02-14-2015, 06:24 AM
Brace yourselves...I made a mistake. [hanging head in shame 
]
I mixed topics amongst all of the quote and reply, etc. The comment about "If they could have brought more, they would have from what I've been told." was about TSO and NOT about Savatage. I haven't discussed with the Sava-members or TSO members the production of Sava shows apart from the additional production that was supposed to arrive for the Cologne shoot, but did not (and thus the shelving of the release).
The production comments I was making were based on European shows primarily and they seemed to have a larger (or brighter) arsenal of lights than other bands of their size at the time. And their height I was referring to was the DWD/WOM European tours. I haven't studied lighting grids and design plans, so if I'm wrong I apologize. However, I still stand up for my statement that if TSO's 2000 tour when they split could have had the production of the 2014 winter tour that it would have.
That's the first response, now moving onto the second. I wasn't quoting you really, Aaron. I was actually not trying to dismiss your argument about a change in Al's responses either. I was just simply stating that:
"I don't have a lot of interest in Al's pre-Savatage career to be honest,..." - I don't. I have done zero hard research and know a basic outline of some of the things he was involved with - there's a lot he's done and I don't know the fine details because it doesn't interest me really.
"...so I have no idea what he's said prior to his time with Savatage..." - I don't know pre-95 what he said his inspirations to play were.
".../TSO." - I don't know pre-96 what he said his inspirations to play were.
"I can't speak to that." - I haven't done the research so I don't know what he used to say as opposed to now.
Without going into a Savatage vs. TSO - one band/two bands, etc. discussion. When I wrote this I wasn't trying to quote you. Your point was there has been a change in his telling of the tale. My point was only that I don't know if there's been a change because I don't know what he used to say pre-Savatage/TSO.
The reason why I lumped Savatage/TSO together at that point was because basically when he joined Savatage, TSO came so soon after, so I lumped them together as a period of time on his timeline. 95/96 was his joining Paul's creative timeline. I guess I should have stated it as:
I don't have a lot of interest in Al's pre-1995 career to be honest, so I have no idea what he's said prior to 1995. I can't speak to that."
No pushing off of the topic intended - it's not something I can speak to.
And I guess to take if further I could have said that I've read/heard very little of Al's words during his time with Megadeth as well. Not a Megadeth fan really, and not a huge non-Savatage/TSO (lumped together purposely) Al Pitrelli follower. If it involves Savatage or TSO then I'm interested, but Al's other work I really don't have a big interest in. Not O2'L or A Place Called Rage, etc. Just too many other things that I'm more interested in. No disrespect, just facts. Therefore, that's why I can't really speak to Al like you can. You're trying to write a life's work on him, I would hope you'd know more than I would.
Aaron said:
>>Basically, I'm looking at a big picture over many bands and many decades and see issues. You're looking at a situation that I believe is being
>>controlled and see no issue.
If you want to see it that way, you can, but to be clear and honest - I don't care about Al Pitrelli in the way many others do. I care about his involvement with Savatage and with TSO. Outside of that, not really interesting to me. Other members are more interesting to me and I could speak to about these topics maybe, but it's like you're picking a fight with me about stuff I just simply don't know about. I listen/read interviews with him now yes, but previously - I just don't care really.
If you want to call that being controlled, that's fine. I'd prefer to call it that I just have the time to follow his earlier career because other artists interest me more.
It sounds like you have a beef with Al that you should take up with him, not me.
Holy smokes, Aaron, I'm tired just reading your posts. I'm so much less drama-ladden as you'd have me out to be.
I'm not going to quote all your text cause I don't have the energy, so I apologize up front if I don't touch on all of your points.
You're slicing up lines of my posts and then going off on wild tangents, reading between the lines of things I didn't write and spending a lot of words doing so.
Point 1:
The "wildly differing stories" that I referred to was referencing your Al remark that his answers have changed over time. That's not been my experience during my interviews with Bob or Jeff or Chris, etc. I have not noticed any wildly differing stories between what they've told me and what they've said elsewhere. There's more detail here or there, but if Jeff said he saw Kiss and that was what did it for him that's consistent with what I've seen elsewhere. That's what I meant by "wildly differing stories" because you stated you have a very different story with Al.
Point 2:
There have been other interviews with non-TSO members that I've done where the subject doesn't reveal dirty laundry or asks to go off the record - that's normal. You don't know if there are aspects of a story or interview that is off the record that revealed more than what's published. It's called being respectful. Aerosmith had a large lack of respect for each other during Tyler's fall of the stage back and forth - how did that lack of respect play out in the press? If someone asks you how your job is going, do you spend 5 minutes on war stories about how much you hate it or bring up all the negative things?
Aaron said:
>>"3. The fact that you have interviewed 10+ CURRENT members who DON'T have "wildly" different stories PROVES my point. My point is the stories
>>are the same and that is strange,"
See my comment above - you read what you wanted to read about my "wildly differing stories."
I don't think that the people I've talked to have altered their experiences to suit questions that I've asked. There is plenty of variety because the experiences that each person brings is different. I'm interested in that and their insight.
Aaron said:
>>"I can't think of another band that is so scripted, but as my point was, they are creating mythological stories for themselves and the band that
>>are feel good."
If you listen to bands on a touring run and listen to three or four interviews with them you hear the similar stories and tales. The more the individual does interviews, the more similar it sounds. Listen to yourself as you tell 5 different people about your trip to xxxxx, you'll touch on the same points about the hassle of air travel and the guy who sat next to you, the flat tire on the car rental, etc. By the 4th and 5th time you tell it, it will be much more patternistic. That's what Paul's typical press interviews are and the reason for the lack of variety in subject matter is because in those press interviews Paul controls the interview by running over the host. If you've never interviewed Paul it's a wildly different subject than most other people you'll interview.
Aaron said:
"4. If you've read any of Dan's interviews than you HAVE run across a lot of variety."
Yes, I've read Dan's interviews and they are good. I'm sure you can dig in when you interview and I'm sure you do. There are elements of each interview all of us have done where we feel we've asked a solid question and received an insightful response and fed off that.
Aaron said:
"5. You've done "formal" interview with 10+ current members. Name a current member who is going to say the wrong thing to you in their interview and risk their job? How many past members have you interviewed who have no job to risk?"
How many people do you interview that your objective is to get them to say something so that they lose their job? That's not something I'm going after. I'd rather find out background on the artist, what they're into and makes them tick, their experiences in the band, how this felt or that, some information specifics, etc. I'm not looking for a TMZ headline - that holds no interest for me.
To date I haven't interviewed past members who have no job to risk, but I would think that most would be honest yet respectful of people they've worked with in the past as opposed to looking to throw mud. Again, that's not my objective when interviewing. I'm not trying to get anyone fired. I'm not looking for disgruntled employees to hear bitch at the water cooler.
Aaron said:
>>"Remember, a lawyer is supposed to support THEIR client, not the other side. Thank you for confirming that the interviews ARE scripted! You're
>>giving this as a defense saying the questions are not scripted, but that's not important."
Just like the above, I think you're in this discussion because you're trying to prove that I don't know, like I'm on the witness stand and you're trying to catch me in a lie or something. Why the accusations and hostility? I stated that in the press interviews Paul runs over the interviewer for 10 minutes and the interview is over and Paul hits the talking points of "new show, bigger production, working on new material, etc." Ok. Your original point was that you thought the questions were scripted and I said they weren't because there is usually one or two questions and the rest is Paul's "wind him up and let him go."
Aaron said:
>>"I'm saying that even in the longer interviews the same talking points are hit. The answers all are within a pattern and get repeated ad nauseum
>>and irregardless of the question none of the controversy ever gets discussed .... except by ex members who are under no obligation to stay the
>>party line
Yep, Paul has done a million interviews and he tells similar tales in short, medium or long ones, no debate there.
You state that "None of the controversy ever gets discussed" - what controversy do you really want me to discuss next time I talk to him exactly? That out of 100 members or so of the group since the beginning that there are a handful of disgruntled ex-members?
Really?
I've been fortunate and talked to Paul a number of times at great length and I have dozens of questions that I have about topics that are so much more interesting than that.
Let me ask you this - given the choice...
I could ask him about Berlin in front of a massive crowd or disgruntled ex-member a.
I could ask about any of the hundreds of songs he's written and recorded, lyrical inspirations, recording memories, etc or disgruntled ex-member b.
I could ask about future plans and goals (many of which usually end up not being published but go to a broader understanding) or disgruntled ex-member c.
I could ask about tours and production bits, introductions of band members or disgruntled ex-member d.
Memories of Criss, studio time, and working with Jon or disgruntled ex-member e.
Now you tell me if the 'controversy' of a handful of disgruntled ex-members is important enough to waste my time on asking him about?
Bp
]I mixed topics amongst all of the quote and reply, etc. The comment about "If they could have brought more, they would have from what I've been told." was about TSO and NOT about Savatage. I haven't discussed with the Sava-members or TSO members the production of Sava shows apart from the additional production that was supposed to arrive for the Cologne shoot, but did not (and thus the shelving of the release).
The production comments I was making were based on European shows primarily and they seemed to have a larger (or brighter) arsenal of lights than other bands of their size at the time. And their height I was referring to was the DWD/WOM European tours. I haven't studied lighting grids and design plans, so if I'm wrong I apologize. However, I still stand up for my statement that if TSO's 2000 tour when they split could have had the production of the 2014 winter tour that it would have.
That's the first response, now moving onto the second. I wasn't quoting you really, Aaron. I was actually not trying to dismiss your argument about a change in Al's responses either. I was just simply stating that:
"I don't have a lot of interest in Al's pre-Savatage career to be honest,..." - I don't. I have done zero hard research and know a basic outline of some of the things he was involved with - there's a lot he's done and I don't know the fine details because it doesn't interest me really.
"...so I have no idea what he's said prior to his time with Savatage..." - I don't know pre-95 what he said his inspirations to play were.
".../TSO." - I don't know pre-96 what he said his inspirations to play were.
"I can't speak to that." - I haven't done the research so I don't know what he used to say as opposed to now.
Without going into a Savatage vs. TSO - one band/two bands, etc. discussion. When I wrote this I wasn't trying to quote you. Your point was there has been a change in his telling of the tale. My point was only that I don't know if there's been a change because I don't know what he used to say pre-Savatage/TSO.
The reason why I lumped Savatage/TSO together at that point was because basically when he joined Savatage, TSO came so soon after, so I lumped them together as a period of time on his timeline. 95/96 was his joining Paul's creative timeline. I guess I should have stated it as:
I don't have a lot of interest in Al's pre-1995 career to be honest, so I have no idea what he's said prior to 1995. I can't speak to that."
No pushing off of the topic intended - it's not something I can speak to.
And I guess to take if further I could have said that I've read/heard very little of Al's words during his time with Megadeth as well. Not a Megadeth fan really, and not a huge non-Savatage/TSO (lumped together purposely) Al Pitrelli follower. If it involves Savatage or TSO then I'm interested, but Al's other work I really don't have a big interest in. Not O2'L or A Place Called Rage, etc. Just too many other things that I'm more interested in. No disrespect, just facts. Therefore, that's why I can't really speak to Al like you can. You're trying to write a life's work on him, I would hope you'd know more than I would.
Aaron said:
>>Basically, I'm looking at a big picture over many bands and many decades and see issues. You're looking at a situation that I believe is being
>>controlled and see no issue.
If you want to see it that way, you can, but to be clear and honest - I don't care about Al Pitrelli in the way many others do. I care about his involvement with Savatage and with TSO. Outside of that, not really interesting to me. Other members are more interesting to me and I could speak to about these topics maybe, but it's like you're picking a fight with me about stuff I just simply don't know about. I listen/read interviews with him now yes, but previously - I just don't care really.
If you want to call that being controlled, that's fine. I'd prefer to call it that I just have the time to follow his earlier career because other artists interest me more.
It sounds like you have a beef with Al that you should take up with him, not me.
Holy smokes, Aaron, I'm tired just reading your posts. I'm so much less drama-ladden as you'd have me out to be.
I'm not going to quote all your text cause I don't have the energy, so I apologize up front if I don't touch on all of your points.
You're slicing up lines of my posts and then going off on wild tangents, reading between the lines of things I didn't write and spending a lot of words doing so.
Point 1:
The "wildly differing stories" that I referred to was referencing your Al remark that his answers have changed over time. That's not been my experience during my interviews with Bob or Jeff or Chris, etc. I have not noticed any wildly differing stories between what they've told me and what they've said elsewhere. There's more detail here or there, but if Jeff said he saw Kiss and that was what did it for him that's consistent with what I've seen elsewhere. That's what I meant by "wildly differing stories" because you stated you have a very different story with Al.
Point 2:
There have been other interviews with non-TSO members that I've done where the subject doesn't reveal dirty laundry or asks to go off the record - that's normal. You don't know if there are aspects of a story or interview that is off the record that revealed more than what's published. It's called being respectful. Aerosmith had a large lack of respect for each other during Tyler's fall of the stage back and forth - how did that lack of respect play out in the press? If someone asks you how your job is going, do you spend 5 minutes on war stories about how much you hate it or bring up all the negative things?
Aaron said:
>>"3. The fact that you have interviewed 10+ CURRENT members who DON'T have "wildly" different stories PROVES my point. My point is the stories
>>are the same and that is strange,"
See my comment above - you read what you wanted to read about my "wildly differing stories."
I don't think that the people I've talked to have altered their experiences to suit questions that I've asked. There is plenty of variety because the experiences that each person brings is different. I'm interested in that and their insight.
Aaron said:
>>"I can't think of another band that is so scripted, but as my point was, they are creating mythological stories for themselves and the band that
>>are feel good."
If you listen to bands on a touring run and listen to three or four interviews with them you hear the similar stories and tales. The more the individual does interviews, the more similar it sounds. Listen to yourself as you tell 5 different people about your trip to xxxxx, you'll touch on the same points about the hassle of air travel and the guy who sat next to you, the flat tire on the car rental, etc. By the 4th and 5th time you tell it, it will be much more patternistic. That's what Paul's typical press interviews are and the reason for the lack of variety in subject matter is because in those press interviews Paul controls the interview by running over the host. If you've never interviewed Paul it's a wildly different subject than most other people you'll interview.
Aaron said:
"4. If you've read any of Dan's interviews than you HAVE run across a lot of variety."
Yes, I've read Dan's interviews and they are good. I'm sure you can dig in when you interview and I'm sure you do. There are elements of each interview all of us have done where we feel we've asked a solid question and received an insightful response and fed off that.
Aaron said:
"5. You've done "formal" interview with 10+ current members. Name a current member who is going to say the wrong thing to you in their interview and risk their job? How many past members have you interviewed who have no job to risk?"
How many people do you interview that your objective is to get them to say something so that they lose their job? That's not something I'm going after. I'd rather find out background on the artist, what they're into and makes them tick, their experiences in the band, how this felt or that, some information specifics, etc. I'm not looking for a TMZ headline - that holds no interest for me.
To date I haven't interviewed past members who have no job to risk, but I would think that most would be honest yet respectful of people they've worked with in the past as opposed to looking to throw mud. Again, that's not my objective when interviewing. I'm not trying to get anyone fired. I'm not looking for disgruntled employees to hear bitch at the water cooler.
Aaron said:
>>"Remember, a lawyer is supposed to support THEIR client, not the other side. Thank you for confirming that the interviews ARE scripted! You're
>>giving this as a defense saying the questions are not scripted, but that's not important."
Just like the above, I think you're in this discussion because you're trying to prove that I don't know, like I'm on the witness stand and you're trying to catch me in a lie or something. Why the accusations and hostility? I stated that in the press interviews Paul runs over the interviewer for 10 minutes and the interview is over and Paul hits the talking points of "new show, bigger production, working on new material, etc." Ok. Your original point was that you thought the questions were scripted and I said they weren't because there is usually one or two questions and the rest is Paul's "wind him up and let him go."
Aaron said:
>>"I'm saying that even in the longer interviews the same talking points are hit. The answers all are within a pattern and get repeated ad nauseum
>>and irregardless of the question none of the controversy ever gets discussed .... except by ex members who are under no obligation to stay the
>>party line
Yep, Paul has done a million interviews and he tells similar tales in short, medium or long ones, no debate there.
You state that "None of the controversy ever gets discussed" - what controversy do you really want me to discuss next time I talk to him exactly? That out of 100 members or so of the group since the beginning that there are a handful of disgruntled ex-members?
Really?
I've been fortunate and talked to Paul a number of times at great length and I have dozens of questions that I have about topics that are so much more interesting than that.
Let me ask you this - given the choice...
I could ask him about Berlin in front of a massive crowd or disgruntled ex-member a.
I could ask about any of the hundreds of songs he's written and recorded, lyrical inspirations, recording memories, etc or disgruntled ex-member b.
I could ask about future plans and goals (many of which usually end up not being published but go to a broader understanding) or disgruntled ex-member c.
I could ask about tours and production bits, introductions of band members or disgruntled ex-member d.
Memories of Criss, studio time, and working with Jon or disgruntled ex-member e.
Now you tell me if the 'controversy' of a handful of disgruntled ex-members is important enough to waste my time on asking him about?
Bp