit down and work on that particular song for each album. Without this concept, they would have just been working on other ideas, and none of these songs would exist as we know them today. Comparing that to ACOS - even though the lyrics are incredibly important to MP, it's everyone's baby, more or less. If MP didn't step up to do the lyrics, it would have been someone else.

[hefdaddy42]

They will (and already have) play individual parts of the AA suite.

But doing the whole thing together makes no sense without MP, which I am sure the current members would be the first to admit.

Not to mention the previously mentioned fact that it would take a ridiculous amount of concert time to perform.

[bosk1]

DT would never do the AA suite  as it was a personal thing for Mike.

So the person who writes the lyrics to a song gets the final say forever in whether or not it can be played?  Seriously?

Yeah, that's not what he said at all.

[Stadler]

I don't think there are any rules here.  There are examples on either side of the equation.   Hell, people (in my opinion wrongly) call Kiss a "cover band" for having Tommy and Eric in the band.  I have NEVER, EVER heard Tony Iommi called a "cover band", even though for most of the latter day period of the band, he was the sole member.

I think singers are important and in many cases, the singer can carry the show.  Roth, Gabriel, Sting, Ozzy, Dio.  And for every one of those, there's a singer that didn't light it up while solo.  As much as I love him and his work, Dickinson's solo career is too much like him, all over the map.  Halford did not light it up as a solo act.  Tony Martin.  Jon Anderson.  Even the great Stephen Tyler is seemingly lost without Aerosmith.

And vice-versa; AC/DC and Van Halen thrived with singer changes, but Maiden and Priest did not. 

I personally liked The Shattered Fortress (even if it was a constant slap-in-the-face reminder of how friggin' good James LaBrie really is).  I'd go see the Circle - Sammy Hagar playing songs from his and his bandmates career - in heartbeat.  I saw and LOVED the Chinese Democracy Guns 'n' Roses when I saw them in a 1,000 seat club.  But honestly, I could care less about any of the 80's LA bands that are presently touring with singers they found on YooToob.  I can't stand Vince Neil, but if I'm going to see Motley Crue, it will be with that fat ass barely scatting through the words, not John Corabi.