Survivor - Lake Tahoe Article

by **Lark** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:36 am

Interesting!!!!........

http://www.gotorenotahoe.com/news/stori ... 6/4152.php

Grove on guitar? when has he ever played the guitar?

by **Lark** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:38 am

Even more interesting................

http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/articl ... /109280096

by **Red13JoePa** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:51 am

"Oh, you know, I don't even think that (the band's legal problems) crosses our minds," Sullivan said.

Good to see they're beyond this now.
Legal issues haven't crossed the band's mind in at LEAST 2 months when Survivor attempted to stop the site from using "Jimi Jamison and Jim Peterik formerly of Survivor" as part of the Anniv show promotional literature.

by **Slander** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:58 am

Red13JoePa wrote:"Oh, you know, I don't even think that (the band's legal problems) crosses our minds," Sullivan said.

Good to see they're beyond this now.
Legal issues haven't crossed the band's mind in at LEAST 2 months when Survivor attempted to stop the site from using "Jimi Jamison and Jim Peterik formerly of Survivor" as part of the Anniv show promotional literature.

That quote was from the interview with Andrew right after Reach. Not a whole lot of journalism being done by this tahoe rag.

by **Lark** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:02 am

I liked the one about JJ, Droubay and Sullivan ressurecting the band in 2006! Would that be from "Life Support"?

by **axecrew** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 6:51 am

Slander wrote:
Red13JoePa wrote:"Oh, you know, I don't even think that (the band's legal problems) crosses our minds," Sullivan said.

Good to see they're beyond this now.
Legal issues haven't crossed the band's mind in at LEAST 2 months when Survivor attempted to stop the site from using "Jimi Jamison and Jim Peterik formerly of Survivor" as part of the Anniv show promotional literature.

That quote was from the interview with Andrew right after Reach. Not a whole lot of journalism being done by this tahoe rag.

That's right boys and girls.......it put Sullivan in a little bit of a bad light,therefore it's nothing but a rag. Gonna go after the "rag" now Slander and call it a Sullivan basher and hater? LOL...that article was funny.

by **Slander** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 7:08 am

axecrew wrote:
Slander wrote:
Red13JoePa wrote:"Oh, you know, I don't even think that (the band's legal problems) crosses our minds," Sullivan said.

Good to see they're beyond this now.
Legal issues haven't crossed the band's mind in at LEAST 2 months when Survivor attempted to stop the site from using "Jimi Jamison and Jim Peterik formerly of Survivor" as part of the Anniv show promotional literature.

That quote was from the interview with Andrew right after Reach. Not a whole lot of journalism being done by this tahoe rag.

That's right boys and girls.......it put Sullivan in a little bit of a bad light,therefore it's nothing but a rag. Gonna go after the "rag" now Slander and call it a Sullivan basher and hater? LOL...that article was funny.

Axe why does it put Sullivan in a bad light? Secondly my analysis of the article has nothing to do with FS but moreso the reporter pretending that these were "new comments." Clearly they were not.

by **Lark** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 7:30 am

FS has probably had an attorney call the paper and demand a retraction on the basis that the word Survivor and Jimi Jamison appeared in the same sentence.

Oh Slander, I couldn't resist, it's a rather slow day here at the bar.

by **Slander** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 7:41 am

Lark wrote:FS has probably had an attorney call the paper and demand a retraction on the basis that the word Survivor and Jimi Jamison appeared in the same sentence.

and the beat goes on. What would you guys do with your lives if you didn't have FS to kick around? You can't get enough of this guy can you? It really is an obssession.

by **Lark** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 7:56 am

It's not an obsession, it is just soooooooooooooooooooo easy!

by **IngoK** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 7:09 pm

Lark wrote:Even more interesting................

http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/articl ... /109280096

Maybe I´m wrong but half of the article is identically with the wikipedia history...

by **Slander** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 1:06 am

IngoK wrote:
Lark wrote:Even more interesting................

http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/articl ... /109280096

Maybe I´m wrong but half of the article is identically with the wikipedia history...

The article is crap. It looks copy and pasted. Jimi's quote is from years ago I believe and Frankie's quote is from an interview while Jimi was still in the band. What crap. Reporter should be canned. Terrible journalism. Extremely misleading.

by **MarcelJordan** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:56 pm

Interesting this from Jimi:

quote

Mainly because I tried to put the band back together but got no cooperation from them until I started touring successfully. At that point they became very interested in stopping me from playing.

Unquote

This was from YEARS back! Why in the world do they put in this when the article is supposed to promoting Survivor as it is now. What is this journalist trying to do?

JJ was funny though. :lol:

Nonsense!

He's out there singing tunes written and copyrighted by JP/FS. :roll:

by **Slander** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:59 pm

MarcelJordan wrote:Interesting this from Jimi:

quote

Mainly because I tried to put the band back together but got no cooperation from them until I started touring successfully. At that point they became very interested in stopping me from playing.

Unquote

This was from YEARS back! Why in the world do they put in this when the article is supposed to promoting Survivor as it is now. What is this journalist trying to do?

JJ was funny though. Nonsense!

He's out there singing tunes written and copyrighted by JP/FS.

You are making my point. This journalist constructed this article out of old quotes. It's like he googled Jj and Frankie and through together an article.

by **MarcelJordan** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 1:05 pm

THIS what irks me the most:

quote

But it was following their seventh album, "Too Hot To Sleep" (1988), that the first cracks began to appear. Ellis and Droubay were replaced on by studio session vets Mickey Curry (drums) and Bill Syniar (bass). After lackluster sales, Peterik and Sullivan decided to put the band on hiatus indefinitely.

Unquote

Who ever asked this guy to report on past ills? Stupid. :evil:

by **Slander** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 1:23 pm

MarcelJordan wrote:THIS what irks me the most:

quote

But it was following their seventh album, "Too Hot To Sleep" (1988), that the first cracks began to appear. Ellis and Droubay were replaced on by studio session vets Mickey Curry (drums) and Bill Syniar (bass). After lackluster sales, Peterik and Sullivan decided to put the band on hiatus indefinitely.

Unquote

Who ever asked this guy to report on past ills? Stupid.

Then people like Lark post it on the board like it's BREAKING NEWS.

by **Lark** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 10:31 pm

Slander, I didn't post it like it was breaking news, get a life, I posted it because I found it on the web and thought it was interesting that it was an article written recently. Also, I knew it would get under your skin and that is what I live for, according to you. Again, you are impossible. Maybe you need to ask Andrew for a position with MR as a moderator and every post that you don't like, you can delete before the rest of us open minded people read it.

What is so ironic about your statement is usually it is YOU that scours the internet looking for recent reveiws of their latest shows or a "band note" from the great one, but again, you only put the "favorable" articles on the web.

by **Red13JoePa** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:00 am

Lark wrote:Slander, I didn't post it like it was breaking news, get a life, I posted it because I found it on the web and thought it was interesting that it was an article written recently.

Yes.
And neither did the author attempt to say this was all from recent conversations he had with FS, JJ, or JP.

He was merely giving history on the band.
Just because the Frankie Stepfords don't like it doesn't mean the guy can't report on it. And the attempt at undermining his credibility by moaning "These quotes weren't recent (while tellingly being unable to dispute the factuality of them)" is laughable and kinda sad.

by **Eyeof** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:01 am

when you haven't done anything for 20 years, articles and quotes can be used for a long, long time...

by **IngoK** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:20 am

Eyeof wrote:when you haven't done anything for 20 years, articles and quotes can be used for a long, long time...

by **Slander** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:05 am

Lark wrote:What is so ironic about your statement is usually it is YOU that scours the internet looking for recent reveiws of their latest shows or a "band note" from the great one, but again, you only put the "favorable" articles on the web.

If you look at articles I have posted I make damn sure they are at least recent. You could tell by reading the article it was old. By the way why would we post old negative articles from the web? What purpose does that serve? Fill me in. The bottom line is that you knew the crap was old and tried to pass it off as some sort of interesting artilce. My guess is the quote from Jamo was in 1999 and Frankie's was 2006. You tried to pass them off as new.

by **Slander** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:12 am

Red13JoePa wrote:"Oh, you know, I don't even think that (the band's legal problems) crosses our minds," Sullivan said.

Good to see they're beyond this now.

JoePa you are making my point for me about this article. You take a quote from Sullivan from early 2006 and act like he's referring to what happened with Andrew's venue. It's a bit disingenious.

by **Slander** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:16 am

Lark wrote:Slander, I didn't post it like it was breaking news, get a life, I posted it because I found it on the web and thought it was interesting that it was an article written recently. Also, I knew it would get under your skin and that is what I live for, according to you. Again, you are impossible. Maybe you need to ask Andrew for a position with MR as a moderator and every post that you don't like, you can delete before the rest of us open minded people read it.

What is so ironic about your statement is usually it is YOU that scours the internet looking for recent reveiws of their latest shows or a "band note" from the great one, but again, you only put the "favorable" articles on the web.

Lark I think lively discussion is great about all sorts of topics. Freedom of speech is a great thing. Something to be valued. I personally think its wrong to trash people when they aren't here to defend themselves. I don't think it's particularly brave. The article didn't get under my skin. I just thought it was a crappy article. It is. I was surprised the paper has those kind of standards. Yes you are right I do try to find the most current info on band members (by the way I do post anything about JP or JJ I find too). Why don't you ever acknowledge anything I positive positive about JJ or JP?

by **Eyeof** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:29 am

geeze slander, he can post whatever he wants...

i'll post an article from 1977 if i find one...who cares...if you don't like it, don't read it...who made you posting control?

by **Slander** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:36 am

Eyeof wrote:geeze slander, he can post whatever he wants...

i'll post an article from 1977 if i find one...who cares...if you don't like it, don't read it...who made you posting control?

Eyeof sure post what you want. My point was trying to pass it off as BREAKING NEWS was disingeniouis at best. Post away. I want to keep this board lively as possible.

by **Eyeof** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:43 am

yeah, it sure wasn't timely...I'll give you that....

by **axecrew** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:09 am

Slander....one question then.......It's not ok to write or post an article that is old and pass it off as new in your opinion right?

So then tell me.....Is it ok to try and pass off songs written 12 or 13 years prior as new material?

by **Slander** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:22 am

axecrew wrote:Slander....one question then.......It's not ok to write or post an article that is old and pass it off as new in your opinion right?

So then tell me.....Is it ok to try and pass off songs written 12 or 13 years prior as new material?

It is technically new if it's a new recording rigiht? It doesn't matter when the song was written. Tony Bennet has new album out of oldies. So does Barry Manilow. Sorry but those are new recods. Yes it is disingenious to dig up an old article and act like it's Breaking News.

by **Lark** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 3:08 am

If you look at articles I have posted I make damn sure they are at least recent. You could tell by reading the article it was old. By the way why would we post old negative articles from the web? What purpose does that serve? Fill me in. The bottom line is that you knew the crap was old and tried to pass it off as some sort of interesting artilce. My guess is the quote from Jamo was in 1999 and Frankie's was 2006. You tried to pass them off as new.

The article was dated 9-26-07, kind of new to me. The other dated 9-28-07, still new article even if the info may be a tad old.

by **Lark** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 3:09 am

The article is crap. It looks copy and pasted. Jimi's quote is from years ago I believe and Frankie's quote is from an interview while Jimi was still in the band. What crap. Reporter should be canned. Terrible journalism. Extremely misleading.

You stated that you think it's terrible to trash someone (i am assuming FS) that is not here to defend themselves. Is this report on the board to defend himself from your opinionated comments? Trashing is a two way street, not just when it is something bad about FS.

MR

Survivor - Lake Tahoe Article

Survivor - Lake Tahoe Article

Who is online