THE OFFICIAL DREAM THEATER DISCUSSION THREAD

[DoomsdayZach]

Dude, i think you don't quite understand what it takes to get in a position where you can live off the music...

Not at all bashing on matt, but he's more than likely got YEARS of work ahead of him before he can break even on his music, let alone live off of it.

 

[Taliwakker]

Yeah..Matt wins this one....can't add anything to what he's already said....there's no way i'd pay to meet a band but others would...and if that money goes back into the show then thats fine. If you don't like the price you don't have to go. Simple.

 

[Taliwakker]

Dude, i think you don't quite understand what it takes to get in a position where you can live off the music...

Not at all bashing on matt, but he's more than likely got YEARS of work ahead of him before he can break even on his music, let alone live off of it.

Its all about sucking (the right) dick and selling t-shirts....

 

[Meedleyx10]

Dude, i think you don't quite understand what it takes to get in a position where you can live off of doing ORIGINAL music...

fixed your post such as to avoid the argument expanding even futher beyond the what is relevent here (or maybe i was the only person who felt a slight urge to run with that train of thought). And because ur ghey lolz

 

[DoomsdayZach]

And because ur ghey lolz

Only with you baby

But yeah, i'm obviously saying in metal. Matt could probably do 80's synth pop and score some cash. I bet there's gonna be a revival of that in the next year or two and matt's gonna be at the forefront!

 

[RequiemX]

Either way, it could still be worse. At least they're not charging like $2000 per ticket and putting on some ridiculous Rhapsody of Fire style broadway play acting out every song.

Familiar with the Abydos side-project of Vanden Plas vocalist Andy Kuntz?

Behold, the Abydos ballet:

 

[Meedleyx10]

Only with you baby

But yeah, i'm obviously saying in metal. Matt could probably do 80's synth pop and score some cash. I bet there's gonna be a revival of that in the next year or two and matt's gonna be at the forefront!

and it better stay that way....bitch



I've already got my keytar on backorder

 

[Yngvai X]

Dude, i think you don't quite understand what it takes to get in a position where you can live off the music...

Not at all bashing on matt, but he's more than likely got YEARS of work ahead of him before he can break even on his music, let alone live off of it.

Totally true, and its not even a subject to be taken offense to or anything, its the troof. Only the very few, lucky ones achieve that level of success almost overnight. I've had the concept of Dark Empire going for only 3 years now, and its only been a year since the first album even came out. I've been screwed over businesswise once already, and because of that, I'm very protective of the artists' right, be it myself or anyone else, to do what they want with their music and their talent, no matter if its becoming a pop star, or a serious "artiste". No one deserves their potential to be stiffled, be it artistic, monetary, or anywhere in between.

 

[Yngvai X]

Matt could probably do 80's synth pop and score some cash. I bet there's gonna be a revival of that in the next year or two and matt's gonna be at the forefront!

I'm told there was some 80s New Wave band called Scritti Politti, which is way too close to my last name for comfort, so you never know

 

[Taliwakker]

Here they are

 

[reidie]

Sounds really good actually.

Sounds really fucking good actually!

 

[Kenneth R.]

the 'love it or leave it' attitude tali is sporting just screams to me of passivist politics. it's very heads-in-the-sand, there is no problem rather than confronting an issue. a non-position.

also, major lol at "winning".

 

[mark b]

Dream theater were great, but they have ran out of ideas. There is only 1 band that have never made a bad album that have been around a long time and that is everon, pain of salvation second. Dream theater will never do another images and words again, they simply can't.

 

[ABQShredHead]

I'm an '80's kid. When I think of arguments in this post against lightshows and extraneous crap overshadowing the music at a concert, Dio's shows with 80-foot-tall dragons during his hey-day come to mind. Did it distract from the music? Hell yes. Did everybody freak out and have a hell of a time when the dragon came to life? Hell yes. Did it leave an impression for the concert-goer? Hell yes again.

I would hate to see the arguments posted here about ¾ of the shows I went to during the '80's.

Does one go to a Pink Floyd show only to hear the music? Perhaps. But I'm sure when they leave the venue they'll be talking more about that friggin' laser show than they will about Gilmour's solo on "Money".

And I can't remember how many Maiden shows we went to where we had conversations before the show involving our conjectures as to when Eddie would make his first appearance and what he would look like.

Concerts are great to go "see". Five guys on a stage playing music is enough for some people; however, most people (particularly Gen-X'ers and above) need their optical nerves stimulated a wee more. So we add fancy lights and some props to make sure everybody is entertained for hours on end. And we hope that something about the show is still on everybody's mind the next morning. Not all concert-goers are musicians themselves who can focus in on whichever band member plays their same instrument.

Matt's insights about the business-side of the industry are spot on and apply to all businesses, not just the music business. Being a manager in a telecommunications company has opened my eyes to much more of how a business works. A record label puts an investment in a band, hoping their investment will multiply into more money. Anybody who has played the stock market does exactly the same thing. It costs money to make a record, much like it costs money to bring on a new customer to my company. Without our customers, though, I would not have a job; without records, a band would not fare very well past its local following from bar gigs. And it snowballs from there. Roadrunner and DT's management should be seen as the "money grubbers" here, not the band themselves.

 

[Phanto]

And I can't remember how many Maiden shows we went to where we had conversations before the show involving our conjectures as to when Eddie would make his first appearance and what he would look like.

he went out at Iron Maiden (the song) at the BNW tour show in stockholm thougt he'd turn up at run to the hills or something

 

[Yngvai X]

the 'love it or leave it' attitude tali is sporting just screams to me of passivist politics. it's very heads-in-the-sand, there is no problem rather than confronting an issue. a non-position.

Not really, because in an economic situation if enough people don't buy the product, the person selling it has no option but to either a) get rid of it or b) lower prices. Its not passive, its the same thing as boycotting. If the VIP ticket sales wound up being extremely low or nonexistant, Im sure they'd either get rid of em, or lower the price.

 

[Killing jOe]

I'm going to see DT and Heaven and Hell, and for front row tickets i payed 100$.
I think that DT are allowed to make suck VIP tickets at high costs first of all because it's their own damn decision and second of all because they don't do it a lot. Perhaps the show in question is in a special place or there will be something special they'll perform that night.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Not really, because in an economic situation if enough people don't buy the product, the person selling it has no option but to either a) get rid of it or b) lower prices. Its not passive, its the same thing as boycotting. If the VIP ticket sales wound up being extremely low or nonexistant, Im sure they'd either get rid of em, or lower the price.

incorrect. you're applying economics of a disjunctional nature to something that is NOT disjunctional. This is not an either-or situation. There is simply no way you can argue the point you're making. Keep going if you must.

 

[Yngvai X]

incorrect. you're applying economics of a disjunctional nature to something that is NOT disjunctional. This is not an either-or situation. There is simply no way you can argue the point you're making. Keep going if you must.

I can argue my point, can you? If a product isn't selling, whoever is selling it has to come up with a way to either increase the value of it (thus making it more appealing to spend the sale price), or decrease the sale price. So if no one buys the VIP tickets, either they add more perks to the VIP (dinner with the band maybe? an hour music lesson with member of your choice?) or decrease the cost of the ticket, or just stop making the tickets an option to someone buying (or decrease the number of VIP tickets available). Of course, they could not change a thing, but if they are losing revenue to have the VIP tickets as opposed to making them regular tickets, that would be bad business strategy.

So, if DT fans don't want DT to have VIP tickets anymore (or try to make them worth the money or lower the cost), then DT fans should stop buying them.

So instead of just telling me I'm incorrect and telling me the situation is not disjunctive (disjunctional isn't a word), explain to me why my scenario fails to apply, and what scenario *would* apply to acheive the same results (preferably one that doesn't infringe on Dream Theater's rights of course).

 

[Meedleyx10]

If you're lucky, matt, he'll just add you to his "ignore list" when he runs out of senseless bullshit and/or realizes he has no solid ground to stand on.