MR

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:07 am**

This is meant to be a playful but thought provoking question: a lot of users on this board consider Journey to be a "tribute band" without Perry. My question is, since Perry's FtLoSM tour featured many more Journey songs than Perry songs, does that mean, at that time, he was fronting a tribute band to Journey?

I'm expecting a resonant "no," but I'm curious as to what defines a tribute band and why some people believe that they are one now.

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:22 am**

If you do a blind test, I think it's easier to hear the difference between Singers than musicians. Journey is all about the vocals as far as critics are concerned. No matter how good a guitar player Neal is, if Perry went on the road he wouldn't be saying I need to find a guitarist who can carry forward the legacy sound of Neal's guitar. On the other hand Journey has to look for some one that has a vocal resemblance to Perry. Well, actually they really could have gotten some one different but they want to pay tribute to the vocal sound that Perry had.

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:23 am**

Gideon wrote:This is meant to be a playful but thought provoking question: a lot of users on this board consider Journey to be a "tribute band" without Perry. My question is, since Perry's FtLoSM tour featured many more Journey songs than Perry songs, does that mean, at that time, he was fronting a tribute band to Journey?

I'm expecting a resonant "no," but I'm curious as to what defines a tribute band and why some people believe that they are one now.

No offense but it's a rather dumb question, imo. No...Journey playing music that members who are still in the band helped to create and performed are not playing tribute to themselves by continuing to play their own music. Likewise for Perry..if he helped create and performed it then he has every right to call it his own as well and continue to sing it outside of being with the band. The songs belong to all members involved in creating them and they all individually have every right to perform them whenever they want. A tribute act is to pay tribute to someone elses work. On a stricter more defining basis I guess one could argue that someone can also pay tribute to themselves but thats a weak argument because tribute bands as we have come to recognize them perform others work and not their own original material.

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:27 am**

Forget the term Tribute. Journey is a Heritage act according to label big wigs. They can just play their old music every year with out having to sell anything new. If you want them for a tour, they're great, If you want them for a new multi platinum album, forget it.
Foreigner, Reo and Styx all fall into the same category. Journey's 2006 tour was just as big as that was without a Walmart deal or top 10 album.
Journey is great for touring, unfortunately they seem to be only able to do it part time since their new singer doesn't handle cold weather too well.

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:27 am**

Gunbot wrote:If you do a blind test, I think it's easier to hear the difference between Singers than musicians. Journey is all about the vocals as far as critics are concerned. No matter how good a guitar player Neal is, if Perry went on the road he wouldn't be saying I need to find a guitarist who can carry forward the legacy sound of Neal's guitar. On the other hand Journey has to look for some one that has a vocal resemblance to Perry. Well, actually they really could have gotten some one different but they want to pay tribute to the vocal sound that Perry had.

As long as they write and perform post-Perry music they're not a tribute band. Sure, that's what the people want to hear, but that's not Journey's fault. It's hugely insulting to call the remaining guys a tribute to Steve Perry. Remember, he had a tenth of the success solo as he did with Journey. They all needed each other.

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:38 am**

Rick wrote:
Gunbot wrote:If you do a blind test, I think it's easier to hear the difference between Singers than musicians. Journey is all about the vocals as far as critics are concerned. No matter how good a guitar player Neal is, if Perry went on the road he wouldn't be saying I need to find a guitarist who can carry forward the legacy sound of Neal's guitar. On the other hand Journey has to look for some one that has a vocal resemblance to Perry. Well, actually they really could have gotten some one different but they want to pay tribute to the vocal sound that Perry had.

As long as they write and perform post-Perry music they're not a tribute band. Sure, that's what the people want to hear, but that's not Journey's fault. It's hugely insulting to call the remaining guys a tribute to Steve Perry. Remember, he had a tenth of the success solo as he did with Journey. They all needed each other.

I'm not calling them a straight up tribute band, I said they want to pay tribute to the vocal sound of Perry. If they didn't, JSS would be their singer right now. Look at Queen. They could have gotten a Freddie sound alike but they went for a new sound and seem to to be doing okay as far as still selling out stadiums.

Anyway as I said they are now considered a Heritage band. That is how I will refer to them until they release an album without any retreads on it.

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:45 am**

Gideon wrote:This is meant to be a playful but thought provoking question: a lot of users on this board consider Journey to be a "tribute band" without Perry. My question is, since Perry's FtLoSM tour featured many more Journey songs than Perry songs, does that mean, at that time, he was fronting a tribute band to Journey?

Absolutely.

100% yes.

People crucify present-day Journey for continuing on without Perry, but Perry gets a free ride for going out and playing Journey songs without Neal, Jonathan, Ross, Smitty or anybody else who was a part of Journey. It baffles me to no end. Why can Perry have someone else playing all of their parts, but Journey can't have someone else singing Perry's parts?

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:53 am**

Gideon wrote:This is meant to be a playful but thought provoking question: a lot of users on this board consider Journey to be a "tribute band" without Perry. My question is, since Perry's FtLoSM tour featured many more Journey songs than Perry songs, does that mean, at that time, he was fronting a tribute band to Journey?

I'm expecting a resonant "no," but I'm curious as to what defines a tribute band and why some people believe that they are one now.

See the shit you started. :lol:

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:54 am**

Gunbot wrote:If you do a blind test, I think it's easier to hear the difference between Singers than musicians. Journey is all about the vocals as far as critics are concerned. No matter how good a guitar player Neal is, if Perry went on the road he wouldn't be saying I need to find a guitarist who can carry forward the legacy sound of Neal's guitar. On the other hand Journey has to look for some one that has a vocal resemblance to Perry. Well, actually they really could have gotten some one different but they want to pay tribute to the vocal sound that Perry had.

I fall into this category!!! Although, I did miss Gregg very much after his departure, but I hung. As much as I love
ROR, I will forever wonder how it would've been with Smitty and Ross....YES, ROSS!!! I did not like
any of these changes, but I hung!! When The Voice behind the music parted ways, so did I. I evidently missed
some great stuff as a result, but it was my choice!! :wink:

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:56 am**

fightingilliniJRNY wrote:
Gideon wrote:This is meant to be a playful but thought provoking question: a lot of users on this board consider Journey to be a "tribute band" without Perry. My question is, since Perry's FtLoSM tour featured many more Journey songs than Perry songs, does that mean, at that time, he was fronting a tribute band to Journey?

Absolutely.

100% yes.

People crucify present-day Journey for continuing on without Perry, but Perry gets a free ride for going out and playing Journey songs without Neal, Jonathan, Ross, Smitty or anybody else who was a part of Journey. It baffles me to no end. Why can Perry have someone else playing all of their parts, but Journey can't have someone else singing Perry's parts?

I can agree with that also. Now, if Soul Sirkus or Bad English played Journey songs during their gigs, would they been considered a cover band?

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:57 am**

fightingilliniJRNY wrote:
Gideon wrote:This is meant to be a playful but thought provoking question: a lot of users on this board consider Journey to be a "tribute band" without Perry. My question is, since Perry's FtLoSM tour featured many more Journey songs than Perry songs, does that mean, at that time, he was fronting a tribute band to Journey?

Absolutely.

100% yes.

People crucify present-day Journey for continuing on without Perry, but Perry gets a free ride for going out and playing Journey songs without Neal, Jonathan, Ross, Smitty or anybody else who was a part of Journey. It baffles me to no end. Why can Perry have someone else playing all of their parts, but Journey can't have someone else singing Perry's parts?

Thank you, lol. I thought it was just me. :lol:

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:59 am**

Gunbot wrote:
Rick wrote:
Gunbot wrote:If you do a blind test, I think it's easier to hear the difference between Singers than musicians. Journey is all about the vocals as far as critics are concerned. No matter how good a guitar player Neal is, if Perry went on the road he wouldn't be saying I need to find a guitarist who can carry forward the legacy sound of Neal's guitar. On the other hand Journey has to look for some one that has a vocal resemblance to Perry. Well, actually they really could have gotten some one different but they want to pay tribute to the vocal sound that Perry had.

As long as they write and perform post-Perry music they're not a tribute band. Sure, that's what the people want to hear, but that's not Journey's fault. It's hugely insulting to call the remaining guys a tribute to Steve Perry. Remember, he had a tenth of the success solo as he did with Journey. They all needed each other.

I'm not calling them a straight up tribute band, I said they want to pay tribute to the vocal sound of Perry. If they didn't, JSS would be their singer right now. Look at Queen. They could have gotten a Freddie sound alike but they went for a new sound and seem to to be doing okay as far as still selling out stadiums.

Anyway as I said they are now considered a Heritage band. That is how I will refer to them until they release an album without any retreads on it.

Arrival and Generations, you silly bastard. :lol:

And yes, I do see the shit I've started. It is thought provoking!

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 12:02 pm**

Gideon wrote:
Gunbot wrote:
Rick wrote:
Gunbot wrote:If you do a blind test, I think it's easier to hear the difference between Singers than musicians. Journey is all about the vocals as far as critics are concerned. No matter how good a guitar player Neal is, if Perry went on the road he wouldn't be saying I need to find a guitarist who can carry forward the legacy sound of Neal's guitar. On the other hand Journey has to look for some one that has a vocal resemblance to Perry. Well, actually they really could have gotten some one different but they want to pay tribute to the vocal sound that Perry had.

As long as they write and perform post-Perry music they're not a tribute band. Sure, that's what the people want to hear, but that's not Journey's fault. It's hugely insulting to call the remaining guys a tribute to Steve Perry. Remember, he had a tenth of the success solo as he did with Journey. They all needed each other.

I'm not calling them a straight up tribute band, I said they want to pay tribute to the vocal sound of Perry. If they didn't, JSS would be their singer right now. Look at Queen. They could have gotten a Freddie sound alike but they went for a new sound and seem to to be doing okay as far as still selling out stadiums.

Anyway as I said they are now considered a Heritage band. That is how I will refer to them until they release an album without any retreads on it.

Arrival and Generations, you silly bastard.

And yes, I do see the shit I've started. It is thought provoking!

I didn't call them a Heritage band back then either. But then came Disc 2.

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 12:25 pm**

Gunbot wrote:
Gideon wrote:
Gunbot wrote:
Rick wrote:
Gunbot wrote:If you do a blind test, I think it's easier to hear the difference between Singers than musicians. Journey is all about the vocals as far as critics are concerned. No matter how good a guitar player Neal is, if Perry went on the road he wouldn't be saying I need to find a guitarist who can carry forward the legacy sound of Neal's guitar. On the other hand Journey has to look for some one that has a vocal resemblance to Perry. Well, actually they really could have gotten some one different but they want to pay tribute to the vocal sound that Perry had.

As long as they write and perform post-Perry music they're not a tribute band. Sure, that's what the people want to hear, but that's not Journey's fault. It's hugely insulting to call the remaining guys a tribute to Steve Perry. Remember, he had a tenth of the success solo as he did with Journey. They all needed each other.

I'm not calling them a straight up tribute band, I said they want to pay tribute to the vocal sound of Perry. If they didn't, JSS would be their singer right now. Look at Queen. They could have gotten a Freddie sound alike but they went for a new sound and seem to to be doing okay as far as still selling out stadiums.

Anyway as I said they are now considered a Heritage band. That is how I will refer to them until they release an album without any retreads on it.

Arrival and Generations, you silly bastard.

And yes, I do see the shit I've started. It is thought provoking!

I didn't call them a Heritage band back then either. But then came Disc 2.

Disc 2 was Walmart's thing. There would have been no deal without it. Disc 1 was Journey's doing, Walmart wanted 3 or 4 new songs, but the band said "Fuck dat shit" and did a whole record. They did redo Faith In The Heartland, but I think that was smart, because it was a great song, languishing on Generations, which didn't go anywhere. It couldn't go on Disc 2 because it doesn't classify as a GH.

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 12:55 pm**

I love D2 of Revelation and Schon and/or Cain cowrote all of them. It's JOURNEY if you want just Perry wait for the supposed new release or spin one of his 2 solo albums or one of the compilations of his.

Still grin while listening to D2 and I crank it up loud. because they sound good.

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:02 pm**

Now that I have educated myself on the Loss leader strategy of Walmart, I understand why they only wanted the Greatest Hits and why we will not see another Journey package from them.

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:31 pm**

Rick wrote:
Gunbot wrote:If you do a blind test, I think it's easier to hear the difference between Singers than musicians. Journey is all about the vocals as far as critics are concerned. No matter how good a guitar player Neal is, if Perry went on the road he wouldn't be saying I need to find a guitarist who can carry forward the legacy sound of Neal's guitar. On the other hand Journey has to look for some one that has a vocal resemblance to Perry. Well, actually they really could have gotten some one different but they want to pay tribute to the vocal sound that Perry had.

As long as they write and perform post-Perry music they're not a tribute band. Sure, that's what the people want to hear, but that's not Journey's fault. It's hugely insulting to call the remaining guys a tribute to Steve Perry. Remember, he had a tenth of the success solo as he did with Journey. They all needed each other.

This sums up my standpoint quite nicely.

As far as Disc 2 is concerned, Ross summed it up best: they have the means to honor Perry's legacy to Journey through Arnel; they wanted to prove that he could hit the notes and do the motions while adding some of his own flavor. More importantly, it wasn't their idea. It was something that they had to do in order to get an awesome deal.

Kind've like how Perry "just had" to go for Raised on Radio at the expense of two bandmates; one of whom had been there five years longer than he had. :wink:

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:31 pm**

Gideon wrote:
Rick wrote:
Gunbot wrote:If you do a blind test, I think it's easier to hear the difference between Singers than musicians. Journey is all about the vocals as far as critics are concerned. No matter how good a guitar player Neal is, if Perry went on the road he wouldn't be saying I need to find a guitarist who can carry forward the legacy sound of Neal's guitar. On the other hand Journey has to look for some one that has a vocal resemblance to Perry. Well, actually they really could have gotten some one different but they want to pay tribute to the vocal sound that Perry had.

As long as they write and perform post-Perry music they're not a tribute band. Sure, that's what the people want to hear, but that's not Journey's fault. It's hugely insulting to call the remaining guys a tribute to Steve Perry. Remember, he had a tenth of the success solo as he did with Journey. They all needed each other.

This sums up my standpoint quite nicely.

As far as Disc 2 is concerned, Ross summed it up best: they have the means to honor Perry's legacy to Journey through Arnel; they wanted to prove that he could hit the notes and do the motions while adding some of his own flavor. More importantly, it wasn't their idea. It was something that they had to do in order to get an awesome deal.

Kind've like how Perry "just had" to go for Raised on Radio at the expense of two bandmates; one of whom had been there five years longer than he had.

Yep, and that album was supposed to be called "Freedom". Perry was a total control freak during those times. I wish HH and the band would have stood their ground on that.

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:35 pm**

Haters

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:40 pm**

Gunbot wrote:Haters

You know I love SP. He admitted himself that he was a control freak.

[DISCLAIMER]

The love I have for SP is as an artist, and in a completely heterosexual way. You know, like a brudda. :lol:

[/DISCLAIMER]

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:48 pm**

Queers

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:54 pm**

Gunbot wrote:Queers

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 3:56 pm**

Rick wrote:
Gunbot wrote:Haters

You know I love SP. He admitted himself that he was a control freak.

[DISCLAIMER]

The love I have for SP is as an artist, and in a completely heterosexual way. You know, like a brudda.

[/DISCLAIMER]

Hey, we get it Rick - you love the voice of the man, but not the body of the man, not even in a ScarabGator mancrush kinda way.

So is a male loon a moon?

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 3:57 pm**

Arianddu wrote:
Rick wrote:
Gunbot wrote:Haters

You know I love SP. He admitted himself that he was a control freak.

[DISCLAIMER]

The love I have for SP is as an artist, and in a completely heterosexual way. You know, like a brudda.

[/DISCLAIMER]

Hey, we get it Rick - you love the voice of the man, but not the body of the man, not even in a ScarabGator mancrush kinda way.

So is a male loon a moon?[/quote]

No...they're pretty much just gay! :lol:

(No offense Bobby!) :lol:

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:22 pm**

Gideon wrote:
fightingilliniJRNY wrote:
Gideon wrote:This is meant to be a playful but thought provoking question: a lot of users on this board consider Journey to be a "tribute band" without Perry. My question is, since Perry's FtLoSM tour featured many more Journey songs than Perry songs, does that mean, at that time, he was fronting a tribute band to Journey?

Absolutely.

100% yes.

People crucify present-day Journey for continuing on without Perry, but Perry gets a free ride for going out and playing Journey songs without Neal, Jonathan, Ross, Smitty or anybody else who was a part of Journey. It baffles me to no end. Why can Perry have someone else playing all of their parts, but Journey can't have someone else singing Perry's parts?

Thank you, lol. I thought it was just me.

Well, they can do whatever they want, and they do and have. As they wrote the music, they have full license to do as they please. They don't seem to have a problem with it, but it's the fans that have an issue here and there. Some call it tribute, some call it classic, some call it crap, some call it fantastic. It's all in the ears of the beholder.

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:51 am**

Blueskies wrote:
Gideon wrote:This is meant to be a playful but thought provoking question: a lot of users on this board consider Journey to be a "tribute band" without Perry. My question is, since Perry's FtLoSM tour featured many more Journey songs than Perry songs, does that mean, at that time, he was fronting a tribute band to Journey?

I'm expecting a resonant "no," but I'm curious as to what defines a tribute band and why some people believe that they are one now.
No offense but it's a rather dumb question, imo. No...Journey playing music that members who are still in the band helped to create and performed are not playing tribute to themselves by continuing to play their own music. Likewise for Perry..if he helped create and performed it then he has every right to call it his own as well and continue to sing it outside of being with the band. The songs belong to all members involved in creating them and they all individually have every right to perform them whenever they want. A tribute act is to pay tribute to someone elses work. On a stricter more defining basis I guess one could argue that someone can also pay tribute to themselves but thats a weak argument because tribute bands as we have come to recognize them perform others work and not their own original material.

WE HAVE A WINNER, WE HAVE A WINNER.

The tribute band comments are totally annoying and incorrect. Jeremey's band is a tribute band. Perry's band and Journey are not.

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:34 am**

Gideon wrote:This is meant to be a playful but thought provoking question: a lot of users on this board consider Journey to be a "tribute band" without Perry. My question is, since Perry's FtLoSM tour featured many more Journey songs than Perry songs, does that mean, at that time, he was fronting a tribute band to Journey?

I'm expecting a resonant "no," but I'm curious as to what defines a tribute band and why some people believe that they are one now.

As far as Perry's band goes, I find it hard to believe how anybody would think such. Perry put together a solo band for an album, then told them to play Journey when they went on tour. On the FTLOSM material, the band sounds good. At times, even better than the studio takes. At covering Journey though, they were average at best. Take away Perry, and I would say a lot of the tribute/cover bands do a much better job at playing Journey material than the FTLOSM band. If Perry wanted to, he could have easily hand-picked people that could cover Journey dead on, vocals included. To some extent, I think the tour suffered for it, given the amount of Journey material that he played. Taking a real band out to promote an album did legitimize the effort however.

As far as Journey goes...no it isn't the same Journey that produced Escape and Frontiers. Neither was the Journey that produced Trial By Fire, even though the lineup was identical. Times change, people change, but as long as you are producing new music, I find it hard to say you are a tribute to yourself. Not all the fans may go along with your current direction, but that doesn't affect your standing as a band.

To me, the definition of a tribute/cover band is one that plays only someone else's songs--as in no original material. I would put Jeremey's Frontiers, Hugo's Evolution and the others in this category. Some do more with the concept than others (visuals, look-alikes, etc), but the end result is you are playing a setlist that isn't your own.

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:05 am**

kgdjpubs wrote:
Gideon wrote:This is meant to be a playful but thought provoking question: a lot of users on this board consider Journey to be a "tribute band" without Perry. My question is, since Perry's FtLoSM tour featured many more Journey songs than Perry songs, does that mean, at that time, he was fronting a tribute band to Journey?

I'm expecting a resonant "no," but I'm curious as to what defines a tribute band and why some people believe that they are one now.

As far as Perry's band goes, I find it hard to believe how anybody would think such. Perry put together a solo band for an album, then told them to play Journey when they went on tour. On the FTLOSM material, the band sounds good. At times, even better than the studio takes. At covering Journey though, they were average at best. Take away Perry, and I would say a lot of the tribute/cover bands do a much better job at playing Journey material than the FTLOSM band. If Perry wanted to, he could have easily hand-picked people that could cover Journey dead on, vocals included. To some extent, I think the tour suffered for it, given the amount of Journey material that he played however. Taking a real band out to promote an album did legitimize the effort however.

As far as Journey goes...no it isn't the same Journey that produced Escape and Frontiers. Neither was the Journey that produced Trial By Fire, even though the lineup was identical. Times change, people change, but as long as you are producing new music, I find it hard to say you are a tribute to yourself. Not all the fans may go along with your current direction, but that doesn't affect your standing as a band.

To me, the definition of a tribute/cover band is one that plays only someone else's songs--as in no original material. I would put Jeremey's Frontiers, Hugo's Evolution and the others in this category. Some do more with the concept than others (visuals, look-alikes, etc), but the end result is you are playing a setlist that isn't your own.

Amen. A lot of good points.

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:06 am**

Very nice.

I'm one of those people who doesn't think that Perry was the singular thing that made Journey worthwhile, and seeing all these "tribute band" comments made no sense to me.

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:23 am**

I love Steve Perry and the era that he sang. He is no longer with the group. Wanting him back won't bring him back. So no more crying over sour grapes. :wink:

Steve has just as much right to sing Journey tunes as the rest of the guys. He wrote many of those songs. To Perry I say as Spock says: "Live well and Prosper".

As for the band as it is now. Good luck and best wishes. They are still Journey, and have the right to sing the songs they sing. The term "tribute" band comes from people not accepting the new sound with the new lead singer. They have a right to not like the new line up, but neither have control over who is playing, nor what the band does. It is not a tribute band to sing songs you wrote. Just sounds like they don't care for Arnel. I like his music, and Perry is not returning.

What is the harm in appreciating both Journey, and Steve in his solo efforts? They had the break-up. I was not a part of it, and I will not be forced to "take sides". Solomon himself would not know the whole of it! :lol:

MR

Question about the "tribute band" comments.

Question about the "tribute band" comments.

Re: Question about the "tribute band" comments.

Re: Question about the "tribute band" comments.

Re: Question about the "tribute band" comments.

Re: Question about the "tribute band" comments.

Re: Question about the "tribute band" comments.

Re: Question about the "tribute band" comments.

Re: Question about the "tribute band" comments.

Re: Question about the "tribute band" comments.

Re: Question about the "tribute band" comments.