Imagine if the DT of 2002-2006 had the current catalogue to represent!

[KevShmev]

This is not meant to be a "I wish DT still rotated set lists" thread, but I know that for quite a few, 2002-2006 was the band at their live height (the tours for 6DOIT, Train of Thought and Octavarium) since the set lists were constantly being rotated to where you could go to any show and have no idea going in what 75% of the songs might be (each your did have mainstays every night).  Imagine if that band still existed now, with these 15 studio albums to choose from when touring and doing rotating set lists. It boggles the mind.

[Stadler]

I know some people poo-poo it, but that's a big thing for me.   I mean, I still go (I've seen them more with Mangini than with Portnoy, because of circumstances in my life) but that means they get an "A" or "A-" instead of an "A+".  I'm a Dead fan, and I love the idea of having to see the set before you evaluate any given night on a tour.  Now it's more like Kiss; if you like the set for a tour, then you're pretty much good.  If not, well....

[TheCountOfNYC]

I think I like the static setlist more. I’ve never seen Dream Theater with Portnoy so I can’t speak on my experience with them in that regard, but I’ll use another band that rotates songs in and out of sets: Metallica. The last time I saw them was on their big stadium tour in support of Hardwired, and one of the main rotations in the set was alternating between the three thrashy album openers from the 80’s to open the encore. The show before the one I went to had Battery in that spot. The show after had Blackened. That means I got Fight Fire With Fire, my least favorite of the three songs by a large margin. Now I’ve been very fortunate seeing them live, having heard almost all of my favorite Metallica songs in concert before (including both Battery and Blackened), and it helps that my favorite Metallica song (Master of Puppets) is played at every concert, but as was shown with my last live Metallica experience, had I gone to see them the show before or after on previous tours, it would be a much different story.

To bring it back to Dream Theater, I’ve enjoyed every setlist I’ve seen from them, but if they still rotated songs these amazing setlists could have set me up for disappointment. From this tour for example, I really enjoyed Endless Sacrifice live even though it’s my least favorite song on Train of Thought, but I don’t think I would still be speaking of my enjoyment of it if I found out the show before and after mine included Stream of Consciousness (my favorite from that album) instead. Since I know I’m not missing out on a preferred song simply by being at the wrong show, I can only judge the setlist by what songs are in it and not what songs hypothetically aren’t, and that helps me maintain my enjoyment of the concert.

[cramx3]

We'd probably have gotten a TA suite of songs in a tour since the album, something I really wish the band would do.

[Madman Shepherd]

To bring it back to Dream Theater, I’ve enjoyed every setlist I’ve seen from them, but if they still rotated songs these amazing setlists could have set me up for disappointment.

Yup. Thank god they don't do that anymore.

[Trav86]

I’ll go back to the two reasons why I’m glad they don’t rotate sets anymore.

1.  I can’t go to multiple shows and more than likely I would get Never Enough and Prophets of War at my show. Now if they were playing those every night, cool. But if I got those in place of…I don’t know…anything else, I’d be disappointed.

2.  The band prefers this. They are more comfortable having a set they can perfect, and be comfortable with night after night. And I’m sure it’s a lot better for James.

[KevShmev]

I’ll go back to the two reasons why I’m glad they don’t rotate sets anymore.

1.  I can’t go to multiple shows and more than likely I would get Never Enough and Prophets of War at my show. Now if they were playing those every night, cool. But if I got those in place of…I don’t know…anything else, I’d be disappointed.

2.  The band prefers this. They are more comfortable having a set they can perfect, and be comfortable with night after night. And I’m sure it’s a lot better for James.

Okay, but this post really isn't within the spirit of the thread.

The current band may "prefer" not having rotating set list, but the 2002-2006 version of the band DID like rotating set lists, and that is what this thread is about.

Imagine the 2006 version of the band touring earlier this year with using the 2005-2006 format.  The Alien could open every show, the end of every second set could be Awaken the Master and then the title track of A View..., and then the rest could vary from night to night. 

[Trav86]

There were already a couple of posts expressing not being a fan of the rotating setlists. I was just giving my opinion. Sorry if I went out of the lines.

[KevShmev]

Nah, no worries.

When I do a mental list of my favorite concerts ever, most of them were concerts where I either had no idea going in what was going to be played or it was a tour where I knew the set lists for that artist were not static, so there was the possibility of almost anything.

[Ben_Jamin]

I wish more bands would actually have that mindset when making set-lists. It's one of the main things I do miss from the band. I also do enjoy the static set-lists as well. What I do love about the band though is that nothing is off limits to being played live, or to what is going to appear in the set-list, even if it is a static set.

As you can see from my posts in the Future Setlists thread I made, I still hold the band to this and base my "set-lists" around it.

I pretty much knew what A View... songs we were going to get, but what I didn't know was how many songs they would dedicate the set too, and I feel these songs are great choices for this current run. I was very surprised and never considered that the band could, and did, choose long songs to play. I actually could've made a set like that based around the longer songs, but even at that, what songs they picked I would have not guessed at all. I am one fan that was very happy with the set-list we got for this tour, I pretty much shed tears from the moment they started About To Crash till the end of TCOT. Those songs are among my favorites and they also hold special meanings for myself, and from personal situations that occurred in my life, these choices made the set even more emotional for me.

What I wouldn't mind seeing if the band was still of that 02-06 mindset, is that they would've switched out Invisible Monster with 3 more songs, but being the single that wasn't going to happen, and also, JP wanting to showcase his brand new 8-string played into Awaken The Master being in the set, so that would be a staple of the set as well. Which makes me think that they could've added another slot for 2 new songs that would interchange, like Answering The Call and Transcending Time. Which would leave out one of the older songs to be interchanged each night. TCOT could stay and be interchanged with Octavarium, having the encore of the first show of the tour be TCOT and the last show be Octavarium.

It would be interesting to see what other songs could've been played within this current tours length, like which songs could work within the timeframe of each song, keeping the amount of songs in the set close to what it is now, longer songs and a couple shorter ones.

What I am really glad about though is that they are done with the Anniversary sets. It sort of sucks because of the possible songs they could've been rather than an albums worth of material. Although, I am glad they did do them because I got to see many songs I love as well, including To Live Forever and Don't Look Past Me (One song I never, ever expected to hear at all live).

[KevShmev]

One thing that cannot be denied is the lack of rotating set lists the last 10 years has done a disservice to the Mangini-era albums (post-the touring cycles for each album).   DT12 and The Astonishing have largely been ignored since the tours for each album, only three of the nine songs from A Dramatic Turn of Events have been played since the tour for that record, and Distance over Time, the 2nd most recent album, was ignored on the last tour.  The 2002-2006 era of the band would have found ways to work a lot of those songs in the set lists here and there, even if they were just one-offs.

[TAC]

Playing full tours with the second set being I&W or Scenes didn't help in those matters either.

[Stadler]

I don't quite get the disapproval of the rotation on the grounds that MY show would have "x song". I mean, I understand it conceptually, but it sounds like a "me" problem not a "band" problem.  The whole point of an artist is to hear what THEY feel in the moment, no?  Not to be a jukebox for what I want to hear.  If I was to construct a setlist for this current tour, for example, I would have cut/replaced probably 60% of it before I got there.  But watching it, watching them deliver songs THEY wanted to deliver in the manner THEY wanted to deliver them was an amazing experience, one of my top DT shows.  They played BY FAR my least favorite song from the new album and yet it was a treat to see it live.  So maybe, for me, the rotating setlist works so much because I'm not married to the concept of hearing a particular song, or only hearing songs I approve of in advance.   

And it's fair to say, that's not the case for every band.  I wouldn't, for example, want Paul McCartney to do a rotating setlist. His catalogue is so solid, so full of "must hear songs", that I can't imagine seeing him and not seeing "Yesterday" for example; it's just not the same to have that switched out for "Blackbird" or some other 2:00 acoustic song from the Wings years.

[hefdaddy42]

They definitely put on incredible shows as is, but I would much prefer rotating setlists to come back.

[MirrorMask]

We'd probably have gotten a TA suite of songs in a tour since the album, something I really wish the band would do.

It will never happen, but they could do an "Astonishing instrumedley".

I mean, Dystopian Overture is already a medley of themes from the album, it would be cool for them to expand on it and bring it to 10 or 12 minutes by having more themes / passages of the other songs. A maxi-sized Dystopian Overture if you will.

[pg1067]

Here's the thing for me.  The "rotating set lists" were, at best, meaningless to me.  I looked at the set lists for the six shows I saw during the stated time period and also looked at prior and subsequent nights.  On two occasions, they didn't change the set list.  On the other four, they changed anywhere from 2-6 songs.  On none of those occasions would I have regarded the changes as making the set significantly better and, on one occasion, it would have been much worse.  However, at the end of the day, it didn't matter because I never saw more than one show per tour.

At the end of the day, I'm down for whatever the band wants.  From what I've read, most of the band wasn't down with the rotation, so what they're making now seems to make more sense.

I don't quite get the disapproval of the rotation on the grounds that MY show would have "x song". I mean, I understand it conceptually, but it sounds like a "me" problem not a "band" problem.  The whole point of an artist is to hear what THEY feel in the moment, no?  Not to be a jukebox for what I want to hear.

Well...unless you're a fan who doesn't feel much different about the different songs in the catalog (and that's probably not true for most DT fans), your enjoyment of a show is going to depend, to some extent, on the set list.  For example, if they did a set list with The Mirror, New Millennium, The Great Debate, Honor Thy Father, Never Enough, Repentance, The Best of Times and Lost Not Forgotten, I'd likely be REALLY disappointed.  I'm not going to emerge from the show saying, "well...they played all of my bottom 10 songs, but I'm happy that they adequately showcased their vision in the moment."  Of course, with a band like DT, you can't please everyone, but rotating songs doesn't benefit anyone who doesn't see multiple shows.

Also, the rotating lists weren't about what the "artist . . . [felt] in [that] moment."  Rather, it was about what one member out of five thought they should play based on his assumption that the majority of the band's fans had the same take on things as he did for bands for which he was a fan.

[Kram]

We'd probably have gotten a TA suite of songs in a tour since the album, something I really wish the band would do.

It will never happen, but they could do an "Astonishing instrumedley".

I mean, Dystopian Overture is already a medley of themes from the album, it would be cool for them to expand on it and bring it to 10 or 12 minutes by having more themes / passages of the other songs. A maxi-sized Dystopian Overture if you will.

I don't think that will ever happen either.

[RaiseTheKnife]

I sorely miss the rotating setlists.
But certainly do not miss the medleys. 

[TheCountOfNYC]

I sorely miss the rotating setlists.
But certainly do not miss the medleys.

I really like Instrumedley, but the rest of them aren’t very good.

[Stadler]

Here's the thing for me.  The "rotating set lists" were, at best, meaningless to me.  I looked at the set lists for the six shows I saw during the stated time period and also looked at prior and subsequent nights.  On two occasions, they didn't change the set list.  On the other four, they changed anywhere from 2-6 songs.  On none of those occasions would I have regarded the changes as making the set significantly better and, on one occasion, it would have been much worse.  However, at the end of the day, it didn't matter because I never saw more than one show per tour.

At the end of the day, I'm down for whatever the band wants.  From what I've read, most of the band wasn't down with the rotation, so what they're making now seems to make more sense.

I don't quite get the disapproval of the rotation on the grounds that MY show would have "x song". I mean, I understand it conceptually, but it sounds like a "me" problem not a "band" problem.  The whole point of an artist is to hear what THEY feel in the moment, no?  Not to be a jukebox for what I want to hear.

Well...unless you're a fan who doesn't feel much different about the different songs in the catalog (and that's probably not true for most DT fans), your enjoyment of a show is going to depend, to some extent, on the set list.  For example, if they did a set list with The Mirror, New Millennium, The Great Debate, Honor Thy Father, Never Enough, Repentance, The Best of Times and Lost Not Forgotten, I'd likely be REALLY disappointed.  I'm not going to emerge from the show saying, "well...they played all of my bottom 10 songs, but I'm happy that they adequately showcased their vision in the moment."  Of course, with a band like DT, you can't please everyone, but rotating songs doesn't benefit anyone who doesn't see multiple shows.

But it's a false equivalency.  I don't control the setlist regardless.  I get what I get.  I really think this is a case of "too much information isn't better".   Back in '77, the fans at a Dead show, unless they were talking with someone who was at the previous show, or got a tape of the show, didn't have any idea what was played at that show, only what they saw that night.  And they either enjoyed it or they didn't, there wasn't any "what if?" or "if only!". 

I think that was my point about what the band wanted (more on that in a moment); whether it was a burning desire to play THAT SONG, on THAT NIGHT, or simply the challenge of that portion of the set that was in rotation, you were seeing something unique.  I think that either matters to someone or it doesn't. I know for me, I LIKE the unusual.  Sure, on a live album I would not want to hear Bruce Dickinson arguing with a sound guy because his mic didn't work, but I CHERISH that my show on the Piece of Mind tour was the one where his mic didn't work during Where Eagles Dare.  One, I get to tell that story, and two I have the experience of seeing Bruce Dickinson handling a moment that probably didn't happen again on that tour (and I swear to this day I could hear him singing acoustically over the band, no mean feat!)

Also, the rotating lists weren't about what the "artist . . . [felt] in [that] moment."  Rather, it was about what one member out of five thought they should play based on his assumption that the majority of the band's fans had the same take on things as he did for bands for which he was a fan.

And it's that take that some of us value.  I don't have to always agree with it, but it's something that most bands don't do for various reasons.  And I say the same thing about John Petrucci that Phil Collins long said about Tony Banks (when asked about the accusations he "dumbed down" Genesis for the pop singles market): "You try getting Tony Banks to do something he doesn't want to do."   They were all in; that they don't do it now doesn't have any bearing on the mindset or the attitude of 1996.  There are a LOT of things I don't do now (or CAN'T do now) that I did as a normal course of business in 1996. That's how the world evolves.

[KevShmev]

And it's that take that some of us value.  I don't have to always agree with it, but it's something that most bands don't do for various reasons.  And I say the same thing about John Petrucci that Phil Collins long said about Tony Banks (when asked about the accusations he "dumbed down" Genesis for the pop singles market): "You try getting Tony Banks to do something he doesn't want to do."   They were all in; that they don't do it now doesn't have any bearing on the mindset or the attitude of 1996.  There are a LOT of things I don't do now (or CAN'T do now) that I did as a normal course of business in 1996. That's how the world evolves.

I think this is a good point about Petrucci.  While Portnoy was the more vocal leader back then and had the freedom to do certain things as he saw fit, it was pretty well known that he and Petrucci were basically co-leaders, so operating under that thinking, is it reasonable to think that Petrucci would have been against medleys (which JP is on record as disliking) AND rotating set lists and given in to Portnoy on both? I do not think it is.  And for as strong-willed and "I want to do things my way" as Portnoy was, I don't think he would have insisted on rotating set lists to the extent that he did had the other four all been against them.

[Elite]

I sorely miss the rotating setlists.
But certainly do not miss the medleys. 

Why? The only reason you could 'miss it' is if you were to watch multiple shows on the same tour, otherwise you would simply get whatever show you're attending, whether or not the setlist differed from the night before or after.

[cramx3]

And it's that take that some of us value.  I don't have to always agree with it, but it's something that most bands don't do for various reasons.  And I say the same thing about John Petrucci that Phil Collins long said about Tony Banks (when asked about the accusations he "dumbed down" Genesis for the pop singles market): "You try getting Tony Banks to do something he doesn't want to do."   They were all in; that they don't do it now doesn't have any bearing on the mindset or the attitude of 1996.  There are a LOT of things I don't do now (or CAN'T do now) that I did as a normal course of business in 1996. That's how the world evolves.

I think this is a good point about Petrucci.  While Portnoy was the more vocal leader back then and had the freedom to do certain things as he saw fit, it was pretty well known that he and Petrucci were basically co-leaders, so operating under that thinking, is it reasonable to think that Petrucci would have been against medleys (which JP is on record as disliking) AND rotating set lists and given in to Portnoy on both? I do not think it is.  And for as strong-willed and "I want to do things my way" as Portnoy was, I don't think he would have insisted on rotating set lists to the extent that he did had the other four all been against them.

I wonder how much other factors play a role too.  Maybe being younger, this was easier to do.  Maybe there was also some pride in being able to do all those crazy shows back then?  Maybe there was some joy in doing different sets to keep it fresh even if they knew it would mean it wasn't as tight of a performance.  I've always wondered how the band dynamics come to play for setlists.  Even static set lists, how do they choose which ones get played?  Who chooses the songs and order?  Does everyone have a say?

[Stadler]

And it's that take that some of us value.  I don't have to always agree with it, but it's something that most bands don't do for various reasons.  And I say the same thing about John Petrucci that Phil Collins long said about Tony Banks (when asked about the accusations he "dumbed down" Genesis for the pop singles market): "You try getting Tony Banks to do something he doesn't want to do."   They were all in; that they don't do it now doesn't have any bearing on the mindset or the attitude of 1996.  There are a LOT of things I don't do now (or CAN'T do now) that I did as a normal course of business in 1996. That's how the world evolves.

I think this is a good point about Petrucci.  While Portnoy was the more vocal leader back then and had the freedom to do certain things as he saw fit, it was pretty well known that he and Petrucci were basically co-leaders, so operating under that thinking, is it reasonable to think that Petrucci would have been against medleys (which JP is on record as disliking) AND rotating set lists and given in to Portnoy on both? I do not think it is.  And for as strong-willed and "I want to do things my way" as Portnoy was, I don't think he would have insisted on rotating set lists to the extent that he did had the other four all been against them.

I wonder how much other factors play a role too.  Maybe being younger, this was easier to do.  Maybe there was also some pride in being able to do all those crazy shows back then?  Maybe there was some joy in doing different sets to keep it fresh even if they knew it would mean it wasn't as tight of a performance.  I've always wondered how the band dynamics come to play for setlists.  Even static set lists, how do they choose which ones get played?  Who chooses the songs and order?  Does everyone have a say?

That's funny; I was thinking that same thing too, about being "young" and wanting to do crazy stuff that no one else was doing. Almost a "competition" or "hey look at what WE can do!" kind of thing. 

[Awaken]

There was definitely something to that thought of NOT knowing the setlist that would draw me out for multiple shows near me in the early days.  It would be cool to have the option at least once more.  During the DOT tour, second leg I believe, they swapped out Pull Me Under for At Wit's End for the encore - and that alone got me up to Albany to see them again.  I left early in CT because I can't count how many times I've seen PMU live and I valued an earlier arrival at home more than seeing it again.  jeez typing that out makes me feel really old.

[DreamerTV]

And it's that take that some of us value.  I don't have to always agree with it, but it's something that most bands don't do for various reasons.  And I say the same thing about John Petrucci that Phil Collins long said about Tony Banks (when asked about the accusations he "dumbed down" Genesis for the pop singles market): "You try getting Tony Banks to do something he doesn't want to do."   They were all in; that they don't do it now doesn't have any bearing on the mindset or the attitude of 1996.  There are a LOT of things I don't do now (or CAN'T do now) that I did as a normal course of business in 1996. That's how the world evolves.

I think this is a good point about Petrucci.  While Portnoy was the more vocal leader back then and had the freedom to do certain things as he saw fit, it was pretty well known that he and Petrucci were basically co-leaders, so operating under that thinking, is it reasonable to think that Petrucci would have been against medleys (which JP is on record as disliking) AND rotating set lists and given in to Portnoy on both? I do not think it is.  And for as strong-willed and "I want to do things my way" as Portnoy was, I don't think he would have insisted on rotating set lists to the extent that he did had the other four all been against them.

I wonder how much other factors play a role too.  Maybe being younger, this was easier to do.  Maybe there was also some pride in being able to do all those crazy shows back then?  Maybe there was some joy in doing different sets to keep it fresh even if they knew it would mean it wasn't as tight of a performance.  I've always wondered how the band dynamics come to play for setlists.  Even static set lists, how do they choose which ones get played?  Who chooses the songs and order?  Does everyone have a say?

I would like to add that since MP left the band and JP had on his shoulders way more than he used to have, there were some reflections also on his performances. To be fair, he had set the bar way too high in the way his playing was as clean and flawless as possible, but mistakes have become a more consistent presence in the shows. And i'm not talking about solos like As i am (we do have to come at peace with aging) but slow melodies and even chords. I think he just have too much to remember, he always had, but the space is limited and as more things get into your mind (he's the sole producer, he's investing in other activities, he's basically the main guy behind DT HQ etc...) it gets easier to loose focus on what once was, probably, his main thing.

[Stadler]

There was definitely something to that thought of NOT knowing the setlist that would draw me out for multiple shows near me in the early days.  It would be cool to have the option at least once more.  During the DOT tour, second leg I believe, they swapped out Pull Me Under for At Wit's End for the encore - and that alone got me up to Albany to see them again.  I left early in CT because I can't count how many times I've seen PMU live and I valued an earlier arrival at home more than seeing it again.  jeez typing that out makes me feel really old.

Haha, like the Progressive Insurance commercial?  "You've become your parents!".

(And don't worry; I'm already those people in too many ways myself.)

[Awaken]

There was definitely something to that thought of NOT knowing the setlist that would draw me out for multiple shows near me in the early days.  It would be cool to have the option at least once more.  During the DOT tour, second leg I believe, they swapped out Pull Me Under for At Wit's End for the encore - and that alone got me up to Albany to see them again.  I left early in CT because I can't count how many times I've seen PMU live and I valued an earlier arrival at home more than seeing it again.  jeez typing that out makes me feel really old.

Haha, like the Progressive Insurance commercial?  "You've become your parents!".


(And don't worry; I'm already those people in too many ways myself.)

YES, EXACTLY!  I love those commercials, the level of accuracy is amazing