Journey, Herberts and Corporate Rock
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:17 pmI've been thinking about this for a few days, and not really sure of my argument yet, but here's something to think about.
Rolling Stone Magazine (corporate style-whores that they are) has always been down on Journey for being "corporate" rock, and given them shit for being too commercial in their business dealings. And, if you look coldly at some of the stuff Journey did (the Budweiser ads, the computer game, etc) you could say they had a point.
But I recall Herberts saying several times that he didn't ever interfer in the music; the band was left to make all the musical decisions, and he ran the business side. What they wrote, how it sounded, how it was produced, which songs went on the album - all left up to the band, even when he didn't think they were making the right choice (I recall he said something about how stupid it was that Only The Young was left of the album.) I also remember reading that because he'd seen so many bands get into some much debt with the record company early on that they wound up spending the rest of their careers trying to get out of debt again, he was determined not to let Journey get into debt with Columbia, which meant floating the tours themselves somehow.
So we all know getting a lead singer was a directive from Columbia - you want to keep the record contract, you get a singer, you get a more radio-friendly sound. Fleischman didn't work out for whatever reason, Perry was brought in, the sound changed and commercial success followed. And, if I get this right, that's also about the time Herberts went into overdrive to sell the band, to make money for them any way he could.
Now, I don't think there's any doubt that he liked money and he liked making money, but it does look like the spur to get him moving on that front was a determination to never let the record company dictate how the band sounded ever again. And if that's the case, why the #@%~ doesn't Rolling Stone mag champion Herberts, if not Journey, for being kick-arse enough to ensure that they kept their artistic control and the record label couldn't interfer with their music?
So, O Legends Of Rock Trivia, do I have a point? Or am I totally missing something?
Rolling Stone Magazine (corporate style-whores that they are) has always been down on Journey for being "corporate" rock, and given them shit for being too commercial in their business dealings. And, if you look coldly at some of the stuff Journey did (the Budweiser ads, the computer game, etc) you could say they had a point.
But I recall Herberts saying several times that he didn't ever interfer in the music; the band was left to make all the musical decisions, and he ran the business side. What they wrote, how it sounded, how it was produced, which songs went on the album - all left up to the band, even when he didn't think they were making the right choice (I recall he said something about how stupid it was that Only The Young was left of the album.) I also remember reading that because he'd seen so many bands get into some much debt with the record company early on that they wound up spending the rest of their careers trying to get out of debt again, he was determined not to let Journey get into debt with Columbia, which meant floating the tours themselves somehow.
So we all know getting a lead singer was a directive from Columbia - you want to keep the record contract, you get a singer, you get a more radio-friendly sound. Fleischman didn't work out for whatever reason, Perry was brought in, the sound changed and commercial success followed. And, if I get this right, that's also about the time Herberts went into overdrive to sell the band, to make money for them any way he could.
Now, I don't think there's any doubt that he liked money and he liked making money, but it does look like the spur to get him moving on that front was a determination to never let the record company dictate how the band sounded ever again. And if that's the case, why the #@%~ doesn't Rolling Stone mag champion Herberts, if not Journey, for being kick-arse enough to ensure that they kept their artistic control and the record label couldn't interfer with their music?
So, O Legends Of Rock Trivia, do I have a point? Or am I totally missing something?