The Official Website Of Triumph

I have been a Triumph fan for years.  I have never seen them in concert.  I have several CD's and listen to them frequently at work on my ipod.  The latest CD I bought was Livin' For The Weekend.  I hear that about 2 or 3 times a week.  Here is my question.  What is or was the problem between the guys that is so bad they could not play together for so long?  Is that a secret or has it been revealed?  I attempted a search on the board here for that answer and must have not entered a good search word.  Thanks and glad the board is here, just found it from a Rush Post on the Rush Board. 

---

If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice

Welcome Aboard Robert 

We have talked about that many times over the years...........if you go back and read the forum topics from the beginning, you'll get many different opinions about that.

 But in a nutshell Rik, Mike and Gil were having numerous problems with record company pressure around 1986. MCA wanted Triumph to make more hits( more towards Rik's liking) and Mike/Gil just wanted to be a rock band. After the Sport of Kings record debacle ( bad production, outside writers etc) the band had their biggest hit ( somebody's out there) but record sales were declining and the tour wasn't as successful as they hoped. Instead of taking a break after SOK they went back into the studio and recorded Surveillance ( more rocking but, the band was fighting and many of the parts were recorded individually not as a band)

They really didn't tour that album( handful of shows) and Rik left in 1988.

Well thats my version..............

Hank 

 

 

---

In addition,

Around the time of the writing of T-7, the group reformed the way they conducted the business of Triumph with each member owning a 3rd of the business. All songs written were credited to and owned by Triumph. When Rik left, he could claim no writing credits, royalties or future royalties or even equipment that was bought by Triumph such as guitars or recording equipment. There were certain songs that Rik was able to keep like Hold On and Suitcase Blues.

While there were creative and personal differences this was the ultimate reason for the bad blood that existed for so long.

Thankfully, they have been able to put it behind them and start performing again! 

Thanks for both of the replies.  I haven't been on here for years while this was discussed.  I have however wondered for years what happened.  Although my first post on this board was not a contribution, I hope to have posts in the future that will contribute in a positive way.  Thanks Again and glad to have found this board.

---

If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice

robertkincaid96:

Thanks for both of the replies.  I haven't been on here for years while this was discussed.  I have however wondered for years what happened.  Although my first post on this board was not a contribution, I hope to have posts in the future that will contribute in a positive way.  Thanks Again and glad to have found this board.

Hey, can't blame you for not finding it on the boards we've been posting here for a few years now.  Some things get buried and that particular topic has a way of springing up in unrelated threads haha.  I would say what the two previous posts commented on is accurate.  Record label pressure ultimately caused the split and division of writing credits kept them from speaking for many years.

Now they're back...Rock out, Roll on!

---

Can't you feel the magic, feel it everywhere, Can't you hear the music, there's something in the air, There's a celebration, deep within a song, Celebrate this feeling, you know it can't be wrong

With respect to songwriting credits, this has nothing to do with the group composing as a unit. In fact, up until Just A Game, all songs were credited to the author of the lyrics and music composer. For example, Rik Emmett wrote Hold On; therefore, he was credited as the author and composer. But as Triumph began to sell records and receive major airplay, it was felt that all earnings should be split equally. Songwriting and publishing rights which generate present and future earnings (royalties) is often a sensitive subject.

Given every member’s contributions to the group, Gil, Rik and Mike all agreed to split the credits three ways equally in 1980 (Progressions of Power being the first album to equally credit all three members). Deep Purple (Mark II) also had a similar agreement in place. I do not agree with this practice. Why should Ian Paice (no disrespect as he is one of the greatest rock drummers) get paid and receive royalties for Smoke On The Water when, in fact, he did not write a single lyric or note.

There were other contributing factors that led to Rik leaving the partnership, but only the members of Triumph are privy to that. The contract with MCA and the experience surrounding the recording of the last two studio albums, The Sport of Kings and Surveillance, cemented Rik’s decision which had been brewing since the completion of the Never Surrender Tour.

Schenker:

Given every member’s contributions to the group, Gil, Rik and Mike all agreed to split the credits three ways equally in 1980 (Progressions of Power being the first album to equally credit all three members). Deep Purple (Mark II) also had a similar agreement in place. I do not agree with this practice. Why should Ian Paice (no disrespect as he is one of the greatest rock drummers) get paid and receive royalties for Smoke On The Water when, in fact, he did not write a single lyric or note.

I disagree about DP and Paice. All of the DP lineups have allowed for songs brought in by collaborations of members less than the whole group. Where the songs are credited to all members of the lineup at the time, the songs are the result of group jams. The Machine Head album is pretty much all the result of jams, hence the credits that reflect same. Also, it's highly debatable to say the drummer doesn't write "a single note" in a group like Deep Purple. Percussion is easily notated, even if sheet music doesn't tend to include it for pop/rock songs. And with Paice, especially on Machine Head, the notes would be quite lush and detailed as drummers go, hence, no doubt, the identification of him as one of the greatest!

As for Triumph, IMO the songwriting-credit split had much more to do with business considerations than artistic ones. I don't think Gil Moore got into the kind of lush and detailed drumming that would make a transcriber drool, nor did Mike Levine ever try to be a virtuoso bassist. Their playing served the songs well with comparatively little identifiable, unique style. And of course we've gone into the fundamental imbalance of songwriting ambition and quality inherent in the Triumph collaboration. No doubt this was especially apparent with the Just A Game album, hence the changed business arrangement of songwriting credits.

As we have robertkincaid96 here via a Rush board (a fine welcome to you!), it might be appropriate to point out that Deep Purple and Rush remain groups such that the separate musicians contribute to the final output in reasonably equal measures (Rush more so than DP and probably more than any other major rock band). Purely in musical terms (not business or touring considerations) Triumph is more like many other bands in which reasonably talented supporting players orbit a creative "prime mover" like Emmett.

Hey Rob.  Question.....is that your real name or something to do with "The Bridges of Madison County"?  ...even though the movie came out in '95.

---

I've got one short dance
On this planet
But I'll carve my message deep into the wall

lisarees:

Hey Rob.  Question.....is that your real name or something to do with "The Bridges of Madison County"?  ...even though the movie came out in '95.

That is where Robert Kincaid came from.  Since you are familiar with the movie and know when it came out, I will say this, 1996 is the year that it happened for me.  I married my beautiful Francesca in 2004.  My real name is Jerry. 

---

If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice

Thanks for the Fine Welcome chordguy.  I will lurk around some, and then maybe I can contribute something positive soon. 

---

If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice

Hey Jerry.

Awwww....your "Francesca" must be a lucky gal if you have that kind of passion.  The movie was great, but did you read the book?  It illustrates their devotion much better.  I rank both the movie and the book as my favorites because if I only had half that kind of ardent love in my life....well, let's just say it would be wonderful.  Glad to know there are men out there like you.  I’m still searching for my Robert Kincaid.   

Live with passion!

 

---

I've got one short dance
On this planet
But I'll carve my message deep into the wall

Jerry,

I know you're a Rush fan and this is a Triumph site, BUT ....this song by Staind is very Robert and Francesca-ish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-sLSNKK89Q

---

I've got one short dance
On this planet
But I'll carve my message deep into the wall

robertkincaid96:

I have been a Triumph fan for years.  I have never seen them in concert.  I have several CD's and listen to them frequently at work on my ipod.  The latest CD I bought was Livin' For The Weekend.  I hear that about 2 or 3 times a week.  Here is my question.  What is or was the problem between the guys that is so bad they could not play together for so long?  Is that a secret or has it been revealed?  I attempted a search on the board here for that answer and must have not entered a good search word.  Thanks and glad the board is here, just found it from a Rush Post on the Rush Board.

Okay, over ten years ago RikEmmett launched a section of his site to where you can ask him questions and he will answer them personally. After a year he grew increasingly tired of the Triumph questions, so he posted this on the site so anyone can read the answer without having to ask it. Sort of like an F.A.Q., so here goes...

The following is my official answer to the variations of the questions,

    * "Why did you leave Triumph?"
    * "Will there ever be a Triumph reunion?"

I left Triumph in the fall of 1988 after a great deal of soul-searching. I had decided to leave because I was unhappy and frustrated with the working dynamics inside the group and disappointed in the image that the band was projecting. I had lost faith in the directions that the band was taking. I was personally convinced that the band had run its course, both creatively and commercially, and finally decided to surrender to our incompatible ambitions and egos, as well as the artistic, moral, ethical, political and social differences that existed between us. In the end, it was simple, really. I love making music. And I felt I couldn't make good music under those circumstances anymore.

I admit, It bothers me that people still keep asking "Why did you really leave the band?", because it's such old news, and I've answered it on the public record in great detail many times. Instead of a fascinating story filled with juicy, gory details, the truth is actually complicated and boring, a chronicle of disappointment, frustration and heartache, full of business and financial issues that make people's eyes glaze over. The small indignities, petty squabbles and trivial conceits that finally accumulated into the big old clich  of "artistic differences" are now long gone with the gallons of dirty old water that flowed under the bridge a long time ago. Now that old riverbed is dead and dried up. For me, scraping it up is painful, counterproductive, and relatively pointless, except for this: I want to have my answers for these questions on the public record, on the Web Site where anybody and everybody can access them, so that I can move on and leave them behind, once and for all.

Back when 1987 was turning into '88, I had several discussions with the other two group members as to what might be the best way to deal with all of the business, legal, financial and logistical problems that would arise from my departure. The other band members did not want to "disband", or retire the Triumph name and partnership. So the band did not "break up" - we would have to work out some arrangement for me to "withdraw" from the partnership, and quit the band. This was just another disappointment for me, as we'd always said that when it looked like it was over, we'd fold the band up gracefully and go out with our dignity intact, shaking hands and walking away in friendship, an honorable conclusion that would preserve the memory of our successful, interesting career ride. But in the end, we obviously disagreed about what exactly constituted "Triumph" being over. And the gracious dream scenario just described was not the way that my partners decided to play it. It was not so much that I objected to their right to maintain a continuing, working ownership and exploitation of the Triumph name. It was more that I was fearfully suspicious of the financial implications their positioning would have in trying to reach a settlement of the former partnership's business affairs. Now I look back on the nightmare of trying to arrive at a settlement with my former partners and feel confident that these instincts were entirely justified.

Right from the beginning, there were character, personality, creative and artistic differences, political inequities and internal operating imbalances within the partnership. These kinds of problems would probably exist in any group. In fact they're initially seen as trivial obstacles to overcome, giving rise to the compromises and understandings that partners are willing to make in order to launch and establish their venture. Certainly, as long as there's a common sense of progress, growth and success, these differences are usually glossed over and underplayed, for the common good.

I felt that the original attitudes that had built up a sustainable partnership myth in Triumph for over ten years had been damaged starting around the "Stages" time period of the band's career, then exacerbated during the "SportOf Kings" and subsequent "Surveillance" recording projects. It became clear that every partner had his own private agenda. It began to seem like every management decision regarding the business, finances, marketing and promotion of Triumph became destructive to some of the faith and trust that I had in my former partners.

There were many complications that arose in my attempt to leave the partnership of Triumph. I won't bore you with the details. I thought we had a working gentleman's agreement on how to handle these complications. There was a handshake deal, there were assurances - and in the end, there were broken promises, broken contracts, and bad faith.

I'm only informing you of these problems as background for answering the 2nd question - will there ever be a reunion? The resolution of the issues raised from my departure from the Triumph partnership has taken over ten years now. In that time, I haven't received a penny from my former partners. When they finally agreed to a settlement, after years of stalling and legal obfuscation I have incurred over many thousands of dollars in legal costs and a whole lot of heartache, grief and aggravation. So by that point, no amount of money ca ever come close to restoring a measure of my broken faith and trust.

If the process of reaching a settlement with my former partners had been a different story to this point, I think there's an excellent chance that I would have a different feeling towards the sentimental pleasures of a reunion. But I haven't authored the script that played out. I am not holding any cards: I can not dictate the pace, structure or tone of the settlement process.

Now, I have no continuing interest in Triumph. Under the terms of the take-it-or-leave-it settlement that I will be forced to accept, I will be bought out of everything. Then I receive no royalties from any Triumph recordings or videotapes. Triumph is, quite literally, none of my business.

Some people might say that, from a business perspective, I was na ve. I won't deny that. I'd say that my good faith and good will were on the table in the partnership settlement process, and they got destroyed. Others might take issue with what I have written here as only an opinion, a self-serving version of the truth. But if the process taught me anything, it is that nothing is absolute - truth is what you choose to believe. Certainly, whatever "truths" my former partners believe, I think it's fair to say that they are incompatible with mine.

In the spring of 1995, as I was recording the Spiral Notebook record, I received a phone call from one of my former partners, asking me to consider a reunion tour because there was "a lot of money to be made." I asked him what had changed to resolve the problems that had caused me to leave Triumph in the first place? I asked him how much money he thought it might take to undo the damage done? I told him to leave it with me, and maybe someday I'd call him back. And I've thought about what it would take, and the answer is...nothing. There is no price, no amount. Some things just aren't about money - some things just can't be bought. The choices that my former partners made when I was their partner made me not want to be their partner anymore. And the choices that they made after I decided to leave Vanquish, and the way that the settlement played out, THAT was something that they plainly did for money. It cost them the opportunity to "reunite" for "a lot of money". So I've never called him back, because we're just not on the same wavelength.

And that's it, folks. I hope this puts these questions behind me, once and for all.