Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Guy LeMonnier talks TSO, Kings of Christmas, more in new interview
#11
(01-25-2015, 02:44 PM)admin Wrote: That was a great interview.

Thanks! Glad you enjoyed! Guy was a blast to interview.

(01-27-2015, 10:03 AM)admin Wrote: What is "the truth"? I have read for a while that Paul O'Neill is a perfectionist and can be a tyrant.  I also read from an interview with Alex Skolnick that he appreciated the TSO gigs but he felt stifled creatively.  It is Paul's way or NO WAY.

I guess he controls the money and the direction.  Obey or else. Smile

He (they) have put together a money making machine after so many years of struggles so I guess you can't blame him that much.  Why mess with what isn't broken even if it does feel stale and choreographed at times.  

"controls" is the optimal word there. I get where many of the original and early performers are coming from though - When the show started out, and for many years - there wasn't anywhere near the amount of control or direction that is present with today's show - especially with the West touring troupe. They were basically told to go out and sell the show. And sell it they did, using their personalities and talent. The West troupe in particular really connected with the audiences and helped to build the fanbase. So from their point of view, why mess with what isn't broken by making them secondary and the lights/dancing/fire/hair what the show is about now? As Michael Lanning stated, "What do lasers and fire and giant cranes have to do with Christmas?" I can understand that.

I would imagine that the newer folks that are hired in today never feel that way because it is tight direction from the start.
Reply
#12
(02-10-2015, 11:27 AM)danfromnj Wrote: So from their point of view, why mess with what isn't broken by making them secondary and the lights/dancing/fire/hair what the show is about now?  As Michael Lanning stated, "What do lasers and fire and giant cranes have to do with Christmas?"  I can understand that.  

I understand where Michael is coming from, but we have to remember... TSO has become more than a "Christmas" act since he has been in it. So why not the lasers, lights, and fire? I can only speak for myself, but those things ARE still secondary to the music and the performers.... for me at least. I have said it before and will say it again... I can see TSO with all the bells and whistles or in a club gig. I can close or open my eyes and it is still about the music. Take the iHeart Radio show they did for instance. Sure there were a few lights, but it was the band stripped down for the most part. They still killed it.
Reply
#13
(02-10-2015, 12:27 PM)Kissguy1973 Wrote: I understand where Michael is coming from, but we have to remember... TSO has become more than a "Christmas" act since he has been in it.

It's not that different. Lanning's last year before they fired him was 2005, and they still played CEOAS in the first half, and the 2nd half consisted of 13 songs, including 1 cover and 5 Christmas songs. Today's TSO shows are shorter by 30 minutes and it's most recent 2nd half included 9 songs, including 4 Christmas songs. Also, since Lanning's last year, they have released one non-Christmas album and an EP that is Christmas-themed. And by TSO's own admission, they are a "Christmas Tradition". They are still pretty much a Christmas act at this point (with a whole slew of not-yet-released albums ready to change that).

(02-10-2015, 12:27 PM)Kissguy1973 Wrote: So why not the lasers, lights, and fire?

Because they weren't necessary to deliver a great show musically.


(02-10-2015, 12:27 PM)Kissguy1973 Wrote: I can only speak for myself, but those things ARE still secondary to the music and the performers.... for me at least.

They are definitely secondary to me as well - it's closer to a circus these days than a concert - but the performers know full well that the bells and whistles are the primary feature to the show - that is fact. You will never see one of those pre-tour PR interviews with Paul where he is talking about how excited he is to have a particular singer on board or "Wait till you hear this particular song!". It is all about the effects and how awesome they are. When the performers that helped build the show with their talent are gradually upstaged by helicopters, dragons, and fireworks, it is easy to see the over-the-top absurdity of it all. As Alex Skolnick stated "the majority of the show is about a lighting rig. It is a three hour show and there are times where you are playing and their are dancing girls, explosions and platforms rising. It is awesome. But sometimes when you play you want it to be about the music.".

And that is no offense to the performers - they still hire (and fire) some of the best talent around and that is the primary reason I still go.
Reply
#14
(02-10-2015, 12:27 PM)Kissguy1973 Wrote:
(02-10-2015, 11:27 AM)danfromnj Wrote: So from their point of view, why mess with what isn't broken by making them secondary and the lights/dancing/fire/hair what the show is about now?  As Michael Lanning stated, "What do lasers and fire and giant cranes have to do with Christmas?"  I can understand that.  

I understand where Michael is coming from, but we have to remember... TSO has become more than a "Christmas" act since he has been in it. So why not the lasers, lights, and fire? I can only speak for myself, but those things ARE still secondary to the music and the performers.... for me at least. I have said it before and will say it again... I can see TSO with all the bells and whistles or in a club gig. I can close or open my eyes and it is still about the music. Take the iHeart Radio show they did for instance. Sure there were a few lights, but it was the band stripped down for the most part. They still killed it.

you kind of made the point right there. they can still kill it without the huge show. it was cool as the show got a bit bigger, but its way past the point now of being there to enhance the show. give me the old theater days anytime. back when the band interacted with the crowd for real.

i have some very great memories of things they did onstage before the big show. the spontaneous things and the real band interaction. i cant say i have really any from after that. when some songs contain the same moves and antics every night theres not much there for me to get excited about.
Reply
#15
(02-11-2015, 12:08 AM)Savage_Dreams Wrote:
(02-10-2015, 12:27 PM)Kissguy1973 Wrote:
(02-10-2015, 11:27 AM)danfromnj Wrote: So from their point of view, why mess with what isn't broken by making them secondary and the lights/dancing/fire/hair what the show is about now?  As Michael Lanning stated, "What do lasers and fire and giant cranes have to do with Christmas?"  I can understand that.  

I understand where Michael is coming from, but we have to remember... TSO has become more than a "Christmas" act since he has been in it.  So why not the lasers, lights, and fire?  I can only speak for myself, but those things ARE still secondary to the music and the performers.... for me at least.  I have said it before and will say it again... I can see TSO with all the bells and whistles or in a club gig.  I can close or open my eyes and it is still about the music.  Take the iHeart Radio show they did for instance.  Sure there were a few lights, but it was the band stripped down for the most part.  They still killed it.

you kind of made the point right there. they can still kill it without the huge show. it was cool as the show got a bit bigger, but its way past the point now of being there to enhance the show. give me the old theater days anytime. back when the band interacted with the crowd for real.

i have some very great memories of things they did onstage before the big show. the spontaneous things and the real band interaction. i cant say i have really any from after that. when some songs contain the same moves and antics every night theres not much there for me to get excited about.

I get it...  I understand what you guys are saying.  Also, how much is enough?  How much more can they do?  I also understand missing the old theater days.  I am sure Pink Floyd fans said the same thing back in 70's.  What started as a theater act with one round visual screen behind them turned into pigs flying.... literally.   Same thing with Kiss, Metallica, or any band for that matter. I am a huge Kiss fan... and personally... I would prefer they tour 3000 seaters with a Dressed To Kill/Alive! replica stage.  Just amps and chaser lights.  The show today is ridiculous (I think the spider is pretty stupid).  So again... I get it.

Unfortunately, I never got to see TSO during the theater days... so all I know is the enormous show they have now.
Reply
#16
(02-11-2015, 12:31 AM)Kissguy1973 Wrote: Unfortunately, I never got to see TSO during the theater days... so all I know is the enormous show they have now.

ah, i guess i didnt know that. i thought you had been around longer than that.
Reply
#17
(02-12-2015, 01:01 AM)Savage_Dreams Wrote:
(02-11-2015, 12:31 AM)Kissguy1973 Wrote: Unfortunately, I never got to see TSO during the theater days... so all I know is the enormous show they have now.

ah, i guess i didnt know that. i thought you had been around longer than that.

Been listening to them since about '98, just never got a chance to see 'em live until they played Tallahassee in 2008, which is only a 35 minute ride for me. Since '04 I have lived in a part of FL where most major concert venues are 3 to 4 hours from me, so I never went out of my way to see them live. Now we enjoy seeing them so much we have travel as far as 8 1/2 hours by car. J

I almost went to see them in 2003 when I lived near Tampa, but I was out of town. Which is interesting because that was the West group. Oddly enough, the first year I saw them live was the first year East played Florida.
Reply
#18
There's a percentage of fans of every artist that longs for the days of old when things were simpler and the way it was in the beginning. Just as there are music fans who won't listen to anything that was released after they left college and calls all music after that time worthless. Part of it is the nostalgia syndrome, part of it is a feeling of loss of when you felt maybe that you had a sense of ownership, before they got big and turned their back on their roots. Every single artist on earth has this. And it's a feeling, an opinion, etc - it's not wrong or right, it's just how you feel about the thing you remember and the connections that you have or don't have. I don't usually feel that way personally, but lots of people do and that's fine (I also liked the Gary Cherone VH album, and the Genesis album with Ray Wilson, for what it's worth - I'm the minority there).

I think, and have talked at length with people inside and outside the organization, that where they are now with the production was always the plan, it's just it wouldn't fit logistically and financially wasn't viable in the first 5 years of touring. Most of the band and management grew up inspired by the largest shows of the time: Kiss, Floyd, the Who, Genesis, ELP, etc. Those shows were the biggest productions of their time and the plan was always to build up to recreate that. Savatage had that at their height as well, they didn't keep it minimal.

As the stage got bigger it became more important to keep people spread out across the stage so that people have someone in front of them for much of the show - many bands do this. Enter choreography - not to mention that even in the very early days the personalities on the stage came up with their own choreography that wasn't part of this. It just happens when you do the same thing over and over again - it's a pattern you fall into. Bigger stages, spread them out and make sure someone is right here for 80% of the show. Nearly every band has routines and patterns they fall into no matter what size the stage.

What do lasers and pyro have to do with Christmas? They're effects to help bring the show to life, to add dimension - that's what any visual art does. In this day and age I think even your most basic rock act has a hard time doing an arena sized show with 100 par-cans, a smidgen of dry ice, no video, etc.

There's a perception difference between us as fans and Paul/Jon/Al because while some may think of TSO as a Christmas band, they don't. Paul's written how many projects and done how many things in his career - Christmas related items are 3 projects amongst many. Granted, they have been arguably the most popular and what they've focused the touring around, but while this side of the fence may think it's a Christmas thing, I don't think the creative side of the fence does - it's a prog rock band that has written a ton of stuff. It's not as cut and dried for the people living it as opposed to the public that has to compartmentalize things into a box. So they're not thinking that lasers and pyro don't belong in Christmas, it's that they are a prog rock band who is focusing on a Christmas album, but the front and back ends of the show aren't Christmas.

I've heard/read numerous interviews with Paul and Al and others who have commented on the talent onstage, including new faces, etc. it's just not that easy to do typically when you've got a 5 minute press interview that's a 30,000 feet overview when you're talking to people around the country who are seeing one coast or the other, etc. It's easier to fall into a simple pattern of running through the same talking points that don't change from interview to interview for those high-level press blitzes where they're talking to 10 stations in a row.

Bart actually opened my eyes a little bit on the dancers, until that time I thought it was over-indulgent and cheesy, however after talking to him and then to Paul I realized that regardless of my thoughts on it, it was something that Paul was passionate about and it wasn't going anywhere anytime soon. But the stage is big and if I don't want to see it, I can look at 10 other things and it's like it's not there (although it doesn't bother me like it once did).

I saw them in 2000 and every year since so I've seen the theater shows and they were great. Were they better than the arena? It all depends on what you're looking for. At the end of the day, the reason the show is there is the music - without that everything is icing. There may be more icing now, but it doesn't mean the cupcake is worse. It's still an awesome cupcake with great toppings. The only thing I miss is a bit more freedom for Chris to chat during the introductions - however on the flip side, would I rather hear Chris tell bad jokes or hear more music and I'm going to go with music every time.

Again, with any band you can say "I'd like to see the small show days" - but while it would be fun to see Rush in a theater, I'd rather see the full scale production that they've evolved to, I'd rather see Floyd with the gigantic circle...I wouldn't want to see Floyd in a theater without that. But that's just me and my tastes. I think you fit the production to the room that you're playing. Production is a further extension of the experience. If you're further back you absolutely lose the intimacy with the performers, but we're lucky enough with TSO that if you have $70, or at most $90, you can get any seat in the house that you want because their ticketing is that easy compared with other bands). Get up front if you want intimacy. Get the balcony if you want the full enchilada. Get in the middle if you want a mix of the two.

And maybe I'm spoiled because I'm on the east coast and they seem a bit looser when it comes to interaction with the crowd and putting on a high-energy show or maybe they've excelled at perfecting a balance between hitting cue marks and still interacting, but while Frank did an excellent job on the FL multi-cam from this year, I was surprised at the lack of energy onstage and the divide between the band and lackluster audience. Obviously a video isn't going to represent what was going down in the building, but the vibe of "Sparks" was anything but sparks. It was almost like a music video without a crowd, I'm not sure if anyone onstage even looked in the crowds' direction from the stage. It was a highlight for me this past tour and really thought it was a show stopper, but that wasn't the case in that clip.

Bp
Reply
#19
Bp: Great post.

TSO, regardless of whether one finds all or parts good, bad, or indifferent, is what it is. Take it or leave it as your personal preference calls, but you can't say it isn't a successful organization, a popular show. Someone must be doing something-a lot-right. Nothing's completely as simple and clear cut as it seems, especially when only one side of a situation is presented. Seems we're willing to accept certain faults in some but not others. And faults seemed to be defined as anything that doesn't benefit "me" or that "I" don't agree with or understand/accept. Personally, the few experiences I've had with Paul O'Neil have been amazing and the positives have reached far and beyond the point of origination. The show itself I've always loved more and more every time I've seen it. Really adds so much good/helpful to my day-to-day and has brought a lot of great people into my life. I certainly know more than a person or two that has said the same. Paul/TSO, aren't perfect, (kind of par for the course with us humans and our endeavors), but it can't be all bad.

These types of conversations always brings to mind Matthew 7:16-18. "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."  

For what it's worth. Different strokes for different folks and not the defining of another.
Reply
#20
>I've heard/read numerous interviews with Paul and Al and others who have commented on the talent onstage, including new faces, etc. ... It's easier to fall into a simple pattern of running through the same talking points that don't change from interview to interview for those high-level press blitzes where they're talking to 10 stations in a row.

But, what if not just the talking points are scripted myths to paint a better picture of the band and has nothing to do with making interviews convenient? While what if numerous people in the band all give different interviews using the same lines?

Al has said in how many interviews that watching the Beatles he picked up a guitar, realizing they were something unique, and wanted to make music his career. He was 2 years old. Nobody at 2 knows the history of music, let alone even what the word "career" means to start one. What's strange is that until TSO he always told a very different story. He talked about seeing Steve Miller in concert in high school and deciding then to be a full time musician and I'm looking right now at an issue of Guitarist magazine from 1994 I just got on ebay where he says his mom bought him a guitar at age 8 as "she thought it would be cute to entertain all the relatives". (I'd be happy to PM a scan if you don't believe me)
Or, all the stories about Paul's big career as a promoter, though if you ask the members he drove an ambulance for decades.
Or, the fact that some members refuse to speak in interviews for fear of going off script? While those who are verbal gives very different stories than the preferrred spokesmen.
I just hear Al give the same story that Paul gives that anyone else gives over and over and until 1996 they all had very different life histories. It's not about talking points. Compared Al's interviews with Alice Cooper who does far more interviews and Alice's stories change to the point that he contradicts himself, as his myth has not been completely memorized. He's just entertaining.
You read interviews with most musicians and yes they follow patterns, but there's also a lot of diversity and you don't have two or three members all giving the same lines every single year, interview after interview. Even Alice varies how he describes the different myths how he got his name or the chicken incident, though he's also said that if someone asks him how he got his name he would stop the interview as it's common knowledge. Yet, Paul tells over and over over that TSO is like Pink Floyd as though journalists have never read anything about TSO before, not even on wikipedia. It's almost as if the questions are approved first.
In TSO it's not about doing patterns, but about presenting a user friendly look. People would rather hear Al picked up the guitar via watching Ed Sullivan than going to a Steve Miller concert.

>Again, with any band you can say "I'd like to see the small show days"

But, what about when the musicians say this - not the fans? I've had numerous former band members tell me that they enjoy getting away from the big show and doing the show the way it was, bringing back the intimacy that was lost.

"Most of the band and management grew up inspired by the largest shows of the time: Kiss, Floyd, the Who, Genesis, ELP, etc. Those shows were the biggest productions of their time and the plan was always to build up to recreate that. Savatage had that at their height as well, they didn't keep it minimal.

I've seen videos from every year of Savatage right through Damond and they put on a basic rock show no different than any other band. I don't see them recreating any classical rock concert light show ever. Musically they might, but I've yet to find a Savatage video showing them with a show even close to the Who or Genesis. Are we talking about the same Savatage? Are you referring to Avatar maybe? The videos on youtube Keith Collins puts up are pretty crazy small club shows.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)