DREAM THEATER ANNOUNCE THE RETURN OF DRUMMER MIKE PORTNOY

[Madman Shepherd]

I looked up the dictionary definition and fired does pretty much say that it covers being let go for any reason. I still hate that term because it implies there are negative factors.

I think the general social definition goes as such:

Fired: you were either performing poorly or doing something unethical

Let go/relieved of duties: there was some extraneous force necessitating the decision such as different direction the job necessitated (in this case, getting an original member back)

Laid off: budgets are reduced and we can't afford to keep you although there is a scenario where Mangini could fit this definition. It doesn't make sense to keep a second drummer and it'd be pretty expensive.

[Herrick]

What I know?  There have been conversations involving Portnoy about the band for a while now, Mangini knew it, but at some point he got a call that was not scheduled that, during the course of the call, ended his time in Dream Theater.  That's all I know for sure, and that's all I'm concerned with. 

I missed that detail that Mangini knew there were talks about Portnoy rejoining. If Mangini knew this was coming, then that's not as bad as I thought the situation was.

He didn't. He knew that MP wanted back in, but did not realize that the band was about to make a change.

You say Mangini didn't know. Stadler says he did. Who should Herrick believe? 

[Evermind]

Yet at the end of the day, if I'm in jail at 3 am, and I need bail, I know who I'm going to call.

Ghostbusters?

[HOF]

I have it on good authority that the conversation went like this: "Hey Mike, sorry to Build you up and then break you down, but this is the life...please don't outcry, but it's time we break all illusions and bring the enemy back inside. Please see the bigger picture and appreciate the fact that we've brought you along for the ride. Let's surrender to reason and address the invisible monster in the room. MP called, and we answered the call. It's time we awaken the master and transcend time. You will be lost, not forgotten.

That was...




astonishing.

I think we can put this topic to bed. Nothing further needs to be said after this!

[hefdaddy42]

He was involuntarily relieved of his employment.  Which means fired.

Anything else is a euphemism.  Semantics.  If people don't want to use the word "fired" then fine.  But if anyone DOES use that word, they shouldn't be taken to task for it.  Because the guy was fired.

Sorry, but no, this is absolutely incorrect, and anyone that says he was "fired" will be warned and/or banned because it is a blatant mischaracterization of events.

And, again, speculation and discussion is absolutely fine.  Have at it.  But anyone mischaracterizing what happened and stating that as fact is crossing the line.

Hey, it's your show.

[RodrigoAltaf]

I think the discussion here is semantics. Being told that your services are no longer required, for me as a non-native speaker, is a delicate way to say someone was fired. I get it, for some it might sound a bit too blunt...but that's the bottom line of what happened, isn't it?

[Evermind]

There is a difference between languages for sure. In my language, "fired" and "let go" are the same thing. "Laid off" would in fact either mean his position no longer exists (basically if DT decided to continue without a drummer, then MM would've been laid off) or he's temporarily out of work to return to his duties later.

But since we're speaking English here (and have lawyers on the board who explained the difference between "fired" and "let go"), I'm not saying MM was fired, even though in our work culture and language such a replacement is one of the definitions of "fired". Different languages are fascinating.

[hefdaddy42]

Different languages are fascinating.

They certainly are.

[TAC]

But since we're speaking English here (and have lawyers on the board who explained the difference between "fired" and "let go"),

Well, they're saying that there are connotations associated with each words, which I tend to agree with but they are connotations that I do not believe are supported by the definition of fire, or to fire, in an actual dictionary.

[Stadler]

I have it on good authority that the conversation went like this: "Hey Mike, sorry to Build you up and then break you down, but this is the life...please don't outcry, but it's time we break all illusions and bring the enemy back inside. Please see the bigger picture and appreciate the fact that we've brought you along for the ride. Let's surrender to reason and address the invisible monster in the room. MP called, and we answered the call. It's time we awaken the master and transcend time. You will be lost, not forgotten.

That was...




astonishing.

Well played, my friend, well played. 

[Stadler]

What I know?  There have been conversations involving Portnoy about the band for a while now, Mangini knew it, but at some point he got a call that was not scheduled that, during the course of the call, ended his time in Dream Theater.  That's all I know for sure, and that's all I'm concerned with. 

I missed that detail that Mangini knew there were talks about Portnoy rejoining. If Mangini knew this was coming, then that's not as bad as I thought the situation was.

He didn't. He knew that MP wanted back in, but did not realize that the band was about to make a change.

You say Mangini didn't know. Stadler says he did. Who should Herrick believe? 

Slight correction: I don't know if he knew or not.  He SHOULD have, IMO, but I don't know if he did or didn't.

[Mosh]

I think the discussion here is semantics. Being told that your services are no longer required, for me as a non-native speaker, is a delicate way to say someone was fired.

As a native speaker, that is my understanding as well. I think it is semantics, but I respect this is Bosk's forum and won't use that terminology anymore.

I do think there is a lot of goal post-moving happening though. When the announcement came initially, the debate was over the possibility that Mangini decided to leave on his own accord and the band responded by getting Portnoy back, or some other combination of similar events (i.e. Mangini was involved in the process). I always felt that it was a stretch, but it was fair to point out that we shouldn't make assumptions this early.

Then we got the "the decision was made" comment. The argument then turns into the possibility that Mangini isn't being very clear and we don't know what the "decision" was.

Now we've got a pretty clear indication from Mangini that he was relieved of his duties as the Dream Theater drummer to make way for Portnoy and the argument is now over the meaning of the word "fired."

The constant fact remains, all evidence from the beginning pointed to the band choosing to move forward with Portnoy without Mangini's involvement and every new piece of information that we get supports what IMO was clear from the beginning. 

[HOF]

If your last job ended due to downsizing or an elimination of your position and you go into a job interview and they ask you why your last job ended, you're probably not going to say "oh, I was fired!" because that sounds bad. You almost certainly will make it sound like it was something that happened through no fault of your own.

Similarly, think of maybe the most notorious use of the word "fired" in popular culture in the last few decades. It's Donald Trump heartlessly telling people "you're fired." There's a callousness in the term that suggests the employer doesn't want or need you or that there is some flaw in your performance as an employee that has moved them to terminate you.

Now, for people who have lost a job for purely economic or non-performance reasons, I'm sure it feels the same whether you call it a layoff or force reduction or firing or whatever. I wouldn't want to diminish that. But I do think the terminology is somewhat important when talking about a situation like this, even if the dictionary definition is the same between "fired" and "let go" or "dismissed."

[Zantera]

It feels like everything that has come out since the split supports what many of us said initially that it clearly sounded like MM was fired in favor of bringing back MP. For some reason some people get defensive over that (which I don't personally get), at this point it feels almost like, even the band releasing a statement saying "We fired Mangini" would be met with at least a few "Yeah but you could read that multiple ways" reactions. To me the term "got fired" doesn't have a negative or positive meaning to it, it just means you were let go by your employer. You can be fired in a situation where it makes you look bad (drinking on the job, lack of effort or whatever) but you can also be fired because of outside factors that aren't really in your control, like in this case. Only way to get MP back ultimately was to open a slot for a drummer.

At the end of the day these things happen, I think a lot of fans will be happy to get MP back and that's no slight on MM either. There's always a certain romantic element to getting a key/founding member back into a band, especially someone like MP. Hopefully we see a rejuvenated DT with MP back and hopefully MM goes on to do what makes him happy!

[Stadler]

But since we're speaking English here (and have lawyers on the board who explained the difference between "fired" and "let go"),

Well, they're saying that there are connotations associated with each words, which I tend to agree with but they are connotations that I do not believe are supported by the definition of fire, or to fire, in an actual dictionary.

And that's really it, isn't it?  This is a forum, not a dictionary.  The dictionary may or may not capture all the nuances of a word in real application.  But you notice that most of the people using "fired" are also talking about how poorly Mangini was treated, and making implications about Portnoy's intentions.   

I value words, and I sometimes struggle with selecting the right word.   My therapist has heard "that may not be the right word, but..." perhaps 900 million times in the years I've been seeing her.  I learned LONG ago - especially in my marriage!  I kid! I kid! - that not everyone shares that value and not everyone takes the same level of care in selecting the right word.  As you can imagine, Donald Trump gives me epilepsy with his abuse of the English language.   Here, I may be pushing a rope up hill.   But I do think it's unfair - regardless of who the people are that are involved - to layer our own personal feelings over someone else's reality in this way.  I personally care what Mike Mangini feels from the fanbase.  I want him to leave feeling appreciated and acknowledged.  I also personally care what Mike Portnoy feels from the fanbase. I want him to rejoin feeling welcome and also appreciated.  As such I will take care not to ascribe negative implications to their words or actions unless there is a clear path to do so.  "Fired" feeds hand in hand with the unfounded idea - that some here have not shied away from - that Portnoy somehow acted in an underhanded way, or somehow engineered this to detriment of Mangini and even others in the band (the LaBrie discussion).   I'm trying very hard to avoid those implications unless and until they are proven fact.

[Stadler]

I think the discussion here is semantics. Being told that your services are no longer required, for me as a non-native speaker, is a delicate way to say someone was fired.

As a native speaker, that is my understanding as well. I think it is semantics, but I respect this is Bosk's forum and won't use that terminology anymore.

I do think there is a lot of goal post-moving happening though. When the announcement came initially, the debate was over the possibility that Mangini decided to leave on his own accord and the band responded by getting Portnoy back, or some other combination of similar events (i.e. Mangini was involved in the process). I always felt that it was a stretch, but it was fair to point out that we shouldn't make assumptions this early.

Then we got the "the decision was made" comment. The argument then turns into the possibility that Mangini isn't being very clear and we don't know what the "decision" was.

Now we've got a pretty clear indication from Mangini that he was relieved of his duties as the Dream Theater drummer to make way for Portnoy and the argument is now over the meaning of the word "fired."

The constant fact remains, all evidence from the beginning pointed to the band choosing to move forward with Portnoy without Mangini's involvement and every new piece of information that we get supports what IMO was clear from the beginning.

As one of the few people that's not embracing this "Mangini got fucked" narrative, there's no "goal-post moving".  As we learn more, we have to accept what we know.  There have been interviews that have shed SOME (limited) clarity, but let's not rewrite history: "all the evidence"?   There's been very little evidence.   And with every scrap there are too many people arbitrarily filling in the blanks.  You may turn out to be right; I've never denied that, but it's going to be dumb luck, not any failure to suss the tea leaves by people like me.   I've since day one admitted that this could have gone down in multiple ways (INCLUDING "Mangini got fucked").   For everyone like me - uh, just me! apparently - there are three or four for whom regardless of what any one says are stuck to the "Mangini got fucked" narrative despite facts to the contrary.

[Stadler]

If your last job ended due to downsizing or an elimination of your position and you go into a job interview and they ask you why your last job ended, you're probably not going to say "oh, I was fired!" because that sounds bad. You almost certainly will make it sound like it was something that happened through no fault of your own.

Similarly, think of maybe the most notorious use of the word "fired" in popular culture in the last few decades. It's Donald Trump heartlessly telling people "you're fired." There's a callousness in the term that suggests the employer doesn't want or need you or that there is some flaw in your performance as an employee that has moved them to terminate you.

Now, for people who have lost a job for purely economic or non-performance reasons, I'm sure it feels the same whether you call it a layoff or force reduction or firing or whatever. I wouldn't want to diminish that. But I do think the terminology is somewhat important when talking about a situation like this, even if the dictionary definition is the same between "fired" and "let go" or "dismissed."

When my position was eliminated in 2009 because of the retraction of the economy and the crash of the real estate market (I was doing property transfers at the time), my boss was very clear; he even said "You're not being fired", gave me a package, and offered to provide references.  I had a beef with him - I thought he was a weasel and threw me under the bus during the whole affair - and I haven't spoken to him since, but I know he made a clear distinction between the two.  If I'm not mistaken, the old GE job application made the distinction as well.

[DTwwbwMP]

WHY is this still being discussed? MM was.told that MP was returning. THATS IT! It's not that "talent or personality" had ANYTHING to do with it. JP, and obviously the band AND management decided this was the right thing to do AT THIS TIME!

[gborland]

Let's face it, some people are are simply not going to be happy until we know for certain whether or not the phone call was accompanied by a click track, and if so, its precise time signature and tempo.

[hefdaddy42]

WHY is this still being discussed? MM was.told that MP was returning. THATS IT! It's not that "talent or personality" had ANYTHING to do with it. JP, and obviously the band AND management decided this was the right thing to do AT THIS TIME!

Well, that settles it.  Thanks for playing, everyone!

[MirrorMask]

Not all jobs are equal and so the terminology varies.

When a footbal coach is relieved of his duties, the english word for what we call it in Italy is "Exempted". The coach is still employed by the club, but he's no longer required to train the team. He can stay at home collecting the checks while doing nothing.

Obviously this concept can hardly be applied to "regular" jobs, and being in a band is different from both training a sports team, and clocking in at an office.

I never had the suspicion that Mangini brought his exit unto himself 'cause he's been great in his tenure, and I have no problems at all to avoid the "f word". But it's clear that the band wanted Portnoy back even though they were overall satisfied with Mangini, so they informed him his duties as a drummer were no longer required. Most of the people figured it out on day one.

[bosk1]

WHY is this still being discussed? MM was.told that MP was returning. THATS IT! It's not that "talent or personality" had ANYTHING to do with it. JP, and obviously the band AND management decided this was the right thing to do AT THIS TIME!

I doubt management had a say.

[RodrigoAltaf]

When you look at MM's tenure with other bands and artists, staying this long with DT was actually the exception, not the rule. Maybe that's why he took this with such a stoic attitude.

[Sycsa]

Different languages are fascinating.

They certainly are.

Yeah, in Hungarian, the standard term for getting fired is “getting kicked out”. Ouch!

[cramx3]

Different languages are fascinating.

They certainly are.

Yeah, in Hungarian, the standard term for firing someone is “getting kicked out”. Ouch!

No one's ever gotten a pink slip? 

[Stadler]

Let's face it, some people are are simply not going to be happy until we know for certain whether or not the phone call was accompanied by a click track, and if so, its precise time signature and tempo.

HAHAHA

[Stadler]

Not all jobs are equal and so the terminology varies.

When a footbal coach is relieved of his duties, the english word for what we call it in Italy is "Exempted". The coach is still employed by the club, but he's no longer required to train the team. He can stay at home collecting the checks while doing nothing.

Obviously this concept can hardly be applied to "regular" jobs, and being in a band is different from both training a sports team, and clocking in at an office.

I never had the suspicion that Mangini brought his exit unto himself 'cause he's been great in his tenure, and I have no problems at all to avoid the "f word". But it's clear that the band wanted Portnoy back even though they were overall satisfied with Mangini, so they informed him his duties as a drummer were no longer required. Most of the people figured it out on day one.

Seriously? So now it's a matter of the "haves" having "figured it out"?  And what, the rest of us are stupid? Ignorant? If anything, at best you MIGHT have gotten lucky. 

SMFH.   

[Animal]

I checked this thread a long time ago... and it seems the same conversation is still going...

Anyway, as a professional linguist/translator, I'll chime in, since this topic is close to home. I am completely with you, Stadler, when you insist that words do matter. If it really made zero difference whether you say "fired" or "replaced", there would be no reason for people like me to do the job we do. No one would demand our services. But as indicated by nice paychecks we collect for, say, translating and localizing a marketing copy, people are willing to pay quite well for selecting right words, regardless of whether the essence of the matter is obvious. And even if they are not (book translation typically does not pay well), they will bitch about you doing a bad job or praise you for doing a good one.

Although I agree with most of what you are saying, I think you are being a bit quixotic. I mean, AFAIK, you are lawyer, and as such, you are professionally trained to suspend your judgement a stick to facts. But normal people are not. It's unnatural for us to just take note of facts, without trying to theorize and jump to conclusions. Doing something like this requires concentrated effort and there are very few circumstances where people would do it routinely. I believe that being a lawyer is one of those rare circumstances. But for the rest of us, this just won't happen. I mean, as a translator of Taleb's Incerto series and sort of epistemology enthusiast, I know all about this stuff - in theory. But in my job, I have to assume all the time, otherwise, I would have hard time getting anything done. And this is the case of majority of people. What is more, most of our assumptions turn out to be correct so we tend to trust them (even when we shouldn't).

What I am trying to say that you are underestimating how much difference professional training or specific lifelong outlook makes in our ability to accept of follow a certain way of reasoning. Just like trained mathematicians or software engineers can'gt expect other people to follow their way of reasoning, you can't either. It just won't happen. But I applaud your effort to elucidate anyway 

[MirrorMask]

Not all jobs are equal and so the terminology varies.

When a footbal coach is relieved of his duties, the english word for what we call it in Italy is "Exempted". The coach is still employed by the club, but he's no longer required to train the team. He can stay at home collecting the checks while doing nothing.

Obviously this concept can hardly be applied to "regular" jobs, and being in a band is different from both training a sports team, and clocking in at an office.

I never had the suspicion that Mangini brought his exit unto himself 'cause he's been great in his tenure, and I have no problems at all to avoid the "f word". But it's clear that the band wanted Portnoy back even though they were overall satisfied with Mangini, so they informed him his duties as a drummer were no longer required. Most of the people figured it out on day one.

Seriously? So now it's a matter of the "haves" having "figured it out"?  And what, the rest of us are stupid? Ignorant? If anything, at best you MIGHT have gotten lucky. 

SMFH.

It's not a matter of being stupid or not, it's a matter of knowing there are 6435 documented cases of an original / classic / iconic band member reuniting with a band they previously left (with the replacement therefore being let go) and Dream Theater reuniting with Portnoy was most likely the 6436th one.

Occam's razor, a classic / original band member reunites with a band, most likely explanation is that both parties wanted to reunite a classic / original lineup.

Let's say that tomorrow Skid Row and Sebastian Bach announce a reunion. Would anyone be "lucky" in assuming that both parties wanted to reunite the original (or otherwise classic) lineup? rather than, dunno, their current singer leaving of his own volition and the band, in dire need of a singer, pitching to each other to get Bach again? there might be as well some cases here and there, but off the top of my head, I can't think of a band at least as big as Dream Theater where the replacement goes by their own decision, and the solution to a sudden vacancy is going back to a classic member. Usually when a replacement leaves, bands get a further replacement, when the classic member returns, it's because the return was WANTED.

[Stadler]

Not all jobs are equal and so the terminology varies.

When a footbal coach is relieved of his duties, the english word for what we call it in Italy is "Exempted". The coach is still employed by the club, but he's no longer required to train the team. He can stay at home collecting the checks while doing nothing.

Obviously this concept can hardly be applied to "regular" jobs, and being in a band is different from both training a sports team, and clocking in at an office.

I never had the suspicion that Mangini brought his exit unto himself 'cause he's been great in his tenure, and I have no problems at all to avoid the "f word". But it's clear that the band wanted Portnoy back even though they were overall satisfied with Mangini, so they informed him his duties as a drummer were no longer required. Most of the people figured it out on day one.

Seriously? So now it's a matter of the "haves" having "figured it out"?  And what, the rest of us are stupid? Ignorant? If anything, at best you MIGHT have gotten lucky. 

SMFH.

It's not a matter of being stupid or not, it's a matter of knowing there are 6435 documented cases of an original / classic / iconic band member reuniting with a band they previously left (with the replacement therefore being let go) and Dream Theater reuniting with Portnoy was most likely the 6436th one.

Occam's razor, a classic / original band member reunites with a band, most likely explanation is that both parties wanted to reunite a classic / original lineup.

Let's say that tomorrow Skid Row and Sebastian Bach announce a reunion. Would anyone be "lucky" in assuming that both parties wanted to reunite the original (or otherwise classic) lineup?

But that's not what's at issue (at least I don't think so).  I said that from day one.  I was asked what I REALLY thought, and that was in large part my answer.  I have ZERO doubt, and didn't from day one that this was about reuniting with Mike Portnoy.  What my entire objection was was about all that went along with that.  Whether anyone was "fired" and feeling bad for Mangini because he was hosed from his dream job, and implications that Mike was conniving behind the scenes to get the job back and all this other stuff.  It's not so much the actual steps, it's the assumptions on what people were feeling, what their motivations are/were and what we should feel in reaction.

[bosk1]

it's a matter of knowing there are 6435 documented cases of an original / classic / iconic band member reuniting with a band they previously left

I think I would dispute that.  Please list them so we can test your facts.

Occam's razor

That's not how Occam's razor works.  People who don't really understand it think it just means "well, this makes perfect sense and seems like the simplest explanation to me, so Occam's razor means I am probably right."  No, it doesn't.  That's not how it works or what it means.  It's simply a logical tool (one of many, and not nearly the most effective in most cases), not a proof, and this isn't a circumstance where it applies.

Let's say that tomorrow Skid Row and Sebastian Bach announce a reunion. Would anyone be "lucky" in assuming that both parties wanted to reunite the original (or otherwise classic) lineup? rather than, dunno, their current singer leaving of his own volition and the band, in dire need of a singer, pitching to each other to get Bach again?

I can't speak for Stadler, but not knowing anything else other than the hypothetical you posted, I wouldn't assume either.  The correct answer would simply be:  "I don't know the sequence of events, or the 'why' or 'how' of the decision(s)."

[TAC]

it's a matter of knowing there are 6435 documented cases of an original / classic / iconic band member reuniting with a band they previously left

I think I would dispute that.  Please list them so we can test your facts.

 

[wolfking]

We don't really use the term 'fired' in Australia, we use the slang 'sacked.'  Being sacked means you're a piece of shit who everyone hates and you're a lazy useless fuck at doing your job.  Or you turn up to work drunk all the time, hit on the females or abuse the boss.........

I think using the term fired for the situation is harsh as it's not like MM was putting in poor performances, turning up to sessions drunk, missing sessions, punched another band member or was doing anything in his personal life that may bring the bands reputation into question.

I guess another term that could be thrown around is being made redundant?  That usually means in regards to the position and why the employee gets 'let go', but he as an employee was pretty much being made redundant.

I dunno, I don't think it was ever something the band wanted to really do.  If JP and MP never sniffed each other out again, the band would be preparing their next album with MM happy as fuck.  It's a shitty situation all round.  I think we get the basic idea of it all and it's just one of those shitty situations in life.

[RodrigoAltaf]

I dunno, I don't think it was ever something the band wanted to really do.  If JP and MP never sniffed each other out again, the band would be preparing their next album with MM happy as fuck.  It's a shitty situation all round.  I think we get the basic idea of it all and it's just one of those shitty situations in life.

 I feel the same way. Maybe some band members are more excited about him coming back than others.

[TheBarstoolWarrior]

I think despite the differences in how people understand some words, we're pretty much all on the same page on these two important points: 1. MM was not replaced due to performance issues or misconduct and 2. There wasn't anything JP was unhappy about with regard to MM's standing.