MR

A decent interview for both guys.

http://www.absoluteradio.co.uk/podcasts ... 010-11-10/

I noticed he skipped over JSS when going over the lineup of singers. I'm sure people will have something to say about that, as usual.

JRNYFan wrote:I noticed he skipped over JSS when going over the lineup of singers. I'm sure people will have something to say about that, as usual.

He was temporary fill in help, so what do you expect?

JRNYFan wrote:I noticed he skipped over JSS when going over the lineup of singers. I'm sure people will have something to say about that, as usual.

That's because he was too busy giving his opinion of their other former singer. At least he had some cool things to say after that.

Mick definitely comes as the wise old master in both interviews they did together. Why not learn from him, Neal. No need to keep wasting interview minutes telling us for the hundredth time how you were so wronged. We get it . As your plokker fans like to tell everyone, Move on.

When Neal is just talking music, he's great. You can hear the passion in his voice. It's just when you lead him in the direction of Journeys past that he doesn't know how to turn himself off sometimes.

steveo777 wrote:

JRNYFan wrote:I noticed he skipped over JSS when going over the lineup of singers. I'm sure people will have something to say about that, as usual.

He was temporary fill in help, so what do you expect?

Do your homework troll. JSS was an official member, signed sealed and delivered.

Rockindeano wrote:

steveo777 wrote:

JRNYFan wrote:I noticed he skipped over JSS when going over the lineup of singers. I'm sure people will have something to say about that, as usual.

He was temporary fill in help, so what do you expect?

Do your homework troll. JSS was an official member, signed sealed and delivered.

Just a difference of opinion. But if you want to resort to name calling, well, have at it. Did you read his fucking contract, what do you know? Apparently not much according to your friend Robbie G. Now that was a drive by troll.

Relax shithead. It's all in good fun. There has to be counter ballast around here.

Now fucking laugh and go drink a pounder, asshole.

Rockindeano wrote:

steveo777 wrote:

JRNYFan wrote:I noticed he skipped over JSS when going over the lineup of singers. I'm sure people will have something to say about that, as usual.

He was temporary fill in help, so what do you expect?

Do your homework troll. JSS was an official member, signed sealed and delivered.

You're missing Bruce Springsteen and Steve Van Zandt on Jimmy Fallon being interviewed. Fascinating.

By the way, Neal reiterates again he knew nothing about this tour until they day of the interview. Strange.

Don wrote:A decent interview for both guys.

http://www.absoluteradio.co.uk/podcasts ... 010-11-10/

Thanks for the link. Fascinating interview with both of the guys. It was great to hear their passion still for their profession. Good interviewer.

Cool listen...thanks.

Rockindeano wrote:

steveo777 wrote:

JRNYFan wrote:I noticed he skipped over JSS when going over the lineup of singers. I'm sure people will have something to say about that, as usual.

He was temporary fill in help, so what do you expect?

Do your homework troll. JSS was an official member, signed sealed and delivered.

Seconded.

Bitter little man. Love it!

Pretty selfish not to mention JSS. Guess I should expect no less though.

JRNYFan wrote:I noticed he skipped over JSS when going over the lineup of singers. I'm sure people will have something to say about that, as usual.

And you were the first ...weren't you?!?

Don wrote:By the way, Neal reiterates again he knew nothing about this tour until they day of the interview. Strange.

He was busy trying to get the Giants gig ...


Again, Steveo inserts his own foot into his own ass!!

steveo777 wrote:

Rockindeano wrote:

steveo777 wrote:

JRNYFan wrote:I noticed he skipped over JSS when going over the lineup of singers. I'm sure people will have something to say about that, as usual.

He was temporary fill in help, so what do you expect?

Do your homework troll. JSS was an official member, signed sealed and delivered.

Just a difference of opinion. But if you want to resort to name calling, well, have at it. Did you read his fucking contract, what do you know? Apparently not much according to your friend Robbie G. Now that was a drive by troll.

Relax shithead. It's all in good fun. There has to be counter ballast around here.

Now fucking laugh and go drink a pounder, asshole.

For the record, yes I did see the actual contract. I saw it in Boston. I saw everything. JSS was indeed an official member at one time. The difference between me and that cocksucker RobbieG is I knew the band members themselves, whereas RobbieG might know a stage worker third hand..he gets iffy reports and posts them as actual fact here. BIG difference. He doesn't know shit about the on goings of the band, like you think he does.

Michigan Girl wrote:

Don wrote:By the way, Neal reiterates again he knew nothing about this tour until they day of the interview. Strange.

He was busy trying to get the Giants gig ...


Again, Steveo inserts his own foot into his own ass!!

C, can you PM me your digits? I want to text you a few things. I think you will enjoy them very much. Please.

I just love how Neal says that Perry was out there doing Journey songs and that it upset him, I seem to recall that J & N went out and got another band called Bad English, with 3/5 of the current lineup of Journey. SS was out doing his thing with his own band and other groups and let's not forget that he along with RV, GR went out got a sound Perry sound alike in KC for a band called The Storm (3/5 again).

All Perry did was go out and make a solo album and then follow it up with a tour using his name and not the Journey name. Neal really needs to get over the fact that most people back then (and still to this day) considered Perry equaled Journey. The "Journey" stone that was cracked was when Perry was forced out and by accounts from JC and NS, Perry could have made it a living hell for them to go out and tour/record with the Journey name. Perry did get some concessions as any good business person would do, you know that you would too. So in my opinion Neal really needs to back off of his statements about who did what after RoR and before TBF as it is all water under the bridge.

Except for two people in the band pre-1986 (RV & SS) I've heard some horror stories about all of the rest as far as being butt wipes.

Rich the Horror Guy

cinkidd wrote:I just love how Neal says that Perry was out there doing Journey songs and that it upset him, I seem to recall that J & N went out and got another band called Bad English, with 3/5 of the current lineup of Journey. SS was out doing his thing with his own band and other groups and let's not forget that he along with RV, GR went out got a sound Perry sound alike in KC for a band called The Storm (3/5 again).

All Perry did was go out and make a solo album and then follow it up with a tour using his name and not the Journey name. Neal really needs to get over the fact that most people back then (and still to this day) considered Perry equaled Journey. The "Journey" stone that was cracked was when Perry was forced out and by accounts from JC and NS, Perry could have made it a living hell for them to go out and tour/record with the Journey name. Perry did get some concessions as any good business person would do, you know that you would too. So in my opinion Neal really needs to back off of his statements about who did what after RoR and before TBF as it is all water under the bridge.

Except for two people in the band pre-1986 (RV & SS) I've heard some horror stories about all of the rest as far as being butt wipes.

Rich the Horror Guy

Neal is nothing more than Herbie Herbert, cept shorter. He is just a bitter little man, and the worst part is he brought it all on himself. The solution to that is taught in 12 step programs if Neal were to stay in one long enough.

This whole debate about Steve going out and performing the Journey tunes live is absolute horseshit. You look at any lead singer of a band who went out on their own, whether while their original band was still intact or not, and they all sang the songs that they were famous for...and the songs that the paying audience would expect to hear!

Can anyone explain to me the difference between Perry doing this and the rest of the names below?

Sammy Hagar
David Lee Roth
Stevie Nicks
Paul McCartney
Robert Plant
Peter Cetera
Dennis DeYoung
Lou Gramm
Don Henley
Dianna Ross
Frankie Valli
Chaka Khan
Donald Fagan
Annie Lennox
Michael Jackson
Joan Jett
Paul Simon
David Ruffin
Eddie Kendricks
Chuck Negron

I'm sure I'm missing TONS more.

Art Vandelay wrote:This whole debate about Steve going out and performing the Journey tunes live is absolute horseshit. You look at any lead singer of a band who went out on their own, whether while their original band was still intact or not, and they all sang the songs that they were famous for...and the songs that the paying audience would expect to hear!

Can anyone explain to me the difference between Perry doing this and the rest of the names below?

Sammy Hagar
David Lee Roth
Stevie Nicks
Paul McCartney
Robert Plant
Peter Cetera
Dennis DeYoung
Lou Gramm
Don Henley
Dianna Ross
Frankie Valli
Chaka Khan
Donald Fagan
Annie Lennox
Michael Jackson
Joan Jett
Paul Simon
David Ruffin
Eddie Kendricks
Chuck Negron

I'm sure I'm missing TONS more.

What Neal is referring to is Perry did it. So they felt no problem, since Perry wasn't too interested in performing live with Journey since 1987, in going out there and doing "their" songs with a new lead singer, even though Perry considers it cracking the stone.

Jana wrote:

Art Vandelay wrote:This whole debate about Steve going out and performing the Journey tunes live is absolute horseshit. You look at any lead singer of a band who went out on their own, whether while their original band was still intact or not, and they all sang the songs that they were famous for...and the songs that the paying audience would expect to hear!

Can anyone explain to me the difference between Perry doing this and the rest of the names below?

Sammy Hagar
David Lee Roth
Stevie Nicks
Paul McCartney
Robert Plant
Peter Cetera
Dennis DeYoung
Lou Gramm
Don Henley
Dianna Ross
Frankie Valli
Chaka Khan
Donald Fagan
Annie Lennox
Michael Jackson
Joan Jett
Paul Simon
David Ruffin
Eddie Kendricks
Chuck Negron

I'm sure I'm missing TONS more.

What Neal is referring to is Perry did it. So they felt no problem, since Perry wasn't too interested in performing live with Journey since 1987, in going out there and doing "their" songs with a new lead singer, even though Perry considers it cracking the stone.

Did what? Sing the songs that he's famous for? The songs that a paying audience would expect him to sing, regardless if it's a solo tour? It's still a horsehit argument that gets debated on here a lot.

Art Vandelay wrote:

Jana wrote:

Art Vandelay wrote:This whole debate about Steve going out and performing the Journey tunes live is absolute horseshit. You look at any lead singer of a band who went out on their own, whether while their original band was still intact or not, and they all sang the songs that they were famous for...and the songs that the paying audience would expect to hear!

Can anyone explain to me the difference between Perry doing this and the rest of the names below?

Sammy Hagar
David Lee Roth
Stevie Nicks
Paul McCartney
Robert Plant
Peter Cetera
Dennis DeYoung
Lou Gramm
Don Henley
Dianna Ross
Frankie Valli
Chaka Khan
Donald Fagan
Annie Lennox
Michael Jackson
Joan Jett
Paul Simon
David Ruffin
Eddie Kendricks
Chuck Negron

I'm sure I'm missing TONS more.

What Neal is referring to is Perry did it. So they felt no problem, since Perry wasn't too interested in performing live with Journey since 1987, in going out there and doing "their" songs with a new lead singer, even though Perry considers it cracking the stone.

Did what? Sing the songs that he's famous for? The songs that a paying audience would expect him to sing, regardless if it's a solo tour? It's still a horsehit argument that gets debated on here a lot.

Apparently you only want to understand your side of the argument. As Jana tried to explain - and using your logic - If it was OK for Perry to do this, then there is no reason why Neal and co. could not get another singer and go out and do it too. But to Perry that was "cracking the stone", but when he did it it was perfectly OK. Hypocirsy at its finest.

I just checked my calendar and, yep.....it's 2010. Not 1987. Not 1994. Journey is enjoying renewed success and Neal is still making music and touring playing the music he loves. That he continues to focus on bitterness and negativity is just sad. I wish better for him.

Neal's doing just fine. He didn't booze his talent and career away.

SF-Dano wrote:

Art Vandelay wrote:

Jana wrote:

Art Vandelay wrote:This whole debate about Steve going out and performing the Journey tunes live is absolute horseshit. You look at any lead singer of a band who went out on their own, whether while their original band was still intact or not, and they all sang the songs that they were famous for...and the songs that the paying audience would expect to hear!

Can anyone explain to me the difference between Perry doing this and the rest of the names below?

Sammy Hagar
David Lee Roth
Stevie Nicks
Paul McCartney
Robert Plant
Peter Cetera
Dennis DeYoung
Lou Gramm
Don Henley
Dianna Ross
Frankie Valli
Chaka Khan
Donald Fagan
Annie Lennox
Michael Jackson
Joan Jett
Paul Simon
David Ruffin
Eddie Kendricks
Chuck Negron

I'm sure I'm missing TONS more.

What Neal is referring to is Perry did it. So they felt no problem, since Perry wasn't too interested in performing live with Journey since 1987, in going out there and doing "their" songs with a new lead singer, even though Perry considers it cracking the stone.

Did what? Sing the songs that he's famous for? The songs that a paying audience would expect him to sing, regardless if it's a solo tour? It's still a horsehit argument that gets debated on here a lot.

Apparently you only want to understand your side of the argument. As Jana tried to explain - and using your logic - If it was OK for Perry to do this, then there is no reason why Neal and co. could not get another singer and go out and do it too. But to Perry that was "cracking the stone", but when he did it it was perfectly OK. Hypocirsy at its finest.

Perry also said play what you want and call it what you want, just leave the Journey name (aka the 'stone') alone. You forgot that part.

Art Vandelay wrote:

SF-Dano wrote:

Art Vandelay wrote:

Jana wrote:

Art Vandelay wrote:This whole debate about Steve going out and performing the Journey tunes live is absolute horseshit. You look at any lead singer of a band who went out on their own, whether while their original band was still intact or not, and they all sang the songs that they were famous for...and the songs that the paying audience would expect to hear!

Can anyone explain to me the difference between Perry doing this and the rest of the names below?

Sammy Hagar
David Lee Roth
Stevie Nicks
Paul McCartney
Robert Plant
Peter Cetera
Dennis DeYoung
Lou Gramm
Don Henley
Dianna Ross
Frankie Valli
Chaka Khan
Donald Fagan
Annie Lennox
Michael Jackson
Joan Jett
Paul Simon
David Ruffin
Eddie Kendricks
Chuck Negron

I'm sure I'm missing TONS more.

What Neal is referring to is Perry did it. So they felt no problem, since Perry wasn't too interested in performing live with Journey since 1987, in going out there and doing "their" songs with a new lead singer, even though Perry considers it cracking the stone.

Did what? Sing the songs that he's famous for? The songs that a paying audience would expect him to sing, regardless if it's a solo tour? It's still a horsehit argument that gets debated on here a lot.

Apparently you only want to understand your side of the argument. As Jana tried to explain - and using your logic - If it was OK for Perry to do this, then there is no reason why Neal and co. could not get another singer and go out and do it too. But to Perry that was "cracking the stone", but when he did it it was perfectly OK. Hypocirsy at its finest.

Perry also said play what you want and call it what you want, just leave the Journey name (aka the 'stone') alone. You forgot that part.

Why should they? The name was as much theirs as his, as were the songs. They should change and loose the name recognition because Perry says so, or because he lost his desire, drive, work ethic, rock attitude, voice, etc? I think not.

SF-Dano wrote:

Art Vandelay wrote:

SF-Dano wrote:

Art Vandelay wrote:

Jana wrote:

Art Vandelay wrote:This whole debate about Steve going out and performing the Journey tunes live is absolute horseshit. You look at any lead singer of a band who went out on their own, whether while their original band was still intact or not, and they all sang the songs that they were famous for...and the songs that the paying audience would expect to hear!

Can anyone explain to me the difference between Perry doing this and the rest of the names below?

Sammy Hagar
David Lee Roth
Stevie Nicks
Paul McCartney
Robert Plant
Peter Cetera
Dennis DeYoung
Lou Gramm
Don Henley
Dianna Ross
Frankie Valli
Chaka Khan
Donald Fagan
Annie Lennox
Michael Jackson
Joan Jett
Paul Simon
David Ruffin
Eddie Kendricks
Chuck Negron

I'm sure I'm missing TONS more.

What Neal is referring to is Perry did it. So they felt no problem, since Perry wasn't too interested in performing live with Journey since 1987, in going out there and doing "their" songs with a new lead singer, even though Perry considers it cracking the stone.

Did what? Sing the songs that he's famous for? The songs that a paying audience would expect him to sing, regardless if it's a solo tour? It's still a horsehit argument that gets debated on here a lot.

Apparently you only want to understand your side of the argument. As Jana tried to explain - and using your logic - If it was OK for Perry to do this, then there is no reason why Neal and co. could not get another singer and go out and do it too. But to Perry that was "cracking the stone", but when he did it it was perfectly OK. Hypocirsy at its finest.

Perry also said play what you want and call it what you want, just leave the Journey name (aka the 'stone') alone. You forgot that part.

Why should they? The name was as much theirs as his, as were the songs. They should change and loose the name recognition because Perry says so, or because he lost his desire, drive, work ethic, rock attitude, voice, etc. I think not.

Exactly. Though, Neal doesn't need to go there. It's over. People have embraced Journey and continue to go to their concerts. Steve is nowhere to be seen performing or doings albums for years. One live tour in 23 years and no albums in 14 years. As he says, he's retired. So nothing to debate for Neal nor address. Most people understand Perry is unavailable anyway for whatever his reasons, loss of interest, vocal problems, who knows.

SF-Dano wrote:

Art Vandelay wrote:

SF-Dano wrote:

Art Vandelay wrote:

Jana wrote:

Art Vandelay wrote:This whole debate about Steve going out and performing the Journey tunes live is absolute horseshit. You look at any lead singer of a band who went out on their own, whether while their original band was still intact or not, and they all sang the songs that they were famous for...and the songs that the paying audience would expect to hear!

Can anyone explain to me the difference between Perry doing this and the rest of the names below?

Sammy Hagar
David Lee Roth
Stevie Nicks
Paul McCartney
Robert Plant
Peter Cetera
Dennis DeYoung
Lou Gramm
Don Henley
Dianna Ross
Frankie Valli
Chaka Khan
Donald Fagan
Annie Lennox
Michael Jackson
Joan Jett
Paul Simon
David Ruffin
Eddie Kendricks
Chuck Negron

I'm sure I'm missing TONS more.

What Neal is referring to is Perry did it. So they felt no problem, since Perry wasn't too interested in performing live with Journey since 1987, in going out there and doing "their" songs with a new lead singer, even though Perry considers it cracking the stone.

Did what? Sing the songs that he's famous for? The songs that a paying audience would expect him to sing, regardless if it's a solo tour? It's still a horsehit argument that gets debated on here a lot.

Apparently you only want to understand your side of the argument. As Jana tried to explain - and using your logic - If it was OK for Perry to do this, then there is no reason why Neal and co. could not get another singer and go out and do it too. But to Perry that was "cracking the stone", but when he did it it was perfectly OK. Hypocirsy at its finest.

Perry also said play what you want and call it what you want, just leave the Journey name (aka the 'stone') alone. You forgot that part.

Why should they? The name was as much theirs as his, as were the songs. They should change and loose the name recognition because Perry says so, or because he lost his desire, drive, work ethic, rock attitude, voice, etc? I think not.

But now you're backing off of your argument of 'there's no reason why Neal and co. could get another singer'. There is nothing in Perry's quote that says don't play our music. He said go out with whoever you want and call it what you want and play what you want...which is exactly what he (Perry) did.

There's a plus and minus to both sides of this argument. My point is that musicians (singers, guitarists, whatever) that are recognized for a song have every right to play it live, regardless of who else they are playing with at that time. Whatever conversations went on within the band, we'll never know.