MR

Could it have been possible that Steve Perry agreed not to perform any Journey songs live during the period in which the band supposedly was paying him as a six member all those years to keep him from going out later and competing with them on his own solo tour. A confidentiality agreement would have made it tough for him to explain to fans why they wouldn't be hearing those songs at his shows so he just shuts down and waits it out. Now with the alleged agreement over, Perry can go back out hit the road singing any thing he wants.

It makes sense to me and it's better than talking about vocal folds.

Gunbot wrote:Could it have been possible that Steve Perry agreed not to perform any Journey songs live during the period in which the band supposedly was paying him as a six member all those years to keep him from going out later and competing with them on his own solo tour. A confidentiality agreement would have made it tough for him to explain to fans why they wouldn't be hearing those songs at his shows so he just shuts down and waits it out. Now with the alleged agreement over, Perry can go back out hit the road singing any thing he wants.

It makes sense to me and it's better than talking about vocal folds.

A musical non-compete agreement? ...Who knows. Could be plausible.

Gunbot wrote:Could it have been possible that Steve Perry agreed not to perform any Journey songs live during the period in which the band supposedly was paying him as a six member all those years to keep him from going out later and competing with them on his own solo tour. A confidentiality agreement would have made it tough for him to explain to fans why they wouldn't be hearing those songs at his shows so he just shuts down and waits it out. Now with the alleged agreement over, Perry can go back out hit the road singing any thing he wants.

It makes sense to me and it's better than talking about vocal folds.

You might be on to something, and maybe without the Journey songs he knows his solo tour would be a bust. J/K

Gunbot wrote:Could it have been possible that Steve Perry agreed not to perform any Journey songs live during the period in which the band supposedly was paying him as a six member all those years to keep him from going out later and competing with them on his own solo tour. A confidentiality agreement would have made it tough for him to explain to fans why they wouldn't be hearing those songs at his shows so he just shuts down and waits it out. Now with the alleged agreement over, Perry can go back out hit the road singing any thing he wants.

It makes sense to me and it's better than talking about vocal folds.

Doubt it, Perry held all the cards so he could do whatever the hell he wanted to. Sing, not sing, tour, not tour.

Its pretty simple, if even remotely had a desire to perform, he would've made sure he could.

Neal has to use a lawyer to get a hold of him? There's some bad blood there.

Jana wrote:

Gunbot wrote:Could it have been possible that Steve Perry agreed not to perform any Journey songs live during the period in which the band supposedly was paying him as a six member all those years to keep him from going out later and competing with them on his own solo tour. A confidentiality agreement would have made it tough for him to explain to fans why they wouldn't be hearing those songs at his shows so he just shuts down and waits it out. Now with the alleged agreement over, Perry can go back out hit the road singing any thing he wants.

It makes sense to me and it's better than talking about vocal folds.

You might be on to something. And maybe without the Journey songs he knows his solo tour would be a bust.

Exactly, so he waits it out. Now the agreement is over, American Idol, and a new project with limited tour becomes plausible,
And no, DSB with the WhiteSox wouldn't count as a violation of the agreement as that was not a paid performance or used for any promotion of himself as a musician.

StoneCold wrote:

Gunbot wrote:Could it have been possible that Steve Perry agreed not to perform any Journey songs live during the period in which the band supposedly was paying him as a six member all those years to keep him from going out later and competing with them on his own solo tour. A confidentiality agreement would have made it tough for him to explain to fans why they wouldn't be hearing those songs at his shows so he just shuts down and waits it out. Now with the alleged agreement over, Perry can go back out hit the road singing any thing he wants.

It makes sense to me and it's better than talking about vocal folds.

Doubt it, Perry held all the cards so he could do whatever the hell he wanted to. Sing, not sing, tour, not tour.

The agreement was to allow them to continue using the name and playing songs he co-wrote.

Its pretty simple, if even remotely had a desire to perform, he would've made sure he could.

Neal has to use a lawyer to get a hold of him? There's some bad blood there.

He is a hard nut to crack. On one hand he says he has nothing to do with Journey anymore yet on the other hand , he handles production on the Houston DVD (with the approval of the band) and all the Sony Remasters.

StoneCold wrote:

Gunbot wrote:Could it have been possible that Steve Perry agreed not to perform any Journey songs live during the period in which the band supposedly was paying him as a six member all those years to keep him from going out later and competing with them on his own solo tour. A confidentiality agreement would have made it tough for him to explain to fans why they wouldn't be hearing those songs at his shows so he just shuts down and waits it out. Now with the alleged agreement over, Perry can go back out hit the road singing any thing he wants.

It makes sense to me and it's better than talking about vocal folds.

Doubt it, Perry held all the cards so he could do whatever the hell he wanted to. Sing, not sing, tour, not tour.

Its pretty simple, if even remotely had a desire to perform, he would've made sure he could.

It wouldn't be so far fetched if that agreement would have included an agreement that Perry be compensated during this time of absence (abiding by a non-compete clause). I don't see Perry signing an non-compete agreement without a counter agreement in place. Perhaps, he had always planned to get back out there after the end of the agreement and the stories being tossed around now are more grounded in reality than they were in the past. :::shrug:::

Either way, it doesn't matter to me, but I would be more inclined to support Perry on a solo tour than I have Journey in their current incarnation. Besides, I've never seen a Perry solo show yet either.

Debbie

Rocker Chic wrote:

StoneCold wrote:

Gunbot wrote:Could it have been possible that Steve Perry agreed not to perform any Journey songs live during the period in which the band supposedly was paying him as a six member all those years to keep him from going out later and competing with them on his own solo tour. A confidentiality agreement would have made it tough for him to explain to fans why they wouldn't be hearing those songs at his shows so he just shuts down and waits it out. Now with the alleged agreement over, Perry can go back out hit the road singing any thing he wants.

It makes sense to me and it's better than talking about vocal folds.

Doubt it, Perry held all the cards so he could do whatever the hell he wanted to. Sing, not sing, tour, not tour.

Its pretty simple, if even remotely had a desire to perform, he would've made sure he could.

It wouldn't be so far fetched if that agreement would have included an agreement that Perry be compensated during this time of absence (abiding by a non-compete clause). I don't see Perry signing an non-compete agreement without a counter agreement in place. Perhaps, he had always planned to get back out there after the end of the agreement and the stories being tossed around now are more grounded in reality than they were in the past. :::shrug:::

Either way, it doesn't matter to me, but I would be more inclined to support Perry on a solo tour than I have Journey in their current incarnation. Besides, I've never seen a Perry solo show yet either.

Debbie

Yeah, that is the only reason I could think of for them paying him as a six member. If he got a compensation deal where he was paid as a member of Journey and also allowed to go sing Journey songs on a solo tour, I would think the band's lawyer would end up being disbarred for incompetence.

What did Herbie say?
"I think he disliked them as much as they disliked him. Neal and Jon just weren't as smart as him. I love Neal like a son..he never was the sharpest knife in the drawer."

Gunbot wrote:Could it have been possible that Steve Perry agreed not to perform any Journey songs live during the period in which the band supposedly was paying him as a six member all those years to keep him from going out later and competing with them on his own solo tour. A confidentiality agreement would have made it tough for him to explain to fans why they wouldn't be hearing those songs at his shows so he just shuts down and waits it out. Now with the alleged agreement over, Perry can go back out hit the road singing any thing he wants.

It makes sense to me and it's better than talking about vocal folds.

This is a good possibility too - one of the problems when SP released his first solo album is the perception of how much it sounded like a Journey album, as his voice was the most recognizable part of their sound to most people. Can you imagine if both Steve Perry and Journey with a different singer were touring with the same catalogue at the same time? I love Neal's guitar playing, but I would go listen to Steve Perry!

Some might argue that SP couldn't sing the catalogue and wouldn't tour anyway, but considering that SP sang the classics and impressed the band at the beginning of the TBF sessions and they believed and planned on him touring, I also believe that he could have toured if he wanted to barring an agreement like this, which would benefit both sides. My question would be, in the 2001 VH1 BTM special, why would he then say he was talking about touring if he couldn't? Just to keep hope alive for the fans of the possibility in the future? Or could he tour at some point, but lose the touring payout from Journey? Either way, it seems to me that SP is a pretty sharp businessman.

SherriBerry wrote:

Gunbot wrote:Could it have been possible that Steve Perry agreed not to perform any Journey songs live during the period in which the band supposedly was paying him as a six member all those years to keep him from going out later and competing with them on his own solo tour. A confidentiality agreement would have made it tough for him to explain to fans why they wouldn't be hearing those songs at his shows so he just shuts down and waits it out. Now with the alleged agreement over, Perry can go back out hit the road singing any thing he wants.

It makes sense to me and it's better than talking about vocal folds.

This is a good possibility too - one of the problems when SP released his first solo album is the perception of how much it sounded like a Journey album, as his voice was the most recognizable part of their sound to most people. Can you imagine if both Steve Perry and Journey with a different singer were touring with the same catalogue at the same time? I love Neal's guitar playing, but I would go listen to Steve Perry!

Some might argue that SP couldn't sing the catalogue and wouldn't tour anyway, but considering that SP sang the classics and impressed the band at the beginning of the TBF sessions and they believed and planned on him touring, I also believe that he could have toured if he wanted to barring an agreement like this, which would benefit both sides. My question would be, in the 2001 VH1 BTM special, why would he then say he was talking about touring if he couldn't? Just to keep hope alive for the fans of the possibility in the future? Or could he tour at some point, but lose the touring payout from Journey? Either way, it seems to me that SP is a pretty sharp businessman.

I think getting paid by the band and having time do other things like the remasters probably netted Perry more money than if he would have left with nothing and tried to hit the road on his own.

I think now though Perry could play little places like the Canyon Club in Agoura Hills and just have higher prices for these dinner and a concert settings. Journey songs could be done with minimum arrangements, like S.A. did with the tunes during the JTTC gig last year. Nothing spectacular just enough for fans to enjoy in that type of candle light setting.

Gunbot wrote:

SherriBerry wrote:

Gunbot wrote:Could it have been possible that Steve Perry agreed not to perform any Journey songs live during the period in which the band supposedly was paying him as a six member all those years to keep him from going out later and competing with them on his own solo tour. A confidentiality agreement would have made it tough for him to explain to fans why they wouldn't be hearing those songs at his shows so he just shuts down and waits it out. Now with the alleged agreement over, Perry can go back out hit the road singing any thing he wants.

It makes sense to me and it's better than talking about vocal folds.

This is a good possibility too - one of the problems when SP released his first solo album is the perception of how much it sounded like a Journey album, as his voice was the most recognizable part of their sound to most people. Can you imagine if both Steve Perry and Journey with a different singer were touring with the same catalogue at the same time? I love Neal's guitar playing, but I would go listen to Steve Perry!

Some might argue that SP couldn't sing the catalogue and wouldn't tour anyway, but considering that SP sang the classics and impressed the band at the beginning of the TBF sessions and they believed and planned on him touring, I also believe that he could have toured if he wanted to barring an agreement like this, which would benefit both sides. My question would be, in the 2001 VH1 BTM special, why would he then say he was talking about touring if he couldn't? Just to keep hope alive for the fans of the possibility in the future? Or could he tour at some point, but lose the touring payout from Journey? Either way, it seems to me that SP is a pretty sharp businessman.

I think getting paid by the band and having time do other things like the remasters probably netted Perry more money than if he would have left with nothing and tried to hit the road on his own.

I think now though Perry could play little places like the Canyon Club in Agoura Hills and just have higher prices for these dinner and a concert settings. Journey songs could be done with minimum arrangements, like S.A. did with the tunes during the JTTC gig last year. Nothing spectacular just enough for fans to enjoy in that type of candle light setting.

I agree with this. I don't think he would need a full blown 'tour' to do very well. Smaller intimate settings with a smaller band, and I think people would be thrilled. Assuming he put out new material with it. Just no Rod Stewart type covers please.

It has strong possibilities, as I mentioned on the 13th. http://forums.melodicrock.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=41262&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

Gunbot wrote:Could it have been possible that Steve Perry agreed not to perform any Journey songs live during the period in which the band supposedly was paying him as a six member all those years to keep him from going out later and competing with them on his own solo tour. A confidentiality agreement would have made it tough for him to explain to fans why they wouldn't be hearing those songs at his shows so he just shuts down and waits it out. Now with the alleged agreement over, Perry can go back out hit the road singing any thing he wants.

It makes sense to me and it's better than talking about vocal folds.

Very interesting, G. Assuming there were such an agreement, or something like it, that would have been a smart move on Journey's part. Keeping Perry on lock-down for 10yrs would have prevented any siphoning off or diluting revenue/interest with two acts performing the same material a la the many (many) Temptations acts - each with one or two "original" members. The only problem is, assuming this is the case, and assuming the sun is about to, or has already set on this contract, well, now what? IMHO Journey has all but squandered all but the last few years of breathing room they would have been afforded by such an agreement. Now, presumably, Perry would be unleashed - and he's got 10+yrs worth of stuff in the vault that he's been collaborating on with a veritable list of who's who in the business. Journey's no better off now then they were the day they might have signed such an agreement.

Jubilee wrote:

Gunbot wrote:Could it have been possible that Steve Perry agreed not to perform any Journey songs live during the period in which the band supposedly was paying him as a six member all those years to keep him from going out later and competing with them on his own solo tour. A confidentiality agreement would have made it tough for him to explain to fans why they wouldn't be hearing those songs at his shows so he just shuts down and waits it out. Now with the alleged agreement over, Perry can go back out hit the road singing any thing he wants.

It makes sense to me and it's better than talking about vocal folds.

Very interesting, G. Assuming there were such an agreement, or something like it, that would have been a smart move on Journey's part. Keeping Perry on lock-down for 10yrs would have prevented any siphoning off or diluting revenue/interest with two acts performing the same material a la the many (many) Temptations acts - each with one or two "original" members. The only problem is, assuming this is the case, and assuming the sun is about to, or has already set on this contract, well, now what? IMHO Journey has all but squandered all but the last few years of breathing room they would have been afforded by such an agreement. Now, presumably, Perry would be unleashed - and he's got 10+yrs worth of stuff in the vault that he's been collaborating on with a veritable list of who's who in the business. Journey's no better off now then they were the day they might have signed such an agreement.

Gunbot wrote:

StoneCold wrote:

Gunbot wrote:Could it have been possible that Steve Perry agreed not to perform any Journey songs live during the period in which the band supposedly was paying him as a six member all those years to keep him from going out later and competing with them on his own solo tour. A confidentiality agreement would have made it tough for him to explain to fans why they wouldn't be hearing those songs at his shows so he just shuts down and waits it out. Now with the alleged agreement over, Perry can go back out hit the road singing any thing he wants.

It makes sense to me and it's better than talking about vocal folds.

Doubt it, Perry held all the cards so he could do whatever the hell he wanted to. Sing, not sing, tour, not tour.

The agreement was to allow them to continue using the name and playing songs he co-wrote.

Its pretty simple, if even remotely had a desire to perform, he would've made sure he could.

Neal has to use a lawyer to get a hold of him? There's some bad blood there.

He is a hard nut to crack. On one hand he says he has nothing to do with Journey anymore yet on the other hand , he handles production on the Houston DVD (with the approval of the band) and all the Sony Remasters.

I am so glad you brought that to the table; I have wondered about that also.

Are you trying new weed?

Yep could be as I myself have wondered but can not wrap my head around how AP could redo the dirty dozen during that 10 years with SMFP's consent.


He's a coming back!!

Onestepper wrote:

Gunbot wrote:

SherriBerry wrote:

Gunbot wrote:Could it have been possible that Steve Perry agreed not to perform any Journey songs live during the period in which the band supposedly was paying him as a six member all those years to keep him from going out later and competing with them on his own solo tour. A confidentiality agreement would have made it tough for him to explain to fans why they wouldn't be hearing those songs at his shows so he just shuts down and waits it out. Now with the alleged agreement over, Perry can go back out hit the road singing any thing he wants.

It makes sense to me and it's better than talking about vocal folds.

This is a good possibility too - one of the problems when SP released his first solo album is the perception of how much it sounded like a Journey album, as his voice was the most recognizable part of their sound to most people. Can you imagine if both Steve Perry and Journey with a different singer were touring with the same catalogue at the same time? I love Neal's guitar playing, but I would go listen to Steve Perry!

Some might argue that SP couldn't sing the catalogue and wouldn't tour anyway, but considering that SP sang the classics and impressed the band at the beginning of the TBF sessions and they believed and planned on him touring, I also believe that he could have toured if he wanted to barring an agreement like this, which would benefit both sides. My question would be, in the 2001 VH1 BTM special, why would he then say he was talking about touring if he couldn't? Just to keep hope alive for the fans of the possibility in the future? Or could he tour at some point, but lose the touring payout from Journey? Either way, it seems to me that SP is a pretty sharp businessman.

I think getting paid by the band and having time do other things like the remasters probably netted Perry more money than if he would have left with nothing and tried to hit the road on his own.

I think now though Perry could play little places like the Canyon Club in Agoura Hills and just have higher prices for these dinner and a concert settings. Journey songs could be done with minimum arrangements, like S.A. did with the tunes during the JTTC gig last year. Nothing spectacular just enough for fans to enjoy in that type of candle light setting.

I agree with this. I don't think he would need a full blown 'tour' to do very well. Smaller intimate settings with a smaller band, and I think people would be thrilled. Assuming he put out new material with it. Just no Rod Stewart type covers please.

I would love this!!!

Michigan Girl wrote:

Onestepper wrote:I agree with this. I don't think he would need a full blown 'tour' to do very well. Smaller intimate settings with a smaller band, and I think people would be thrilled. Assuming he put out new material with it. Just no Rod Stewart type covers please.

I would love this!!!

I just gotta say....I'm SO INTO how he sounds on the Jeff Golub song - been listening to "Can't Let You Go" a LOT.
If he sounds like that NOW.....cool.

TRAGChick wrote:

Michigan Girl wrote:

Onestepper wrote:I agree with this. I don't think he would need a full blown 'tour' to do very well. Smaller intimate settings with a smaller band, and I think people would be thrilled. Assuming he put out new material with it. Just no Rod Stewart type covers please.

I would love this!!!

I just gotta say....I'm SO INTO how he sounds on the Jeff Golub song - been listening to "Can't Let You Go" a LOT.
If he sounds like that NOW.....cool.

Have you been reading my diary, Nora? I've always thought the same thing. That was HOT! Nothing like a little music to bubble bathe to (glass of wine included, of course).

Jubilee wrote:

TRAGChick wrote:

Michigan Girl wrote:

Onestepper wrote:I agree with this. I don't think he would need a full blown 'tour' to do very well. Smaller intimate settings with a smaller band, and I think people would be thrilled. Assuming he put out new material with it. Just no Rod Stewart type covers please.

I would love this!!!

I just gotta say....I'm SO INTO how he sounds on the Jeff Golub song - been listening to "Can't Let You Go" a LOT.
If he sounds like that NOW.....cool.

Have you been reading my diary, Nora? I've always thought the same thing. That was HOT! Nothing like a little music to bubble bathe to (glass of wine included, of course).

Thanx, Lady!

Chianti is always welcome....

For those of you who've never heard this.....ENJOY!
http://free.mailbigfile.com/a611d3c57d1 ... tFiles.php

TRAGChick wrote:

Jubilee wrote:

TRAGChick wrote:

Michigan Girl wrote:

Onestepper wrote:I agree with this. I don't think he would need a full blown 'tour' to do very well. Smaller intimate settings with a smaller band, and I think people would be thrilled. Assuming he put out new material with it. Just no Rod Stewart type covers please.

I would love this!!!

I just gotta say....I'm SO INTO how he sounds on the Jeff Golub song - been listening to "Can't Let You Go" a LOT.
If he sounds like that NOW.....cool.

Have you been reading my diary, Nora? I've always thought the same thing. That was HOT! Nothing like a little music to bubble bathe to (glass of wine included, of course).

Thanx, Lady!

Chianti is always welcome....

For those of you who've never heard this.....ENJOY!
http://free.mailbigfile.com/a611d3c57d1 ... tFiles.php

Awesome I really dig that!! Thanks!!

The whole non-compete clause has been discussed for years now. I seem to remember LB coming in here and asking if people REALLY thought SP would sign something like that. That offhand remark told me all I needed to know.

Dude was pissed to the max and all lawyered up. If anybody was gonna turn the screws, he wasn't going to let it be Schon or Cain. They had neither the balls or the intelligence to do anything without Perry or Herbie holding their hands, anyway.

perryswoman wrote:Yep could be as I myself have wondered but can not wrap my head around how AP could redo the dirty dozen during that 10 years with SMFP's consent.


He's a coming back!!

It never should have been done, to record those songs was IMO wrong....and it sealed the fate of SP ever singing with them again. Nail was put in the coffin as they say