DREAM THEATER ANNOUNCE THE RETURN OF DRUMMER MIKE PORTNOY

[cramx3]

I can only speak for myself, but a few reasons:
1)  I used to love traveling to multiple shows on a leg and hearing songs I'd never heard before. 
2)  Jams/extended or alternate versions are fun to witness live
3)  I have loved DT's production over the past 10-15 years, I just miss having some surprises.  Knowing it's not the exact same production on each stop makes me want to attend multiple stops.
4)  I'm extremely fortunate to be within the general area that DT is from, so seeing multiple shows (CT, MA, NH, NJ, NY, RI) is very doable on any tour cycle - even 'escape from the studio' type gigs. 

Again, I have loved the MM era.  The band has been awesome every time I've seen them and the production has been top notch.  But that doesn't mean I haven't missed many aspects of the MP era and I'm kinda excited to revisit them.

This is an entirely fair answer. I will say however that despite being in the same exact region as you, you are still extremely fortunate to be able to catch multiple shows. I'm sure I speak for others also when I say that more than one or two per tour is not possible due to scheduling constraints for many people (and DT is by far not the only band I support, so I need to use that limited time in a way that is feasibly possible).

But isn't it one of those things where you can both have what you want?  You still get to see one show, and you see that show.  Only the cosmos knows whether if there was static setlist if you would have seen a different show.   So those of us that only see one show accept the presentation we get. That's our experience.  But those that can or do see multiple shows get to have something slightly new for the "effort". 

While I do respect everyone's opinion on this, I would love to understand better all the points of view, and to be honest, I'm really struggling to understand this concept of being "ripped off" because a song or two was played at another show somewhere else that I never had any intention of seeing anyway.  I've got over 350 shows under my belt at this point, and I honestly cannot name ONE where I was like "Great show, but Poughkeepsie got 'Bohemian Rhapsody' and I didn't."  "FOMO" doesn't seem to me to be a band problem; it seems to me to be a fan problem.

I've got an example.  My first ever DT show, from the first US leg of the Systematic Chaos Tour.  DT was changing up setlists each night.  Not by much, but there were changes.  My show in Philly had Misunderstood as one of the rotated songs, and my best buddy's show in Boston had Blind Faith in that spot.  Blind Faith is a top DT song for me (and my friend).  We still talk to this day about how he got to see that song and even though I've now seen DT like 15 more times than him, I still have not seen that song.

It's rare, but it happens. Having said that, I still prefer rotating setlists.  I wouldn't of even had that shot to see Blind Faith if it wasn't for rotating setlists (that song was not one played often in that spot on that tour). And the fact that there was rotations is the only reason my friend and I even still talk about that tour.  If people are talking about it, that's a good thing, generally.

And while traveling to see multiple shows is a good reason to enjoy the rotating setlists, it's not the main reason for me.  The main reason to like it is because you simply don't know what to expect each night, or for your show.  It's easy to say "avoid setlist spoilers"  but it's really hard to do in reality with social media or just generally being a big music fan like myself.  The wonder of "what's next?" during a show and then hearing the first few notes to realize what is being played is a glorious thing and something really hard to achieve in modern touring when you play the same show every night.

[gborland]

The main reason to like it is because you simply don't know what to expect each night, or for your show.  It's easy to say "avoid setlist spoilers"  but it's really hard to do in reality with social media or just generally being a big music fan like myself.  The wonder of "what's next?" during a show and then hearing the first few notes to realize what is being played is a glorious thing and something really hard to achieve in modern touring when you play the same show every night.

This. Totally this. The excitement you get from wondering what song is coming next, or from recognising the first few notes and feeling the explosion of joy when you realise it's one of your favourites, is the best thing about live music. And not having this in DT for the last 13 years has been terrible.

[bosk1]

But isn't it one of those things where you can both have what you want?  You still get to see one show, and you see that show.  Only the cosmos knows whether if there was static setlist if you would have seen a different show.   So those of us that only see one show accept the presentation we get. That's our experience.  But those that can or do see multiple shows get to have something slightly new for the "effort". 

First of all, that's a privileged point of view. "Those that can..." get some sort of reward. For any number of reasons, not everyone can, period, as much as they may wish to put in that "effort". It's not just all about effort, for example the aggrivation and energy it takes to drive through three states to see another show. For some people it's other, more pressing factors such as in my case where I simply could not get that much time off in a year and still have my job (where I am established, but still have to follow certain rules about how much time off I am allowed within certain parameters). Or in the case of someone like my younger brother for example who being quite young is not yet established enough financially to buy that many tickets.

While I do respect everyone's opinion on this, I would love to understand better all the points of view, and to be honest, I'm really struggling to understand this concept of being "ripped off" because a song or two was played at another show somewhere else that I never had any intention of seeing anyway.  I've got over 350 shows under my belt at this point, and I honestly cannot name ONE where I was like "Great show, but Poughkeepsie got 'Bohemian Rhapsody' and I didn't."  "FOMO" doesn't seem to me to be a band problem; it seems to me to be a fan problem.

As I explained above, thinking "FOMO" is the issue is also privilege talking. It's not simply about that for many people.

Also, do you really think nobody looks at published setlists? Even ahead of buying tickets? If anything, if the band wants people to buy more tickets to more shows, they'd be better off not rotating setlists each night, but making sure they change up the setlists for each leg/tour. Because otherwise, for example, I'd be less likely to buy a ticket on the second leg for a show in Boston if it's the same exact setlist we got six months ago in Wallingford. In that event, I could probably think of better ways to use up that precious allotted time off (like maybe by supporting another band this time around).

"Privilege" is not the issue.  You (or any other fan) don't have a right to any particular set list.  And you (or any other fan) also don't have a right to be able to attend more shows.  If you want to and can afford to, great.  If not, great.  But just because it isn't workable for you doesn't mean someone else should be deprived just so your feelings don't get hurt.

[crystalstars17]

If it's not "FOMO", what is it, then? That's the question I'm asking.  And I'm trying not to ask it in a confrontational way, I'm sincerely curious. What does the setlist in Poughkeepsie or Albany or Buffalo have to do with the show I see in Wallingford or Bridgeport?

It's maybe the expectation - as someone who is paying a professional to deliver a product - that you're getting the same product that someone else pays for who got something additional/more desirable/of better quality/etc than you got for the same price? That's just being a paying customer. Is it entitlement when you buy tickets to see The Phantom of the Opera in Boston and expect the same show you got in New York? Is it entitlement to expect the London Philharmonic to play the same concert on December 17 that they did on the 16th? Is it entitlement to go to a fine restaurant next weekend that you visited last month and expect the same quality? Or to stay at a fine hotel in a different city and expect the five star experience you got in a different city last year? Is it entitlement to expect that when you repurchase an item from an upscale brand, that it comes delivered in the same quality and condition that your first one did? No, that's just being a discerning paying customer.

Bands are corporations and they have a brand and a (hopefully) discerning customer base. I would expect the fandom of one of the world's best bands to be as discerning and expecting if quality as any consumer of fine products across any industry. The bottom line is that they are a business, and we are the customers.

I think as a band who takes their brand and business seriously, they are well aware of this

I hope this helps clarify what I mean? It's not about "I missed out on X particular song because I wasn't in Poughkeepsie". It's about a brand/business delivering a predictably high-quality experience/product.

[bosk1]

It's maybe the expectation - as someone who is paying a professional to deliver a product - that you're getting the same product that someone else pays for who got something additional/more desirable/of better quality/etc than you got for the same price? That's just being a paying customer. Is it entitlement when you buy tickets to see The Phantom of the Opera in Boston and expect the same show you got in New York? Is it entitlement to expect the London Philharmonic to play the same concert on December 17 that they did on the 16th? Is it entitlement to go to a fine restaurant next weekend that you visited last month and expect the same quality? Or to stay at a fine hotel in a different city and expect the five star experience you got in a different city last year? Is it entitlement to expect that when you repurchase an item from an upscale brand, that it comes delivered in the same quality and condition that your first one did? No, that's just being a discerning paying customer.

The short answer is, it depends.  None of those examples are analogous to what we are talking about.  For one thing, the examples of plays/productions you are talking about are not the same thing as a touring concert set list.  Phantom means something specific in terms of what songs are played and what lines delivered, and in what order.  For another, you are conflating "playing something different" with "lack of quality," and those are NOT the same thing.  A better example than your restaurant example would be a restaurant where it is known that the chef regularly changes up the "chef's special" and prides himself on delivering something unique on different nights.  When you show up on Friday, you are going to get something different than the person who showed up on Monday.  But the quality is of the highest for both dishes.  That's more comparable to the DT show with rotating set lists.  It isn't an issue of them not playing well one night and thus not delivering the "quality."  It's a matter of the same high quality and, as advertised, a slightly different flavor of product. 

I hope this helps clarify what I mean? It's not about "I missed out on X particular song because I wasn't in Poughkeepsie". It's about a brand/business delivering a predictably high-quality experience/product.

And, again, you are conflating "different" with "lower quality," which is wrong.

[cramx3]

I think people assume, and generally I'd agree too, that doing the same show every night will lead to a more close to perfect execution of the show.  But some people, like myself, don't necessarily want perfection.  We have the album for that.  I want a better live show, and not knowing the next song often times will make a live show better, for me.  Of course it's always possible the show I got was not as good as someone elses, but that still happens with static setlists too.  Sometimes bands have a night when they are just going through the motions.  A lot easier to do that on a static set list than changing things up each night.

[crystalstars17]

A better example than your restaurant example would be a restaurant where it is known that the chef regularly changes up the "chef's special" and prides himself on delivering something unique on different nights.  When you show up on Friday, you are going to get something different than the person who showed up on Monday.  But the quality is of the highest for both dishes.  That's more comparable to the DT show with rotating set lists.  It isn't an issue of them not playing well one night and thus not delivering the "quality."  It's a matter of the same high quality and, as advertised, a slightly different flavor of product.

Point taken. But "as advertised" also means, wouldn't you like to know what they're serving on Fridays before making a reservation? Not because the quality is necessarily "lower", but because they may be serving something you really dislike? Isn't it better to know in advance, in case they're serving something you detest, or are allergic to, whatever the level of quality, before making that reservation? "As advertised means, there are no surprises. You know exactly what you're walking into.

Maybe this is simply a matter of preference, as in some people really love surprises, and others truly despise them.

[Buddyhunter1]

I think people assume, and generally I'd agree too, that doing the same show every night will lead to a more close to perfect execution of the show.  But some people, like myself, don't necessarily want perfection.  We have the album for that.  I want a better live show, and not knowing the next song often times will make a live show better, for me.  Of course it's always possible the show I got was not as good as someone elses, but that still happens with static setlists too.  Sometimes bands have a night when they are just going through the motions.  A lot easier to do that on a static set list than changing things up each night.

Agreed with all of this. The most memorable live moments for me (for any band, not just Dream Theater) are when they intentionally deviate from the album a little bit, not when they re-create it perfectly. That can be anything from the whole instrumental jam in the Budokan Beyond This Life, to something as insubstantial as Portnoy changing the lyrics for something he's singing because he felt like being silly.

Maybe this is simply a matter of preference, as in some people really love surprises, and others truly despise them.

I think you've got it. I'm in the first camp (as long as they're good surprises) - you seem to be firmly in the second.

[bosk1]

A better example than your restaurant example would be a restaurant where it is known that the chef regularly changes up the "chef's special" and prides himself on delivering something unique on different nights.  When you show up on Friday, you are going to get something different than the person who showed up on Monday.  But the quality is of the highest for both dishes.  That's more comparable to the DT show with rotating set lists.  It isn't an issue of them not playing well one night and thus not delivering the "quality."  It's a matter of the same high quality and, as advertised, a slightly different flavor of product.

Point taken. But "as advertised" also means, wouldn't you like to know what they're serving on Fridays before making a reservation? Not because the quality is necessarily "lower", but because they may be serving something you really dislike? Isn't it better to know in advance, in case they're serving something you detest, or are allergic to, whatever the level of quality, before making that reservation? "As advertised means, there are no surprises. You know exactly what you're walking into.

Maybe this is simply a matter of preference, as in some people really love surprises, and others truly despise them.

Not if what they advertise is "chef's special of the day, which varies day to day."  If I don't want to be surprised, I can go to the restaurant up the street that has had the same menu for 30 years and doesn't deviate from it.  Neither product is "worse" than the other, and I'm not entitled to one or the other. 

If the band "advertises" that they are going to play the same set every night, and they throw a curve ball the night I am there without explanation, maybe I have a right to be upset.  If they do no such "advertising," there's nothing wrong with whatever choice they make, and if I don't like it, that's my problem.

[pg1067]

If it's not "FOMO", what is it, then? That's the question I'm asking.  And I'm trying not to ask it in a confrontational way, I'm sincerely curious. What does the setlist in Poughkeepsie or Albany or Buffalo have to do with the show I see in Wallingford or Bridgeport?

It's maybe the expectation - as someone who is paying a professional to deliver a product - that you're getting the same product that someone else pays for who got something additional/more desirable/of better quality/etc than you got for the same price? That's just being a paying customer. Is it entitlement when you buy tickets to see The Phantom of the Opera in Boston and expect the same show you got in New York? Is it entitlement to expect the London Philharmonic to play the same concert on December 17 that they did on the 16th? Is it entitlement to go to a fine restaurant next weekend that you visited last month and expect the same quality? Or to stay at a fine hotel in a different city and expect the five star experience you got in a different city last year? Is it entitlement to expect that when you repurchase an item from an upscale brand, that it comes delivered in the same quality and condition that your first one did? No, that's just being a discerning paying customer.

These are completely inapt analogies.

If you go to see Phantom, that is a specific show.  When you buy a ticket to see Phantom, you are buying a ticket to see that particular show and not a collection of particular individuals.  If I go to see Les Mis with Simon Gleeson, Will Swenson, Patrice Tipoki  and Kerrie Greenland but then go to see those same actors in a different show, I don't expect Greenland to bust out with "On My Own."  If the London Philharmonic advertises that it will play a particular piece of music from December 10-24, then you have a reasonable expectation that they'll play what they said they'll play.  However, you don't have any expectation or right to have Fiona Higham playing violin.

By contrast, Dream Theater is a band - a collection of individuals.  When you buy a ticket to see Dream Theater, you are buying a ticket to see that band/collection of individuals.  You are not buying a ticket to see a particular setlist (the TA tour excepted).  As constitute from whenever they started doing "rotating setlists" through 2010, when you bought a ticket to Dream Theater, you knew (or should have known) that you might not get the same collection of songs that were played the night before or the night after your show.  If you really love Learning to Live and are hoping to see it, but they played it the last time they played your town, you knew (or should have known) that you probably weren't going to get it this time.

As far as the restaurant and hotel examples, yes, you should reasonably expect the same quality, but you shouldn't necessarily expect that the menu won't change.  Likewise, Dream Theater can deliver the same quality while playing different songs.

I've been very vocal about thinking the "rotating setlists" are nothing great.  It annoys me when I find out they played a song I really like in another city while I get stuck with The Great Debate.  However, not once - with the hundreds of concerts I've been to - did I ever have an entitlement to have particular songs played unless the artist specifically advertised that he/she/it would be playing specific songs (e.g., Queensryche playing all of Operation: Mindcrime).

[Buddyhunter1]

It's also not like the band fully-advertises what they're playing ahead of time. If you're someone that hates surprises that much, do you literally wait until the setlist is out before you buy your ticket based on how much you like it? What if your show is the first show of the tour? Do you just throw your hands up and go "welp, guess I'm skipping this one"?

The product you're buying is seeing the band live. Unless you show up to a Dream Theater show and Haken is playing instead, you're getting exactly what you paid for.

[Stadler]

Here is more detail regarding that exchange. I am going to paraphrase from memory so please forgive me if I don't get the wording 100%.

As Scotty mentioned, JP said MP gets bored and can play any DT song straight from memory. But for JP, he said that he has to learn a ton of parts so for example relearning Octavarium (I think he used Octavarium specifically as an example) is a ton of work for him. He said that he has really enjoyed NOT doing different setlists the last couple years because it allows him to focus on the production of the shows. He basically said that some degree of changes each night were very likely to happen, though he did not say to what extent. He didn't say 100% but my read of the response was that the days of the same exact setlist each and every night are over.

None of the other 'public' questions are worth discussing.

If the videos from the last tour were any indication, I feel like that focus was going into the wrong places. The main argument I see for static setlists is that it theoretically improves the quality of each show, because they get more practice / focus for each of the songs, and the production can be specifically tailored for the setlist. In practice, and having seen the band almost every North American tour since 2011, I'm not convinced. I don't really go to Dream Theater shows for the production. Their lighting is usually good but never something that particularly stands out to me, the videos range from inoffensive to just lame, and... that's it? As for the band's performance, Dream Theater (ignoring James' struggles for a moment) has the benefit of being one of the most technically proficient and consistent live bands out there. Regardless of if they've played a song twenty times or two times in the tour, you can be fairly certain they'll play it flawlessly. If there's any improvement to their performance from the static setlists, I doubt it's noticeable.

As someone who only sees one show per tour and never looks up setlists ahead of time, to me the only "danger" of rotating setlists is the chance that you could get a crappier set than everyone else. But that feels more like a hypothetical issue than an actual one. Has the average quality of setlists really gone up since Portnoy left? Setlists that last the entire tour can be underwhelming too - that was the biggest problem with the DreamSonic tour in my opinion.

That said, I do understand the frustration of seeing a song you really wanted to see get played at other shows, but not yours. That's one of the reasons I don't look up setlists ahead of time, as it can create false expectations when there are rotating songs in play.

It's a wholly made up one, though.  That's my point.  Your "crappy" is my "outstanding", first, so from the band's perspective, they have conflicting feedback at best.  They pissed off one fan, and they pleased another.   But in terms of those two fans, that happens whether you have a rotation or not.

I know I'm bordering on "telling people what to think" and I try to avoid that at all costs, but I guess it boils down to my philosophy.  I do not want what I don't have.  And I go in to a show - depending on the band - with appropriate expectations.   I collect live Dead material, and if I only collected shows with "Terrapin Station" in the set, I'd have missed out on a TON of good music.  What I do is get the live show, and I look for not "one song", not for "what was played the night before", but what was played in THAT SHOW, and was it GOOD.  I'm not sure how you can look at it any other way given that you have ZERO control over what you ultimately see. It's sort of a variation on Schoedinger's Cat in a way; those other shows don't exist outside of your own.

[Stadler]

If it's not "FOMO", what is it, then? That's the question I'm asking.  And I'm trying not to ask it in a confrontational way, I'm sincerely curious. What does the setlist in Poughkeepsie or Albany or Buffalo have to do with the show I see in Wallingford or Bridgeport?

It's maybe the expectation - as someone who is paying a professional to deliver a product - that you're getting the same product that someone else pays for who got something additional/more desirable/of better quality/etc than you got for the same price? That's just being a paying customer. Is it entitlement when you buy tickets to see The Phantom of the Opera in Boston and expect the same show you got in New York? Is it entitlement to expect the London Philharmonic to play the same concert on December 17 that they did on the 16th? Is it entitlement to go to a fine restaurant next weekend that you visited last month and expect the same quality? Or to stay at a fine hotel in a different city and expect the five star experience you got in a different city last year? Is it entitlement to expect that when you repurchase an item from an upscale brand, that it comes delivered in the same quality and condition that your first one did? No, that's just being a discerning paying customer.

Bands are corporations and they have a brand and a (hopefully) discerning customer base. I would expect the fandom of one of the world's best bands to be as discerning and expecting if quality as any consumer of fine products across any industry. The bottom line is that they are a business, and we are the customers.

I think as a band who takes their brand and business seriously, they are well aware of this

I hope this helps clarify what I mean? It's not about "I missed out on X particular song because I wasn't in Poughkeepsie". It's about a brand/business delivering a predictably high-quality experience/product.

I haven't read below the above post yet, so if someone said this, I apologize, but again, THAT'S YOU.  My "product" I'm getting is the band.  Whether they play the same set every night, rotating, taking requests from the crowd, or playing Radiohead hits, I buy a ticket nine times out of ten with ZERO idea of any songs they may play, other than the possibility of the catalogue as a general matter.  We were at Bridgeport together; it turns out I didn't know ONE SONG from Devin Townsend, and yet I snuck up to the fourth row, jammed out, got a wave and Devin even blew me a kiss (don't know what he was thinking; we're both happily married! Haha!) and it was glorious. 

Whether it's Dream Theater, or Maiden, or Night Ranger, or whoever, with VERY few exceptions, I go for the experience.  Maiden.  Seem them a dozen times or so.  At this point I could sing you every note of every instrument of "The Number Of The Beast", and it's been played at EVERY Maiden show I've ever seen, including the first one (on that tour).  Funny thing; I saw the Legacy Of The Beast show in Hartford a couple years ago (Cram was there) and the song that blew the roof off the place?  THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST. I've never seen anything like it.  I could feel the heat from the flames on stage, and the amphitheater - I was on SOLID GROUND, CONCRETE - was shaking.  SHAKING. 

I get that this is subjective and everyone's ideas are different.  But at some point, like I said, it's not a band problem anymore.   I can't imagine a band like DT is ever saying "wow, tonight's setlist is subpar, but fuck it, we're rotating and hopefully it'll be better in Poughkeepsie!!!"   They own their music, in the performance sense of the word.  As long as they deliver whatever song it is that they are playing at 100% commitment, I don't think we as fans can ask for anything more than that.   

[crystalstars17]

Not if what they advertise is "chef's special of the day, which varies day to day."  If I don't want to be surprised, I can go to the restaurant up the street that has had the same menu for 30 years and doesn't deviate from it.

And it doesn't make a person entitled if they decide instead to choose the place serving the same menu for 30 years. It's just a person with a personal preference for that which is reliable.

If the band "advertises" that they are going to play the same set every night, and they throw a curve ball the night I am there without explanation, maybe I have a right to be upset.  If they do no such "advertising," there's nothing wrong with whatever choice they make, and if I don't like it, that's my problem.

And it would be your problem if you knew what they were serving based on what was advertised, didn't like it, and complained. It's easy enough just to decide that if you don't like what they're selling that night, you don't have to go. If a surprise is advertised (expected) then the person who doesn't prefer that can, as you said, choose to support a different business.

If the London Philharmonic advertises that it will play a particular piece of music from December 10-24, then you have a reasonable expectation that they'll play what they said they'll play.  However, you don't have any expectation or right to have Fiona Higham playing violin.

This is not a great analogy, either. I don't buy a ticket to a DT concert and expect to see Bruce Dickinson singing with them.

But I do expect the "particular piece of music" if they posted their setlist already online. Doesn't every band do this nowadays?

As constitute from whenever they started doing "rotating setlists" through 2010, when you bought a ticket to Dream Theater, you knew (or should have known) that you might not get the same collection of songs that were played the night before or the night after your show.  If you really love Learning to Live and are hoping to see it, but they played it the last time they played your town, you knew (or should have known) that you probably weren't going to get it this time.

The other thing I don't get is why so many people need it to be once again like 2010.
I mean why does it have to go back to being this way if time has proven that there's a better way of doing things which pleases the greater majority of people?

I've been very vocal  thinking the "rotating setlists" are nothing great.  It annoys me when I find out they played a song I really like in another city while I get stuck with The Great Debate.  However, not once - with the hundreds of concerts I've been to - did I ever have an entitlement to have particular songs played unless the artist specifically advertised that he/she/it would be playing specific songs (e.g., Queensryche playing all of Operation: Mindcrime).

That may be correct, but would it make a fan "entitled" if they advertised the opposite (rotating setlist, NO idea what was going to be played, NO structure whatsoever) and they decided to support another business (and in bosk's analogy) instead?

All I am saying is that I may not choose to support a band who does business in this way (total chaos instead of having some structure). If that's really the way it's going to be, then I will happily hold onto my memories of the Mangini years, enjoy my albums and DVD's, and leave it at that. If that makes me "entitled", then think what you will. The reality is it just makes me sad.

[Stadler]

A better example than your restaurant example would be a restaurant where it is known that the chef regularly changes up the "chef's special" and prides himself on delivering something unique on different nights.  When you show up on Friday, you are going to get something different than the person who showed up on Monday.  But the quality is of the highest for both dishes.  That's more comparable to the DT show with rotating set lists.  It isn't an issue of them not playing well one night and thus not delivering the "quality."  It's a matter of the same high quality and, as advertised, a slightly different flavor of product.

Point taken. But "as advertised" also means, wouldn't you like to know what they're serving on Fridays before making a reservation? Not because the quality is necessarily "lower", but because they may be serving something you really dislike? Isn't it better to know in advance, in case they're serving something you detest, or are allergic to, whatever the level of quality, before making that reservation? "As advertised means, there are no surprises. You know exactly what you're walking into.

Maybe this is simply a matter of preference, as in some people really love surprises, and others truly despise them.

I think what you are saying is fair.  But I think it really boils down to the decision point and what it is based on.  If you HAVE meals you truly can't eat, or detest, that chef or that restaurant is probably not for you.  There are plenty of good, high quality restaurants that don't change up the main part of their menu.  You know that before you take your chance on the reservation.  If a certain song means THAT MUCH to you - and no judgment if it does - that ought to be in your consideration when buying a ticket. But I think that's where it stops.  If you HAVE to hear "To Live Forever" (great song, by the way) your ticket purchase ought to only consider "what are the chances of seeing it on MY show, and am I okay with those odds?"  Static setlist or rotating setlist the decision point is the same: am I going to enjoy DT if they don't play THIS song?   Whether it gets played the night before or the night after has no bearing on your decision. 

[Stadler]

I think people assume, and generally I'd agree too, that doing the same show every night will lead to a more close to perfect execution of the show.  But some people, like myself, don't necessarily want perfection.  We have the album for that.  I want a better live show, and not knowing the next song often times will make a live show better, for me.  Of course it's always possible the show I got was not as good as someone elses, but that still happens with static setlists too.  Sometimes bands have a night when they are just going through the motions.  A lot easier to do that on a static set list than changing things up each night.

Agreed with all of this. The most memorable live moments for me (for any band, not just Dream Theater) are when they intentionally deviate from the album a little bit, not when they re-create it perfectly. That can be anything from the whole instrumental jam in the Budokan Beyond This Life, to something as insubstantial as Portnoy changing the lyrics for something he's singing because he felt like being silly.

I've come to REALLY appreciate very good musicians going off script.  As I get older, get better at guitar, and making music in general, I've come to see and appreciate the difference between the person that is playing this Uber-complex song well because he/she's played it repetitively once a night for the last 100 nights, versus the person that is relying on his/her skill, intuition and innate ability to recreate a song that perhaps is not one that is wholly subject to "muscle memory".   It's actually why I've enjoyed so much of Mike's post-DT work; I've been to more Neal Morse shows where he's said something like "Whoa, still working this one out!" than when he hasn't, and that is a thrill.  The song at that point is just a vehicle for something greater. 

[Stadler]

Not if what they advertise is "chef's special of the day, which varies day to day."  If I don't want to be surprised, I can go to the restaurant up the street that has had the same menu for 30 years and doesn't deviate from it.

And it doesn't make a person entitled if they decide instead to choose the place serving the same menu for 30 years. It's just a person with a personal preference for that which is reliable.

Of course not.  You're right.  But you ARE bordering on "entitlement" if you go to the rotating chef and demand that he make what he made the night before in Poughkeepsie or you're going to blast him on Yelp!



[quote ]
And it would be your problem if you knew what they were serving based on what was advertised l, didn't like it, and complained. It's easy enough just to decide that if you don't like what they're selling that night, you don't have to go. If a surprise is advertised (expected) then the person who doesn't prefer that can, as you said, choose to support a different business. [/quote]

But this goes back to a theme in at least a couple posts; you have to be honest with yourself as to WHAT they are selling.  The Grateful Dead WERE selling 'surprises', and I don't mean what was cut into the weed in the parking lot.  Even a band like Kiss, with the same setlist since 1862, isn't - with one or two exceptions (God of Thunder, with the blood, Love Gun with the flying) - selling particular SONGS.  Other than the exception for the playing of an album, I'm not sure any band I've ever seen ever promised a certain "song". I think one might be setting oneself up for disappointment if they interpret what "they want" as "what they are being sold".  Even a restaurant with a fixed menu runs out of things, sells out of things, etc.

This is not a great analogy, either. I don't buy a ticket to a DT concert and expect to see Bruce Dickinson singing with them.

But I do expect the "particular piece of music" if they posted their setlist already online. Doesn't every band do this nowadays?

Interesting question; the BANDS don't usually.  FANS do. I could be wrong on that.

The other thing I don't get is why so many people need it to be once again like 2010.
I mean why does it have to go back to being this way if time has proven that there's a better way of doing things which pleases the greater majority of people?

You're perhaps on thin ice with that argument. I think we've established that there might be a trend of declining attendance of shows in the recent years. Is that attributable to the static setlists?  Maybe; since you don't have repeat customers at multiple shows.  In any event, it is with deep respect and compassion that I say you are not stating fact but opinion - and YOUR opinion, not the bands or any other fan - when you say "if time has proven that there's a better way of doing things which pleases the greater majority of people?"

I have been VOCAL that from 1992 to 2010, Dream Theater was an ELITE band in my world.  I collected every song, every release, etc.  Mike left?  They were still great, but they were now one of several REALLY GOOD bands that I followed.  "Elite" was down a team member (likely to Genesis, Beatles, Kiss and Neal Morse, maybe Maiden, all artists I have complete catalogues for).

All I am saying is that I may not choose to support a band who does business in this way (total chaos instead of having some structure). If that's really the way it's going to be, then I will happily hold to my memories of the Mangini years, enjoy my albums and DVD's, and leave it at that. If thatsjes me "entitled", then think what you will. The reality is it just makes me sad.

Hmm. I can't argue with you if you think "rotating setlists" are "total chaos"; that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.  I just am no closer to understanding that point; how does playing the same song every night transform "total chaos" into "structure"?

[TheBarstoolWarrior]

I think we're going to end up with a compromise in the end. There will be some rotation (details still to be ironed out because they have not discussed according to JP) but the extent remains to be seen. But given that JP has enjoyed static setlists and focusing on other aspects of the show, I don't think he will just let MP decide to rotate til his heart is content. As he said, it's not the same for him to relearn all this stuff as it is for MP; VERY different ask.

Hopefully in the end there is some give and take by both sides and everyone ends up getting something they want whether it be variety in the sets if they're seeing multiple shows, or more locked in performances etc.

[Shooters1221]

deleted

[HOF]

I feel like there should be a future setlist-with-Portnoy speculation thread. I'm excited he's back but whatever they play next time they come around is just one factor.

Live shows are a bigger aspect of many people's music fandom than mine. I only really care about if DT can put out an album that piques my musical interest again with MP back in the band.

[cramx3]

I think we're going to end up with a compromise in the end. There will be some rotation (details still to be ironed out because they have not discussed according to JP) but the extent remains to be seen. But given that JP has enjoyed static setlists and focusing on other aspects of the show, I don't think he will just let MP decide to rotate til his heart is content. As he said, it's not the same for him to relearn all this stuff as it is for MP; VERY different ask.

Hopefully in the end there is some give and take by both sides and everyone ends up getting something they want whether it be variety in the sets if they're seeing multiple shows, or more locked in performances etc.

Yeah, my guess is maybe a song or two rotation and the rest of the set is static.  Also depends on how long their set will be.  3 hours evening with, 2 hour 15 minute with one opener, or 90 minutes with two openers.... that will all play a role IMO on how many songs may be in the rotation.

[crystalstars17]

You're perhaps on thin ice with that argument. I think we've established that there might be a trend of declining attendance of shows in the recent years. Is that attributable to the static setlists?  Maybe; since you don't have repeat customers at multiple shows.  In any event, it is with deep respect and compassion that I say you are not stating fact but opinion - and YOUR opinion, not the bands or any other fan - when you say "if time has proven that there's a better way of doing things which pleases the greater majority of people?"

You're right, in order to substantiate that claim I would need statistics, a lot more information than I have at my fingertips right now. I only know from interaction with other fans that decidedly few actually care one way or the other (this forum seems to have a higher percentage of fans who want a return to rotating setlists, which is ok as you/they are just as entitled to that opinion as I am to mine).

As for whether other bands post their setlists, Iron Maiden is a good example. Remember their setlist reveals on YouTube for the Legacy of the Beast tour? They made it a fun part of their marketing.

I just am no closer to understanding that point; how does playing the same song every night transform "total chaos" into "structure"?

And I am obviously failing at explaining myself (forgive me I'm extremely exhausted and going through something tough irl right now, so utter exhaustion may be clouding my reasoning and writing skills, no excuse though as I probably shouldn't be posting). That was maybe too strong to say chaos vs structure.

And to completely contradict myself now - as a person who typically hates surprises, again I'll use an Iron Maiden example. I followed those Legacy of the Beast setlist reveals excitedly and religiously, and I thought I knew every song they were going to play, but forgot they were going to play The Evil That Men Do. When that song started I was so joyously shocked that I literally had tears streaming down my face. Seventh Son is my favorite album, and I completely forgot that they were playing something from it. I'll never forget that moment.

I suppose I can be taught to like surprises after all. 🏳️

[bosk1]

I think we're going to end up with a compromise in the end. There will be some rotation (details still to be ironed out because they have not discussed according to JP) but the extent remains to be seen. But given that JP has enjoyed static setlists and focusing on other aspects of the show, I don't think he will just let MP decide to rotate til his heart is content. As he said, it's not the same for him to relearn all this stuff as it is for MP; VERY different ask.

Given everything that has been said on the subject, I think this seems like the most likely outcome.  What that ultimately ends up looking like in practice is anybody's guess.  And it may likely evolve over time as well.  There's no reason to think that 2024's rotating set list has to be done the same way as 2025's rotating set list, and so on.

[Setlist Scotty]

But I do expect the "particular piece of music" if they posted their setlist already online. Doesn't every band do this nowadays?

Stads pretty much nailed it - this is not something that a band typically does (Maiden apparently notwithstanding), but the fans. So can the band be held accountable for what the fans do on their own? No.

That may be correct, but would it make a fan "entitled" if they advertised the opposite (rotating setlist, NO idea what was going to be played, NO structure whatsoever) and they decided to support another business (and in bosk's analogy) instead?

All I am saying is that I may not choose to support a band who does business in this way (total chaos instead of having some structure). If that's really the way it's going to be, then I will happily hold onto my memories of the Mangini years, enjoy my albums and DVD's, and leave it at that. If that makes me "entitled", then think what you will. The reality is it just makes me sad.

I think you need to study the rotating setlists of yesteryear. Take it from someone who earned his nickname doing so. 

When MP would do the rotating setlists, they were *always* structured.
• You could be sure that for each leg of the tour where the band is playing there for the first time in support of a new album (first run through North America, first run through Europe, etc.) aside from warmup legs, almost all - if not all - shows will feature the same opening song, usually the opener of the latest album. (2002 - TGP, 2004 - AIA, 2005 - TRoAE, 2007 - CM, 2009 - ANtR).
• The main set (or both the first and second set, if an Evening With) will conclude with a great "closing" set song.
• There will be several songs from the latest album that will be included in the setlist - some at pretty much every show, some that may be rotated in and out.
• The balance of the setlist will include a selection of older material, a few which will be played at most shows and others rotated in and out at various times.
• Depending on the tour, the encore may or may not be the exact same thing for an entire run of shows. In 2007-2008 it was primarily Schmedley Wilcox and in 2009-2010 it was almost always TCoT. Conversely in 2002-2006, the encore changed from night to night.
• A few other songs (new and old) may be added into the setlist on later tour legs which will then be featured when the band returns to do a second tour leg and during the warm up tour for the following album-tour cycle.
• I've noticed too that often times MP will pair a couple songs together - perhaps due to guitar tunings or just the general flow, so in 2002, if you saw Misunderstood, it was almost a given that Lie would follow; if you saw Surrounded in 2007, many times TDEN came next.
So as you can see, there *is* structure to the setlist, even if it looks completely random at first glance.

I think Stads alluded to this in his post, but if there is some debate over what will be played at your show, and so therefore whether you want to go or not, a good way to determine it is by seeing what has already been played on the tour (which consists of the "master" list of songs from which each setlist draws from) and see which of those songs were last played in your city (or nearby cities); if Forsaken was played the last time they were in your city or one close by, chances are it won't be played at your city on the current tour if it's in the master list. Does that make sense?
 
 

I think we're going to end up with a compromise in the end. There will be some rotation (details still to be ironed out because they have not discussed according to JP) but the extent remains to be seen. But given that JP has enjoyed static setlists and focusing on other aspects of the show, I don't think he will just let MP decide to rotate til his heart is content. As he said, it's not the same for him to relearn all this stuff as it is for MP; VERY different ask.

Hopefully in the end there is some give and take by both sides and everyone ends up getting something they want whether it be variety in the sets if they're seeing multiple shows, or more locked in performances etc.

Yeah, my guess is maybe a song or two rotation and the rest of the set is static.  Also depends on how long their set will be.  3 hours evening with, 2 hour 15 minute with one opener, or 90 minutes with two openers.... that will all play a role IMO on how many songs may be in the rotation.

I disagree. I think at least 4-6 as we saw on the Dramatic tour is more likely and reasonable taking all things into consideration.

[Setlist Scotty]

If it's not "FOMO", what is it, then? That's the question I'm asking.  And I'm trying not to ask it in a confrontational way, I'm sincerely curious. What does the setlist in Poughkeepsie or Albany or Buffalo have to do with the show I see in Wallingford or Bridgeport?

It's maybe the expectation - as someone who is paying a professional to deliver a product - that you're getting the same product that someone else pays for who got something additional/more desirable/of better quality/etc than you got for the same price?

Just happened to see this tidbit after re-reading the discussion. Let's not forget that no, not everyone pays the same price from city to city whether seeing a concert or a touring production like Phantom of the Opera or Spamalot, or Blue Man Group for that matter which is kinda in-between.

[MirrorMask]

Am I the only one who still wants a show to be a surprise? wether the setlist is static or not, going blind into a show allows me to forget what I know anyway - that the show is scripted, I know it's just a trick of the mind, but if I don't know the setlist, when I'm there at the show living in the moment, I get the feeling it's a show "for me". I KNOW they will play the same songs in the next town and say the same stage banter but not knowing beforehand helps to keep the "illusion".

If I like a band, I go to a show, I would consider watching the setlist online just in specific cases - for example if it's a band I just newly discovered I might check if they play those 5-10 songs I know and like, but for bands I love since forever, of which I'm a longtime fan, I just go and enjoy whatever they play.

During the last tour, when I was at the show, I didn't even realize they literally played just ten songs. If I had seen the setlist before, on paper, I would have thought "wow, only ten songs? ok, they're long, but really they play just ten songs?".... but not knowing it and attending the show it felt natural and organic. Could they have dropped, say, Ministry and play two shorter songs? of course. But they didn't. Because they played what they wanted to play. I do not decide as a fan what they write for the album, and I do not create the live setlists. They do them, I don't. They have creative control and power over their shows, I don't. What I have control on is my money and my time; do I leave a concert once again satisfied? see you next time guys! do I leave a concert completely let down? I'll consider next time wether going or not.

OF COURSE I have my favorite shows over others, of course (speaking in general, not with DT) I get annoyed when I go online after the show and see that they played an additional song the night before.... when I finally saw for the first time Bruce Springsteen, at my show he didn't play Born in the USA, his arguably most famous song. I checked online and basically my show was one the very few it was skipped. If I had studied the setlists before, I would have realized then and there at the show that the song was dropped (usually it was the first encore), however I did NOT know and I didn't spend the encore thinking "I got shorted of a song". I realized that only after the fact. But the enjoyment, the excitement and the ecstasy at the show, when I was then and there, wasn't ruined.

[pg1067]

I don't buy a ticket to a DT concert and expect to see Bruce Dickinson singing with them.

But I do expect the "particular piece of music" if they posted their setlist already online. Doesn't every band do this nowadays?

With the exception of anniversary tours (e.g., I&W&B and SFAM20) and other isolated exceptions (e.g., The Astonishing and Queensryche with O:M), I don't know of any band who does or ever has done this.  Obviously, once a tour gets going, people unrelated to the band post the setlist to setlist.fm and elsewhere, and people who haven't yet seen the band can form their own conclusions based on that, but, except for the things I mentioned, I've never known a band to say, "ok...here's the set list for the upcoming tour."  Obviously, if a band DOES do that, then expectations become reasonable.

[emtee]

Honestly, at this stage of my life and at this stage of the bands career, I would just be happy to see them again regardless of setlist choices. For me, the biggest factor in determining whether or not I will attend or travel is if James is singing well. I will be checking videos and listening to fan feedback. That's my honest stance at this point.

[Peter Mc]

Honestly, at this stage of my life and at this stage of the bands career, I would just be happy to see them again regardless of setlist choices. For me, the biggest factor in determining whether or not I will attend or travel is if James is singing well. I will be checking videos and listening to fan feedback. That's my honest stance at this point.

Sad to say that has now become me too.  I was a huge defender of him for years and have seen him in many great shows but the last two tours were very poor and they’re no longer a cheap band to see.  You’re now paying Iron Maiden type ticket prices and, for that, I expect the singer to be able to sing in tune.  I expect that for any price, to be honest, but certainly when you’re paying big money to see a professional band and having to pay out for a hotel, travel etc. in some cases.

[lightningbolt]

I'm in the camp where changing the set list up, at least to some extent, is preferable.  I think it is fun to follow from afar what a band is playing and it makes me more likely to consider attending multiple shows on a given tour if I'm able to - I attended two NC shows on the DOT tour a) since I love Scenes so much and b) because they were rotating Fall Into the Light/Paralyzed and they changed the closer when the tour came back through 6 months later from Pull Me Under to Wit's End.  Either way, it keeps me more engaged with the band while they are on tour.  I also appreciate some uncertainty/possibly even uniqueness that may come with changing things up. 

However, I can see where others are coming from and I recognize that a lot of people don't care about tracking setlists and such.  There is some appeal to pretty much knowing what you are going to get.  When my sister went with me to see Pearl Jam about 10 years ago, she was a bit disappointed that they didn't play more of their "hit" or more well-known songs (they didn't do a couple of her favorites).  They did perform several such songs, but their setlists vary significantly night to night, so you aren't generally guaranteed to see any particular song (they now tend to have 5 or so static songs during a given tour).  In addition, that does lead to the situation where some setlists are much better than others.  Again, I'm cool with that, but others may not be.  FWIW, my wife thinks I'm weird because I care about such things/check the setlist before I consider going to a show .

In addition, you can understand what a nightmare that could be with music as complex and long as Dream Theater's songs can be.  One can certainly see why they would want to keep things the same or at least pretty similar, especially as they get older.  At some point, the juice probably isn't worth the squeeze to them regarding the extra effort it takes to keep many additional songs up to speed. 

I have been bitten where a band is playing a static setlist and drop a song or two from the show you happen to attend.  The example that comes to mind is Van Halen back in 2015 where they randomly didn't play "In a Simple Rhyme" during the show I attended (Raleigh).  They played it at all of the other shows on the tour as far as I know.  That sucked since I really like that song, but I didn't take it personally.  As someone pointed out earlier, DT did something similar back in 2017 before the show I attended where they dropped a song or two.  However, that change didn't just apply the show I attended and they weren't songs I cared that much about anyway.

[JeopardousRaven]

I sat through it. I was really interested in what MP might say, but the thing was pretty much all on WDADU.

He did say that he had a multi camera pro shot of the Manhattan Center '93 show in his archives and if he gets back involved in the official bootleg thingy, that he'd like to release it.

Nothing on current DT news, other than to say that once his commitments finish, he'd be 100% focused on DT, but in the next breath, he said they were getting to work after the new year.

MP has been posting today and stated that the video was filmed several months before the announcement he rejoined DT and before Charlie passed. I really hope that the lapse in LNF Archives releases is due to him revamping the series, just because I really love it when artists dedicate to giving fans a ton of old live material to dig through.

I think the fact that he specified that the episode was filmed "several months ago BEFORE the announcement of my rejoining DT" (exact words from his instagram) may point to the fact that MP coming back to DT has been several months in the making. Maybe I'm just reading into things too much here.

[nobloodyname]

That's not actually what he said. Here you go:

Had a fun time sitting in on the Sea of Tranquility’s “In The Prog Seat: Album Study” where in this episode they all discuss and dissect DT’s debut album When Dream And Day Unite…

I must mention that I was already booked to do this episode several months ago BEFORE the announcement of my rejoining DT and before the untimely passing of Charlie Dominici…so this wasn’t trying to capitalize on either of those events, but merely coincidental timing…and a fun trip down memory lane for me to chime in with some historical insight into the making of this album that we created 35 years ago!

He was booked before those events, it wasn't filmed before those events.

[Mladen]

That's true. They had the idea months ago, but they had to wait for Mike to come back from the tour. In the meantime, he rejoined the band and Dominici passed away. They mention all of those things near the end of the video.

[Progmaniac1988]

Am I the only one who still wants a show to be a surprise? wether the setlist is static or not, going blind into a show allows me to forget what I know anyway - that the show is scripted, I know it's just a trick of the mind, but if I don't know the setlist, when I'm there at the show living in the moment, I get the feeling it's a show "for me". I KNOW they will play the same songs in the next town and say the same stage banter but not knowing beforehand helps to keep the "illusion".

If I like a band, I go to a show, I would consider watching the setlist online just in specific cases - for example if it's a band I just newly discovered I might check if they play those 5-10 songs I know and like, but for bands I love since forever, of which I'm a longtime fan, I just go and enjoy whatever they play.

During the last tour, when I was at the show, I didn't even realize they literally played just ten songs. If I had seen the setlist before, on paper, I would have thought "wow, only ten songs? ok, they're long, but really they play just ten songs?".... but not knowing it and attending the show it felt natural and organic. Could they have dropped, say, Ministry and play two shorter songs? of course. But they didn't. Because they played what they wanted to play. I do not decide as a fan what they write for the album, and I do not create the live setlists. They do them, I don't. They have creative control and power over their shows, I don't. What I have control on is my money and my time; do I leave a concert once again satisfied? see you next time guys! do I leave a concert completely let down? I'll consider next time wether going or not.

OF COURSE I have my favorite shows over others, of course (speaking in general, not with DT) I get annoyed when I go online after the show and see that they played an additional song the night before.... when I finally saw for the first time Bruce Springsteen, at my show he didn't play Born in the USA, his arguably most famous song. I checked online and basically my show was one the very few it was skipped. If I had studied the setlists before, I would have realized then and there at the show that the song was dropped (usually it was the first encore), however I did NOT know and I didn't spend the encore thinking "I got shorted of a song". I realized that only after the fact. But the enjoyment, the excitement and the ecstasy at the show, when I was then and there, wasn't ruined.

Dude I’m with you. I’ve seen DT more times than I can remember and all the best shows were the ones I went into blind. For example I was at the show at radio city music hall filmed for the score live album, and I had no idea about the set list, and no idea about the orchestra. I was so surprised I was almost in tears when they played that 2nd set, and even the rare songs on set #1. Still to this day it’s my favorite concert ever… period. Nothing comes close. If I went into that concert already knowing everything I don’t think it would have had the same effect. So I’m with you! I’ll go in blind most the time if I can help it.

[ariich]

As for whether other bands post their setlists, Iron Maiden is a good example. Remember their setlist reveals on YouTube for the Legacy of the Beast tour? They made it a fun part of their marketing.

For sure, and that was fun and went down well. But to take another popular example, Metallica have often in recent years done the opposite - not just rotating setlists by their own choice but getting ticket holders for each gig to choose the setlist from a large masterlist of songs. And that was also fun and went down well.

There's no 'correct' approach. Nobody is saying you're wrong for wanting static setlists and I think we all broadly understand why you do. I think a lot of this conversation is stemming from your statement that you couldn't understand why anyone would want rotating setlists.