MR

Question: What is "corporate rock"? Journey, along with a host of other melodic rock bands have been tagged with the label "corporate rock" and "sell outs", but what does that mean, really. Is it really so bad to create music that is approachable and easily digestible by casual listeners such as myself? I grew up in the late '70's & early '80's, and while I never considered myself a fan of the rock genre, I've always considered bands like Journey, Foreigner, Styx, etc., to be, for the most part, very listenable. Isn't that the point of music? Judging by the sold-out stadiums, those bands clearly enjoyed mass appeal in their day. Isn't that the point of being in the music business?

It seems to me, somehow, somebody, somewhere, found a way to turn what should have been viewed as a positive into a negative. My guess: professional jealousy.

Any thoughts?

Jubilee wrote:Question: What is "corporate rock"? Journey, along with a host of other melodic rock bands have been tagged with the label "corporate rock" and "sell outs", but what does that mean, really. Is it really so bad to create music that is approachable and easily digestible by casual listeners such as myself? I grew up in the late '70's & early '80's, and while I never considered myself a fan of the rock genre, I've always considered bands like Journey, Foreigner, Styx, etc., to be, for the most part, very listenable. Isn't that the point of music? Judging by the sold-out stadiums, those bands clearly enjoyed mass appeal in their day. Isn't that the point of being in the music business?

It seems to me, somehow, somebody, somewhere, found a way to turn what should have been viewed as a positive into a negative. My guess: professional jealousy.

Any thoughts?

Yeah but for true artists they find the term offensive - aka Steve Perry - he does not want his songs attached to products....I get his point...he put his heart and soul into these songs, and now they are selling cell phones.

portland wrote:

Jubilee wrote:Question: What is "corporate rock"? Journey, along with a host of other melodic rock bands have been tagged with the label "corporate rock" and "sell outs", but what does that mean, really. Is it really so bad to create music that is approachable and easily digestible by casual listeners such as myself? I grew up in the late '70's & early '80's, and while I never considered myself a fan of the rock genre, I've always considered bands like Journey, Foreigner, Styx, etc., to be, for the most part, very listenable. Isn't that the point of music? Judging by the sold-out stadiums, those bands clearly enjoyed mass appeal in their day. Isn't that the point of being in the music business?

It seems to me, somehow, somebody, somewhere, found a way to turn what should have been viewed as a positive into a negative. My guess: professional jealousy.

Any thoughts?

Yeah but for true artists they find the term offensive - aka Steve Perry - he does not want his songs attached to products....I get his point...he put his heart and soul into these songs, and now they are selling cell phones.

The use of songs for commercial purposes is a completely different issue. I used to think I was relatively neutral on the whole use of songs in ads issue, then I heard Todd Rundgren's "Hello, It's Me" used in an antacid commercial. Suddenly, I saw the light.

Jubilee wrote:

portland wrote:

Jubilee wrote:Question: What is "corporate rock"? Journey, along with a host of other melodic rock bands have been tagged with the label "corporate rock" and "sell outs", but what does that mean, really. Is it really so bad to create music that is approachable and easily digestible by casual listeners such as myself? I grew up in the late '70's & early '80's, and while I never considered myself a fan of the rock genre, I've always considered bands like Journey, Foreigner, Styx, etc., to be, for the most part, very listenable. Isn't that the point of music? Judging by the sold-out stadiums, those bands clearly enjoyed mass appeal in their day. Isn't that the point of being in the music business?

It seems to me, somehow, somebody, somewhere, found a way to turn what should have been viewed as a positive into a negative. My guess: professional jealousy.

Any thoughts?

Yeah but for true artists they find the term offensive - aka Steve Perry - he does not want his songs attached to products....I get his point...he put his heart and soul into these songs, and now they are selling cell phones.

The use of songs for commercial purposes is a completely different issue. I used to think I was relatively neutral on the whole use of songs in ads issue, then I heard Todd Rundgren's "Hello, It's Me" used in an antacid commercial. Suddenly, I saw the light.

Todd needs the money bad, trust me on this...

Ehwmatt wrote:

Jubilee wrote: The use of songs for commercial purposes is a completely different issue. I used to think I was relatively neutral on the whole use of songs in ads issue, then I heard Todd Rundgren's "Hello, It's Me" used in an antacid commercial. Suddenly, I saw the light.

Todd needs the money bad, trust me on this...

Oh, I don't doubt it.

Jubilee wrote:

Ehwmatt wrote:

Jubilee wrote: The use of songs for commercial purposes is a completely different issue. I used to think I was relatively neutral on the whole use of songs in ads issue, then I heard Todd Rundgren's "Hello, It's Me" used in an antacid commercial. Suddenly, I saw the light.

Todd needs the money bad, trust me on this...

Oh, I don't doubt it.

He's still the man though.

Thirty yrs ago there was always someone yapping and trying to use label terms like corporate rock. They were getting cut out of the picture i.e. $$$$$. Guess what, these bands did not need promotion because they were soooo successful being groups that could write, play live with real musicians and actually have a singer that brought in the concert crowds selling millions of tickets on tour and millions of records, The control of profits was switchng to the bands and their legal reps instead of the record companies. The RnR HOF are probably those displaced people and that is why they live in the past.

Jubilee wrote:

Ehwmatt wrote:Todd needs the money bad, trust me on this...

Oh, I don't doubt it.

While I make no claims to being Todd's accountant or know anything about his finances, I do remember reading him say this when he talked about joining THE NEW CARS

Rundgren has referred to the project as "an opportunity ... for me to pay my bills, play to a larger audience, work with musicians I know and like, and ideally have some fun for a year."

Todd needs the money bad, trust me on this...[/quote]


You sure dude? He gets royalties from Bat out of hell, which sells 250k copies a year still.....

Check your PM, Gordon

I believe Journey was one of, if not the first to have a corporate sponsor (budweiser) for their tour (escape tour)
Besides that, Rolling Stone magazine made that shit up because they hate Journey.

Escape Artist wrote:I believe Journey was one of, if not the first to have a corporate sponsor (budweiser) for their tour (escape tour)
Besides that, Rolling Stone magazine made that shit up because they hate Journey.

Right. The point is the tag stuck with Journey as well as the other bands. The question is: Why?

Jubilee wrote:

Escape Artist wrote:I believe Journey was one of, if not the first to have a corporate sponsor (budweiser) for their tour (escape tour)
Besides that, Rolling Stone magazine made that shit up because they hate Journey.

Right. The point is the tag stuck with Journey as well as the other bands. The question is: Why?

That's what I'd like to know. Rolling Stone magazine gave the Escape album 2 stars

Jubilee wrote:

Escape Artist wrote:I believe Journey was one of, if not the first to have a corporate sponsor (budweiser) for their tour (escape tour)
Besides that, Rolling Stone magazine made that shit up because they hate Journey.

Right. The point is the tag stuck with Journey as well as the other bands. The question is: Why?

And the answer is...jealousy.

Saint John wrote:

Jubilee wrote:

Escape Artist wrote:I believe Journey was one of, if not the first to have a corporate sponsor (budweiser) for their tour (escape tour)
Besides that, Rolling Stone magazine made that shit up because they hate Journey.

Right. The point is the tag stuck with Journey as well as the other bands. The question is: Why?

And the answer is...jealousy.

And they have been known to sing about women, which Jann Wenner the polesmoker will have none of.

Gordon from Edinburgh wrote:Todd needs the money bad, trust me on this...

Gerry Rafferty still collects around 150K a year off of the song Baker Street, so I'm thinking a prolific artist like Todd should have some type of modest income off his past work.

Escape Artist wrote:I believe Journey was one of, if not the first to have a corporate sponsor (budweiser) for their tour (escape tour)
Besides that, Rolling Stone magazine made that shit up because they hate Journey.

When will Journey be inducted into the R&RHOF?

When Dave Marsh kicks the bucket.

With some of the POS's that have already beat Journey and not accomplished anywhere near their greatness, well, the Rock Hall may not be all that great anymore anyway.

Gunbot wrote:

Gordon from Edinburgh wrote:Todd needs the money bad, trust me on this...

Gerry Rafferty still collects around 150K a year off of the song Baker Street, so I'm thinking a prolific artist like Todd should have some type of modest income off his past work.

Modest being the operative word here, GB. Modest doesn't help when you have a $1+ million house in Kauai and can't get a second mortgage like Todd does.

Ehwmatt wrote:

Gunbot wrote:

Gordon from Edinburgh wrote:Todd needs the money bad, trust me on this...

Gerry Rafferty still collects around 150K a year off of the song Baker Street, so I'm thinking a prolific artist like Todd should have some type of modest income off his past work.

Modest being the operative word here, GB. Modest doesn't help when you have a $1+ million house in Kauai and can't get a second mortgage like Todd does.

Well of course, if you're living beyond your means..

I think what bothers me about it is that they imply that Journey did not remain true to their music.

Yes, it was different than Rollie was with the group, but the current lineup was coming into their own. And that line up had to write, sing and play what was THEIR music.

escapefan wrote:I think what bothers me about it is that they imply that Journey did not remain true to their music.

Yes, it was different than Rollie was with the group, but the current lineup was coming into their own. And that line up had to write, sing and play what was THEIR music.

Agreed. They also had to change with the times and embrace the new sounds of the '80's. I suppose they could have remained true to their musical roots, but that would have meant being relegated to the dust bin of rock and roll history - which, by the way, is what the band (and Herbie Herbert) were trying to avoid by hiring a certain lead singer.