MR

anyone think perry will ever return? i mean, Roth done it as well as loads of other singers

No.

Irwin M Fletcher wrote:anyone think perry will ever return? i mean, Roth done it as well as loads of other singers

Anything's possible I guess. Not holding my breath though.

Roth didn't have to sing songs that only had a 5-15 year "vocal window" to do so. That window has closed and it can't be reopened. I'm sure Perry might be able to pull off a few songs from the back catalog, but not many. I Can See It In Your Eyes exposed a pretty trashed voice, as did Message Of Love. And those were with the benefit of the studio. I suspect he might release an album but I doubt he'll ever grace a stage again. It's been what...13 years? He turns 60 soon. He's done.

I stated here a week or two ago, everybody has reunited at one time in the last decade. The exceptions were Perry/Journey and Cetera/Chicago. Right now, neither needs them right now. Lionel Richie and the Commadores were another but that is going to happen now too.

Noooooooooo!!!!!

*Sigh..as he walks away head down, wondering when they will just stop asking...*

Will he return with new studio music? Maybe...but I'm not holding my breath. Will he tour again?...unlikely. Will he ever be the lead singer of Journey again? NO! And I mean I hope and pray that he is never the lead singer of Journey again. EVER!

I'd love to hear some new, original music otherwise I hope he stays retired.[/i]

I wish people would stop asking this as well. Sigh

musicfan17 wrote:Will he return with new studio music? Maybe...but I'm not holding my breath. Will he tour again?...unlikely. Will he ever be the lead singer of Journey again? NO! And I mean I hope and pray that he is never the lead singer of Journey again. EVER!

I'd love to hear some new, original music otherwise I hope he stays retired.[/i]

I wish people would stop asking this as well. Sigh

why?

Irwin M Fletcher wrote:why?

Because it is passe.

Rhiannon wrote:

Irwin M Fletcher wrote:why?

Because it is passe.

errrrrr, no its not! roth came back to van halen after about 10 false starts, wots so different about perry and journey? ill know not to start a topic on the journey board again!

Irwin M Fletcher wrote:

Rhiannon wrote:

Irwin M Fletcher wrote:why?

Because it is passe.

errrrrr, no its not! roth came back to van halen after about 10 false starts, wots so different about perry and journey? ill know not to start a topic on the journey board again!

Roth can still sing the songs the way they are meant to be sung. Perry cannot or will not.

Irwin M Fletcher wrote:anyone think perry will ever return? i mean, Roth done it as well as loads of other singers

'

what part of divorce do some people not get???

PERRY is not coming back...ever period. Only one scenario i can imagine---
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction if that ever happens... however it could be
like van halen--where no one wanted to be a part of it. In that case ROHF is better
waiting until Neal and co reach about 75.. they might appreciate the award more.



Rick

CONGRATULATIONS!

You've just started the one millionth "Do You Think Steve Perry's Coming Back" thread.....I give it 20 posts...and it's dead...lol.

Oh and to answer your question...

"no".

NealIsGod wrote:

Irwin M Fletcher wrote:

Rhiannon wrote:

Irwin M Fletcher wrote:why?

Because it is passe.

errrrrr, no its not! roth came back to van halen after about 10 false starts, wots so different about perry and journey? ill know not to start a topic on the journey board again!

Roth can still sing the songs the way they are meant to be sung. Perry cannot or will not.

ive heard the whole 'perry cant sing anymore' but personally i think its a load of crap! but cheers for the non rude comment my friend

Irwin M Fletcher wrote:

Rhiannon wrote:

Irwin M Fletcher wrote:why?

Because it is passe.

errrrrr, no its not! roth came back to van halen after about 10 false starts, wots so different about perry and journey? ill know not to start a topic on the journey board again!

Sensitive much?
You asked a question for opinions, you got answers.

And the difference is Roth actually gave it an honest try each time. False start or not. He tried.

venomnation wrote:

CONGRATULATIONS!

You've just started the one millionth "Do You Think Steve Perry's Coming Back" thread.....I give it 20 posts...and it's dead...lol.

Oh and to answer your question...

"no".

be fair, im new,lol

Irwin M Fletcher wrote:anyone think perry will ever return? i mean, Roth done it as well as loads of other singers

He is almost 60 years old
He is done

Rhiannon wrote:

Irwin M Fletcher wrote:

Rhiannon wrote:

Irwin M Fletcher wrote:why?

Because it is passe.

errrrrr, no its not! roth came back to van halen after about 10 false starts, wots so different about perry and journey? ill know not to start a topic on the journey board again!

Sensitive much?
You asked a question for opinions, you got answers.

And the difference is Roth actually gave it an honest try each time. False start or not. He tried.

ill stick to the toto board,lol. but ill be back if perry ever returns! lol

Let's ask this question of the original poster.

Lets assume you were a co-owner in a restaurant. The restaurant was setup as a partnership and you were one of 3 owners. The other two owners, due to disagreements on how the restaurant should be run, pushed you out.

You agreed to disolve the partnership, and you gave public notice of your departure....the remaining two owners, reformed the partnership and started restructuring the business in a very distasteful way. The moved, what was a fantastically successful italian restaurant with a high income bracket clientele, to a seedy part of town. They started selling pizza out of a cutout window on the street. The back alley was a frequent stop for drug addicts and homeless bums looking for handouts and thrown away, half eaten bread. Approximately 3% of the original high income bracket restaurant customers still patronize the place...but do so out of nostalgia for the old place (which was beyond compare). The 3% of those that still patronize the place, even though they drive past crack houses and dive bars to get to the new restaurant, refuse to accept reality....thinking someday, the restaurant will come back, stronger than ever....and the place will restore all the old feelings....nevermind the crack viles and needles they have to step over to get into the front door. Never mind that the water they serve at the tables is now light brown, instead of clear. Nevermind the fact that the portions are 1/2 what they used to be and that the food doesn't taste the same. They figure...same name...a few of the same owners....it'll be back...and I'll have my memories of this fantastic place back too!

The problem is, 97% of the original clientele has moved on....found a better restaurant in a nice part of town, without crack addicts and bums. They're actually eating fillet mignon and fried calamari at their new favorite restaurant, instead of eating fried clams bought from white castle and placed on a plate and served in the shithole, like the stuck-in-the-past 3% that are desperate for a return to the glory days of the restaurant.

It's safe to say the 2 remaining owners drove the restaurant into the fucking ground, with bad management and shitty atmosphere. If they 2 partners finally get it through their heads and offer the original first partner an amazing deal to return, so that the restaurant can improve...tell, me, what amount of incentive or money would intice the original owner??? given the fact that the restaurant is a shithole, will never amount to anything more than a slightly better shithole....and the potential for profits are only as good as any restaurant's profits in a crack infested, bum-laden part of town!?

When instead, the former owner can invest his money in a nice part of town, startup a slamming, hip restaurant....and make alot more money?


Sorry, to me, I see a failing franchise.....Perry coming back, aint going to improve shit....what incentive does perry have to return to a franchise that schlong and fucka have been pissing on for 12 years?

strangegrey wrote:Let's ask this question of the original poster.

Lets assume you were a co-owner in a restaurant. The restaurant was setup as a partnership and you were one of 3 owners. The other two owners, due to disagreements on how the restaurant should be run, pushed you out.

You agreed to disolve the partnership, and you gave public notice of your departure....the remaining two owners, reformed the partnership and started restructuring the business in a very distasteful way. The moved, what was a fantastically successful italian restaurant with a high income bracket clientele, to a seedy part of town. They started selling pizza out of a cutout window on the street. The back alley was a frequent stop for drug addicts and homeless bums looking for handouts and thrown away, half eaten bread. Approximately 3% of the original high income bracket restaurant customers still patronize the place...but do so out of nostalgia for the old place (which was beyond compare). The 3% of those that still patronize the place, even though they drive past crack houses and dive bars to get to the new restaurant, refuse to accept reality....thinking someday, the restaurant will come back, stronger than ever....and the place will restore all the old feelings....nevermind the crack viles and needles they have to step over to get into the front door. Never mind that the water they serve at the tables is now light brown, instead of clear. Nevermind the fact that the portions are 1/2 what they used to be and that the food doesn't taste the same. They figure...same name...a few of the same owners....it'll be back...and I'll have my memories of this fantastic place back too!

The problem is, 97% of the original clientele has moved on....found a better restaurant in a nice part of town, without crack addicts and bums. They're actually eating fillet mignon and fried calamari at their new favorite restaurant, instead of eating fried clams bought from white castle and placed on a plate and served in the shithole, like the stuck-in-the-past 3% that are desperate for a return to the glory days of the restaurant.

It's safe to say the 2 remaining owners drove the restaurant into the fucking ground, with bad management and shitty atmosphere. If they 2 partners finally get it through their heads and offer the original first partner an amazing deal to return, so that the restaurant can improve...tell, me, what amount of incentive or money would intice the original owner??? given the fact that the restaurant is a shithole, will never amount to anything more than a slightly better shithole....and the potential for profits are only as good as any restaurant's profits in a crack infested, bum-laden part of town!?

When instead, the former owner can invest his money in a nice part of town, startup a slamming, hip restaurant....and make alot more money?


Sorry, to me, I see a failing franchise.....Perry coming back, aint going to improve shit....what incentive does perry have to return to a franchise that schlong and fucka have been pissing on for 12 years?

u not a fan of journey after perry then?

[quote="strangegrey"]Let's ask this question of the original poster.



When instead, the former owner can invest his money in a nice part of town, startup a slamming, hip restaurant....and make alot more money?

Pun intended?

Irwin M Fletcher wrote:u not a fan of journey after perry then?

I didn't say that. Don't assume that the above description is *my* pov. I'm trying to convey what Perry probably thinks of this....

He warned schlong and the twinkle-toed faggot not to crack the stone. Let me ask you...do you think the listened? I strongly suspect that Perry feels that not only cracked it, but pounded it to dust. Why would you return to save two fuckholes from restoring a business that they destroyed on your behalf? If it were me, I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire....

Irwin M Fletcher wrote:

venomnation wrote:

CONGRATULATIONS!

You've just started the one millionth "Do You Think Steve Perry's Coming Back" thread.....I give it 20 posts...and it's dead...lol.

Oh and to answer your question...

"no".

be fair, im new,lol

I saw you were new! Welcome! This is one of the discussed-ad-nauseum topics on the board, but you wouldn't know that as a newbie. Don't be discouraged, hang around and you'll be one of the gang really quick!

strangegrey wrote:Let's ask this question of the original poster.

Lets assume you were a co-owner in a restaurant. The restaurant was setup as a partnership and you were one of 3 owners. The other two owners, due to disagreements on how the restaurant should be run, pushed you out.

You agreed to disolve the partnership, and you gave public notice of your departure....the remaining two owners, reformed the partnership and started restructuring the business in a very distasteful way. The moved, what was a fantastically successful italian restaurant with a high income bracket clientele, to a seedy part of town. They started selling pizza out of a cutout window on the street. The back alley was a frequent stop for drug addicts and homeless bums looking for handouts and thrown away, half eaten bread. Approximately 3% of the original high income bracket restaurant customers still patronize the place...but do so out of nostalgia for the old place (which was beyond compare). The 3% of those that still patronize the place, even though they drive past crack houses and dive bars to get to the new restaurant, refuse to accept reality....thinking someday, the restaurant will come back, stronger than ever....and the place will restore all the old feelings....nevermind the crack viles and needles they have to step over to get into the front door. Never mind that the water they serve at the tables is now light brown, instead of clear. Nevermind the fact that the portions are 1/2 what they used to be and that the food doesn't taste the same. They figure...same name...a few of the same owners....it'll be back...and I'll have my memories of this fantastic place back too!

The problem is, 97% of the original clientele has moved on....found a better restaurant in a nice part of town, without crack addicts and bums. They're actually eating fillet mignon and fried calamari at their new favorite restaurant, instead of eating fried clams bought from white castle and placed on a plate and served in the shithole, like the stuck-in-the-past 3% that are desperate for a return to the glory days of the restaurant.

It's safe to say the 2 remaining owners drove the restaurant into the fucking ground, with bad management and shitty atmosphere. If they 2 partners finally get it through their heads and offer the original first partner an amazing deal to return, so that the restaurant can improve...tell, me, what amount of incentive or money would intice the original owner??? given the fact that the restaurant is a shithole, will never amount to anything more than a slightly better shithole....and the potential for profits are only as good as any restaurant's profits in a crack infested, bum-laden part of town!?

When instead, the former owner can invest his money in a nice part of town, startup a slamming, hip restaurant....and make alot more money?


Sorry, to me, I see a failing franchise.....Perry coming back, aint going to improve shit....what incentive does perry have to return to a franchise that schlong and fucka have been pissing on for 12 years?

Wow, that's the most detailed metaphor I've ever read!

Jesus Frank... that was... absolutely beautiful. I shed a tear. (though my fit of laughter)

strangegrey wrote:Sorry, to me, I see a failing franchise.....Perry coming back, aint going to improve shit....what incentive does perry have to return to a franchise that schlong and fucka have been pissing on for 12 years?

He doesn't. Who the hell would want to see such a reunion at this point in time?
I wouldn't. That would be just sad and sorry. A "failing franchise" is spot on.

I'm not going to be arrogant enough to say "Perry wouldn't do it anyway" or "he has too much integrity" because I don't know him. But I don't think he would. I don't think anyone in their RIGHT mind would, not after watching what this band did to itself.

strangegrey wrote:
He warned schlong and the twinkle-toed faggot not to crack the stone. Let me ask you...do you think the listened? I strongly suspect that Perry feels that not only cracked it, but pounded it to dust. Why would you return to save two fuckholes from restoring a business that they destroyed on your behalf? If it were me, I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire....

And Steve Perry's a fuckin' saint, right? For cripes sake, the guy disappeared for almost 9 years in 1987 and brought this band to a grinding halt! You do remember that strangegrey??!!

Journey doesn't need Perry for the first time in 22 years. Fuck him. The restaurant is akin to what is was circa 1986. 81? No. 83? No. 86? Absolutely. Perry was the guy that initially fucked up and began the demise of the "restaurant" and you know it, Frank.

strangegrey wrote:I didn't say that. Don't assume that the above description is *my* pov. I'm trying to convey what Perry probably thinks of this....

He warned schlong and the twinkle-toed faggot not to crack the stone. Let me ask you...do you think the listened? I strongly suspect that Perry feels that not only cracked it, but pounded it to dust. Why would you return to save two fuckholes from restoring a business that they destroyed on your behalf? If it were me, I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire....

Dude, your over-the-top language and constant bashing of the "fuckholes" renders pretty much everything you say to be no more than a distant fading sound.

Saint John wrote:Journey doesn't need Perry for the first time in 22 years. Fuck him. The restaurant is akin to what is was circa 1986. 81? No. 83? No. 86? Absolutely. Perry was the guy that initially fucked up and began the demise of the "restaurant" and you know it, Frank.

There is absolutely nothing Perry could have done to Journey that would compare to what Schon and Cain did during Augeri's tenure. Nothing. Nada. Zippo. Case closed.