Jon Cain Not Let Into FTLOSM Show

[Rockindeano]

Anything or anyone relating to Journey is the best ever, right?

I think there's about a 4 year window where they were the best ever. Sorry, I know you consider the Soto-led incarnation to be better and the quote is there to prove it. But I've gone off the deep end???

I can literally here the laughter emenating from the entire board at your "best ever" gloss. Come on, be fucking serious.

Also, I, unlike you, can admit to being completely ridiculous in my past quote. I was either high, drunk, stupid or retarded when I wrote that. I was an idiot for doing so. But to say that Journey was at any time the best ever band is borderline nutjob.

Oh by the way, did you ever hear Perry sing Jailhouse Rock? If you did, you would retract your statement. He sounded pretty bad on that song.

I have never stated that he was as good on this tour (ROR) as 1980-1984. His voice had degraded considerable from its height. It took all he had to sing the songs in their proper key and these were sings he sand just a few years prior with the greatest of ease.

Excuses excuses. The fact is when SP sang Jailhouse, it sucked. As a matter of fact the entire band sucked on that song, not just Espee. As for your comment about Perry having this and that over Elvis, I just laugh. You have obviously never sat down and listened to Elvis sing.

[Saint John]

Like Perry's strength and humility.

There's no strength or humility in being a saboteur.

You paint Schon and Cain as wimps, blame your shortcomings on others, so I guess this is true..

The harsh reality is that replacing your lead singer is always, in virtually any band, a lot more difficult than anyone else. Their "instrument" is much more unique and difficult to replicate. And I'm sure they all realized that. It boiled down to guys that wanted to work and one that didn't. Period.

[steveo777]

Like Perry's strength and humility.

There's no strength or humility in being a saboteur.

You paint Schon and Cain as wimps, blame your shortcomings on others, so I guess this is true..

The harsh reality is that replacing your lead singer is always, in virtually any band, a lot more difficult than anyone else. Their "instrument" is much more unique and difficult to replicate. And I'm sure they all realized that. It boiled down to guys that needed to work and one that didn't. Period.

Could this be it?

[Author2]

Like Perry's strength and humility.

There's no strength or humility in being a saboteur.

I beg to differ. There is strength in being capable of making tough, maybe non-popular decisions and humility in realizing and admitting that maybe it should have been done differently. No one should complain if he did not have the guts to challenge it. PERIOD

You paint Schon and Cain as wimps, blame your shortcomings on others, so I guess this is true..

The harsh reality is that replacing your lead singer is always, in virtually any band, a lot more difficult than anyone else. Their "instrument" is much more unique and difficult to replicate. And I'm sure they all realized that. It boiled down to guys that wanted to work and one that didn't. Period.

Spin it "Anyway You Want It." I guess "it boils down to" satisfying your greed or mopping the floor with your integrity intact.

Do you think Steve A. wishes now he had held his ground and chosen the latter....

[Art Vandelay]

For me, it would be Escape and Captured. I think what makes Captured a great album is the vocal change as Steve wasn't continuously singing close to falsetto but more of a fuller sound than before. It, along with the faster tempo brought a new vibrancy to the material from the first three albums that seemed lacking in the studio recordings.

I've always maintained that his voice, changes and all, from 1980 to 1984, is unparalleled in music history. From The Party's Over to Mother Father to After The Fall, Separate Ways and Faithfully, nobody had a better, more incredible ability to sing into your heart, than that motherfucker.

You're a diehard fan, I'll give you that.

On the other hand, you need to listen to more singers than just Steve Perry. Ever heard of Elvis Presley? He is the best singer ever, dude.

Perry could sing circles around Elvis. Perry had more octaves, more range, more power and perfect pitch. Elvis couldn't sniff a song like Mother Father.

No doubt that Mother Father is nowhere near a song that Elvis could perform. However, there is more to being a great singer than octaves, range and pitch. Elvis had a charisma and an approach to his singing that was second to none. So did Sinatra. That's what puts the two of them in a class of their own, and that's why so many have tried to emulate/impersonate their style. Sure, you're not gonna get soaring vocals from them. But on the flip side, there aren't many who could do what they did. Give Elvis' '68 Comeback Special a listen sometime for a raw, pure rocking sound. And Memories will hold up to any ballad that came after it.

[journeyrock]

Like Perry's strength and humility.

There's no strength or humility in being a saboteur.

You paint Schon and Cain as wimps, blame your shortcomings on others, so I guess this is true..

The harsh reality is that replacing your lead singer is always, in virtually any band, a lot more difficult than anyone else. Their "instrument" is much more unique and difficult to replicate. And I'm sure they all realized that. It boiled down to guys that wanted to work and one that didn't. Period.

As Neal has found out in the past, oh, 13 years? I don't think he thought so in 1998

[bluejeangirl76]

Jonathan Cain mentioned that he went to a FTLOSM show and wasn't let in.

Are you still on this?

I don't know if it's true, but ya know, Leonard could show up at my house and offer me the Hope diamond and I wouldn't let him in, so I think I can kind of see the logic if this actually happened.

[Don]

Jonathan Cain mentioned that he went to a FTLOSM show and wasn't let in.

Are you still on this?

I don't know if it's true, but ya know, Leonard could show up at my house and offer me the Hope diamond and I wouldn't let him in, so I think I can kind of see the logic if this actually happened.

For the Hope Diamond, I think you should let him in; as long as he's only coming in the house and not anywhere else as I'd have to draw the line at that point.

[bluejeangirl76]

Jonathan Cain mentioned that he went to a FTLOSM show and wasn't let in.

Are you still on this?

I don't know if it's true, but ya know, Leonard could show up at my house and offer me the Hope diamond and I wouldn't let him in, so I think I can kind of see the logic if this actually happened.

For the Hope Diamond, I think you should let him in; as long as he's only coming in the house and not anywhere else as I'd have to draw the line at that point.

I didn't say I wouldn't take it from him. I just said I wouldn't let him in.

[Don]

Jonathan Cain mentioned that he went to a FTLOSM show and wasn't let in.

Are you still on this?

I don't know if it's true, but ya know, Leonard could show up at my house and offer me the Hope diamond and I wouldn't let him in, so I think I can kind of see the logic if this actually happened.

For the Hope Diamond, I think you should let him in; as long as he's only coming in the house and not anywhere else as I'd have to draw the line at that point.

I didn't say I wouldn't take it from him. I just said I wouldn't let him in.

I had to edit my post. I was channeling stevew2 for a minute and it was not a pleasant experience.

[Saint John]

No doubt that Mother Father is nowhere near a song that Elvis could perform. However, there is more to being a great singer than octaves, range and pitch. Elvis had a charisma and an approach to his singing that was second to none. So did Sinatra. That's what puts the two of them in a class of their own, and that's why so many have tried to emulate/impersonate their style. Sure, you're not gonna get soaring vocals from them. But on the flip side, there aren't many who could do what they did. Give Elvis' '68 Comeback Special a listen sometime for a raw, pure rocking sound. And Memories will hold up to any ballad that came after it.

All great points, Art, but our argument is who is the better "singer." Elvis ran circles around Perry as an entertainer. Perry was often nerdy, quirky and about as cool as Satan's sack. But there's no comparing the two as singers. Perry crushes him.

[Art Vandelay]

No doubt that Mother Father is nowhere near a song that Elvis could perform. However, there is more to being a great singer than octaves, range and pitch. Elvis had a charisma and an approach to his singing that was second to none. So did Sinatra. That's what puts the two of them in a class of their own, and that's why so many have tried to emulate/impersonate their style. Sure, you're not gonna get soaring vocals from them. But on the flip side, there aren't many who could do what they did. Give Elvis' '68 Comeback Special a listen sometime for a raw, pure rocking sound. And Memories will hold up to any ballad that came after it.

All great points, Art, but our argument is who is the better "singer." Elvis ran circles around Perry as an entertainer. Perry was often nerdy, quirky and about as cool as Satan's sack. But there's no comparing the two as singers. Perry crushes him.

I'll give you that one. Presley, like Sinatra AND Perry, all set the bars for their respective genres.

[journeyrock]

No doubt that Mother Father is nowhere near a song that Elvis could perform. However, there is more to being a great singer than octaves, range and pitch. Elvis had a charisma and an approach to his singing that was second to none. So did Sinatra. That's what puts the two of them in a class of their own, and that's why so many have tried to emulate/impersonate their style. Sure, you're not gonna get soaring vocals from them. But on the flip side, there aren't many who could do what they did. Give Elvis' '68 Comeback Special a listen sometime for a raw, pure rocking sound. And Memories will hold up to any ballad that came after it.

All great points, Art, but our argument is who is the better "singer." Elvis ran circles around Perry as an entertainer. Perry was often nerdy, quirky and about as cool as Satan's sack. But there's no comparing the two as singers. Perry crushes him.

Absolutely, correct, and I don't get, Art, why you say that Elvis and Sinatra have such charisma in comparing them to Perry. Perry has emotion and charisma in his singing that goes straight to the soul. How much more can you ask for than that. Sorry, but I've never felt that with either Sinatra OR Elvis.

[*Laura]

Sinatra had a unique style and voice, just like SP. Easy to recognize, soulful (and well trained) voices. I would add Sam Cooke to make a golden trio.
As for Elvis, he was more of a phenomenon than an exquisite voice. A warm, love-me-tender voice for sure but nothing spectacular ( that's MY opinion, so hold yer horses, Deano. LOL)
Elvis just doesn't give me the goosebumps like SP and Sinatra do each time I hear them.

[Art Vandelay]

No doubt that Mother Father is nowhere near a song that Elvis could perform. However, there is more to being a great singer than octaves, range and pitch. Elvis had a charisma and an approach to his singing that was second to none. So did Sinatra. That's what puts the two of them in a class of their own, and that's why so many have tried to emulate/impersonate their style. Sure, you're not gonna get soaring vocals from them. But on the flip side, there aren't many who could do what they did. Give Elvis' '68 Comeback Special a listen sometime for a raw, pure rocking sound. And Memories will hold up to any ballad that came after it.

All great points, Art, but our argument is who is the better "singer." Elvis ran circles around Perry as an entertainer. Perry was often nerdy, quirky and about as cool as Satan's sack. But there's no comparing the two as singers. Perry crushes him.

Absolutely, correct, and I don't get, Art, why you say that Elvis and Sinatra have such charisma in comparing them to Perry. Perry has emotion and charisma in his singing that goes straight to the soul. How much more can you ask for than that. Sorry, but I've never felt that with either Sinatra OR Elvis.

It was their charisma, stage presence and personalities that helped define their legendary character - for those that love them, of course. They had an aura that whether you liked them or not, you knew who they were by their look and actions. If you're a fan of Perry, I'm sure you can find the same qualities in him. Same goes for any other favorite singer that one might have. I could have listed Pavarotti, or any top rap, Latin or country artist as well. With Perry, it's all about voice recognition first and foremost. His stage presence was electrifying, but not the first identifiable thing about him. The casual fan isn't going to know squat about his stage presence. And yes, Laura, I would add Sam Cooke to that group as well.

[journeyrock]

No doubt that Mother Father is nowhere near a song that Elvis could perform. However, there is more to being a great singer than octaves, range and pitch. Elvis had a charisma and an approach to his singing that was second to none. So did Sinatra. That's what puts the two of them in a class of their own, and that's why so many have tried to emulate/impersonate their style. Sure, you're not gonna get soaring vocals from them. But on the flip side, there aren't many who could do what they did. Give Elvis' '68 Comeback Special a listen sometime for a raw, pure rocking sound. And Memories will hold up to any ballad that came after it.

All great points, Art, but our argument is who is the better "singer." Elvis ran circles around Perry as an entertainer. Perry was often nerdy, quirky and about as cool as Satan's sack. But there's no comparing the two as singers. Perry crushes him.

Absolutely, correct, and I don't get, Art, why you say that Elvis and Sinatra have such charisma in comparing them to Perry. Perry has emotion and charisma in his singing that goes straight to the soul. How much more can you ask for than that. Sorry, but I've never felt that with either Sinatra OR Elvis.

It was their charisma, stage presence and personalities that helped define their legendary character - for those that love them, of course. They had an aura that whether you liked them or not, you knew who they were by their look and actions. If you're a fan of Perry, I'm sure you can find the same qualities in him. Same goes for any other favorite singer that one might have. I could have listed Pavarotti, or any top rap, Latin or country artist as well. With Perry, it's all about voice recognition first and foremost. His stage presence was electrifying, but not the first identifiable thing about him.
The casual fan isn't going to know squat about his stage presence. And yes, Laura, I would add Sam Cooke to that group as well.

I'll give you this one because he's had no stage presence in 15 years.

[Art Vandelay]

No doubt that Mother Father is nowhere near a song that Elvis could perform. However, there is more to being a great singer than octaves, range and pitch. Elvis had a charisma and an approach to his singing that was second to none. So did Sinatra. That's what puts the two of them in a class of their own, and that's why so many have tried to emulate/impersonate their style. Sure, you're not gonna get soaring vocals from them. But on the flip side, there aren't many who could do what they did. Give Elvis' '68 Comeback Special a listen sometime for a raw, pure rocking sound. And Memories will hold up to any ballad that came after it.

All great points, Art, but our argument is who is the better "singer." Elvis ran circles around Perry as an entertainer. Perry was often nerdy, quirky and about as cool as Satan's sack. But there's no comparing the two as singers. Perry crushes him.

Absolutely, correct, and I don't get, Art, why you say that Elvis and Sinatra have such charisma in comparing them to Perry. Perry has emotion and charisma in his singing that goes straight to the soul. How much more can you ask for than that. Sorry, but I've never felt that with either Sinatra OR Elvis.

It was their charisma, stage presence and personalities that helped define their legendary character - for those that love them, of course. They had an aura that whether you liked them or not, you knew who they were by their look and actions. If you're a fan of Perry, I'm sure you can find the same qualities in him. Same goes for any other favorite singer that one might have. I could have listed Pavarotti, or any top rap, Latin or country artist as well. With Perry, it's all about voice recognition first and foremost. His stage presence was electrifying, but not the first identifiable thing about him.
The casual fan isn't going to know squat about his stage presence. And yes, Laura, I would add Sam Cooke to that group as well.

I'll give you this one because he's had no stage presence in 15 years.

Nice!

[SF-Dano]

I have to agree with Deano here - Elvis had a strong, identifiable voice that emoted as good as anyone. It wasn't just the time with Elvis, his charisma AND his strong voice are what maid him the phenom that he is. Now, I am not discounting Perry's voice either. The man was stellar. But I would not say that Perry was the far superior vocalist to Presley that some here are alleging. Both very talented, upper echelon vocalists.

[Don]

I think the prevelant singing style back then was a very clear sound with limited falsettos and other vocal acrobatics unless you were singing for lesser genres like R&B or the Doo Wap Groups. A lot of great singers from that time were very much tied to a certain way of singing by their record companies that probably didn't highlight a lot of their abilities. My personal favorite from that era is Johnny Mathis.

[Ftloperry]

Perry was the Sinatra of his musical era.

[Saint John]

Perry was the Sinatra of his musical era.

Not even fucking close. Perry barely made it 10 years. Sinatra was a legend that sang and entertained for decades.

[*Laura]

Perry was the Sinatra of his musical era.

Not even fucking close. Perry barely made it 10 years. Sinatra was a legend that sang and entertained for decades.

Jeez, Dan...stop obsessing about lenght, this is about talent ( skilzzz)!
I'm sure that's what Ftloperry was talking about but you chose to compare "inches"...haha

Btw, there is a cactus species that blooms once every 14 years and produces one flower for 24 hours only. That's why it is famous for - those 24 glorious hours. Catch my drift?

[Art Vandelay]

Perry was the Sinatra of his musical era.

Not even fucking close. Perry barely made it 10 years. Sinatra was a legend that sang and entertained for decades.

Jeez, Dan...stop obsessing about lenght, this is about talent ( skilzzz)!
I'm sure that's what Ftloperry was talking about but you chose to compare "inches"...haha

Btw, there is a cactus species that blooms once every 14 years and produces one flower for 24 hours only. That's why it is famous for - those 24 glorious hours. Catch my drift?

Nah, I gotta agree with Dan here. Grant it, you're comparing apples to oranges here - Sinatra probably produced more music in a year or two than Perry (and most others from Perry's era) did in their entire career. Sinatra not only embraced the lifestyle, he damn near created it.

[RedWingFan]

Perry was the Sinatra of his musical era.

Not even fucking close. Perry barely made it 10 years. Sinatra was a legend that sang and entertained for decades.

I need to dig up our Perry v. Mercury debate and how you said durability had nothing to do with who's better. I made an analogy about owning a great handling sports car that conks out on you after 4 years. Or a solid great car that lasts decades. You said you'd take the sports car and few good years rather than the latter.

[whirlwind]

Perry was the Sinatra of his musical era.

Not even fucking close. Perry barely made it 10 years. Sinatra was a legend that sang and entertained for decades.

Jeez, Dan...stop obsessing about lenght, this is about talent ( skilzzz)!
I'm sure that's what Ftloperry was talking about but you chose to compare "inches"...haha

Btw, there is a cactus species that blooms once every 14 years and produces one flower for 24 hours only. That's why it is famous for - those 24 glorious hours. Catch my drift?

Nah, I gotta agree with Dan here. Grant it, you're comparing apples to oranges here - Sinatra probably produced more music in a year or two than Perry (and most others from Perry's era) did in their entire career. Sinatra not only embraced the lifestyle, he damn near created it.

But unlike Perry, Sinatra only collaborated on about seven of the songs he sang. He wasn't a songwriter. Sinatra was given the title of "The Voice" which, imo, was more of a fit than it is for Perry. Many great vocalists came before Perry but Perry has a unique, overall quality which has, so far been irreplaceable. Perry had some kind of magic going for him that I've never experienced in any other vocalist. He just had it all.

[Art Vandelay]

Perry was the Sinatra of his musical era.

Not even fucking close. Perry barely made it 10 years. Sinatra was a legend that sang and entertained for decades.

Jeez, Dan...stop obsessing about lenght, this is about talent ( skilzzz)!
I'm sure that's what Ftloperry was talking about but you chose to compare "inches"...haha

Btw, there is a cactus species that blooms once every 14 years and produces one flower for 24 hours only. That's why it is famous for - those 24 glorious hours. Catch my drift?

Nah, I gotta agree with Dan here. Grant it, you're comparing apples to oranges here - Sinatra probably produced more music in a year or two than Perry (and most others from Perry's era) did in their entire career. Sinatra not only embraced the lifestyle, he damn near created it.

But unlike Perry, Sinatra only collaborated on about seven of the songs he sang. He wasn't a songwriter. Sinatra was given the title of "The Voice" which, imo, was more of a fit than it is for Perry. Many great vocalists came before Perry but Perry has a unique, overall quality which has, so far been irreplaceable. Perry had some kind of magic going for him that I've never experienced in any other vocalist. He just had it all.

Agreed. Like I said, it's apples vs. oranges, and they both set the bars for their respective genres.

[Ftloperry]

Jeez, Dan...stop obsessing about lenght, this is about talent ( skilzzz)!
I'm sure that's what Ftloperry was talking about but you chose to compare "inches"...haha

Laura you got it! What Perry was in the 1980's is like what Sinatra was in the 40's and 50's. I love Sinatra. There is only on entertainer to me that should be called "The Voice" and that is Sinatra. No other entertainer could move an audience like Sinatra could in the 40's and 50's and even in the 60's. In the 80's it was the same for Perry. He could move an audience and people came to listen....came to hear that voice. Perry is the Sinatra of his era. Not saying that Perry is better than Sinatra because no one is but Perry is pretty darn close.

[Saint John]

I need to dig up our Perry v. Mercury debate and how you said durability had nothing to do with who's better. I made an analogy about owning a great handling sports car that conks out on you after 4 years. Or a solid great car that lasts decades. You said you'd take the sports car and few good years rather than the latter.

And I stand by that. Perry's career, not singing ability, is nowhere near that of Sinatra's. That's all I'm saying. The guy was a 10 year phenom, and I'm being very generous.

[Abitaman]

I think Perry is the greatest singer ever. I would watch hime sing a phonebook. But compared career wise, Sinatra is the winner. And I do not like Sinatra!!!!

[RPM]

Elvis, for a high baritone, had an amazing range, and like Perry, would outdo his recordings
live, the high notes he hit on the aloha from hawaii show he did with ease, even near death
the high notes in how great thou art live was amazing, but he was all about being an entertainer,
not a songwriter or studio perfectionist, very different talents between these two.

Ray