Herbie Herbert interview

by **jrnyman28** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:01 am

Red13JoePa wrote:Well, Slash has big fuzzy perm fro. Does that make Velvet Revolver look dated

Yes. But it COOL...it's frickin' Slash!!

by **heardonthestreet** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:03 am

Just give me an honest opinion on if you think that the long hair should go, Joe. How easy is that? About Slash, would Neal look dated if he had his fro now?

by **Red13JoePa** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:07 am

J28: that's what I mean. It's his look.

HOTS, I gave you my honest opinion before. I jsut don't know. on one hand, it's a bad look and one of things that i think makes the NobleCause assess him as androgynous.
On the other hand....if he did it, he'd have to go REALLY short, like totally shorn to pull it off I think.

by **jrnyman28** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:08 am

OK, I'll jump in here. YES, Steve's hair is dated. Long hair may be making a comeback but it has to be messy and nasty looking. BUT, there are a LOT of female fans that LOVE his hair. AND I admit that I cannot imagine what he would look like with short hair. Of course I thought the same thing about Perry. But it looks pretty good on him. Problem is Steve has very curly hair, so it would have to be VERY short or it would look stupid!

by **heardonthestreet** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:10 am

Bolton's was curly and he looks fantastic.

by **Red13JoePa** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:11 am

good one J28. that's what i was reaching for.

Can't get a computer genius to give as a graphic artist's rendering of Augeri with varying lengths of wig?

by **jrnyman28** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:18 am

heardonthestreet wrote:Bolton's was curly and he looks fantastic.

His was thin and wavy..not full on curly. AND his is VERY short.

by **Red13JoePa** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:20 am

And Bolton's was a oxymoronical paradox. You should be forbidden to be bald and have longer hair both at once. hence you have his current look.

I forgot to say, I hated perry with short hair on that BTM. I liked the look of his hair (god help me,I really tyyped that.) at the WOF this year.

by **jrnyman28** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:26 am

Red13JoePa wrote:And Bolton's was a oxymoronical paradox. You should be forbidden to be bald and have longer hair both at once. hence you have his current look.

oxymoronical paradox??? WOW!

As for the rest, that is part of the reason I am finally cutting off all my hair. It is getting thin on top and it is to the small of my back. But not for much longer....

(Only the women, including my wife, seem to be upset by this though...)

by **Red13JoePa** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:32 am

You caught me in a Tysonism, J28!! I gotta go back and edit the second suffix outa that word :lol:

by **Rockindeano** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:53 am

Red13JoePa wrote::lol:

You caught me in a Tysonism, J28!! I gotta go back and edit the second suffix outa that word

Dude, if you are going to use the word, "outa" at least spel it rite..OUTTA..two T's..

by **Rockindeano** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:54 am

WTF! You two talking about Steve's hair? Jesus! You two should be starting a "queer eye for the Journey guy" show..

And Michael Bolton..yuk..he should die already. If HOTS likes him, I know I could get her.. :wink:

by **jrnyman28** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:57 am

Rock'ndeano wrote:
Red13JoePa wrote::lol:

You caught me in a Tysonism, J28!! I gotta go back and edit the second suffix outa that word

Dude, if you are going to use the word, "outa" at leest spel it rite..OUTTA..two T's..

A whole 'nother post just to mispell another word? I know you are upset about losing your post count but is this really necessary!!

by **Red13JoePa** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:05 am

He just wanted that atrocious avatar to appear 2 x in-a-row. God, gimme Loggins or something. even the clean shaven kenny. Anything else.

by **Liz22562** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:15 am

I seriously doubt Journey fans care about Steve Augeri's hair so much that if he cut it, more would flock to the concerts. I don't even see a connection. An updated look in one person's opinion has nothing to do with the quality of music and who is going to purchase a cd or ticket to a concert. Flat out - I'm scratching my head on this one!

Journey On.....

by **Rockindeano** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:19 am

Liz, I was hoping 13 and 28 were being sarcastic.

But if you remember, when King Perry cut his lettuce back in 83, and looked like a rat..
God he was hideous looking..

by **Red13JoePa** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:22 am

"cut his lettuce."

by **mamos** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:37 am

Cut his lettuce. Now there's a term I've never heard before.

by **Red13JoePa** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:40 am

Yo.
Mamos.

Who's that in your avatar with Neal, Wayne Arnold from the Wonder Years?

by **NealIsGod** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:44 am

Red13JoePa wrote:Yo.
Mamos.

Who's that in your avatar with Neal, Wayne Arnold from the Wonder Years?

Don't listen to him, mamos. Awesome avatar. Neal looks wide awake!

Can we stop discussing hair now?

by **Rockindeano** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:46 am

How did this thread turn right, and end up being a fashion thread??

I know you guys know when Perry did cut his hair, he was awful looking..even more so, because that beak was even more prominent, and you could clearly see his chiclettes better.....

I just think the King looked like a rat...then fast forward to 86, and, ..no, I am not going there... Put it this way; He looked like a brunetter Carson on the queer eye for the straight guy show... Yes, I see it 13, because it's on after the West Wing on Bravo, so can it...

by **Monker** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 4:12 pm

Bloodflower wrote:I am a fan of Perry's voice first and foremost but let's face it: we all care about the inner workings of a band. It's interesting, if nothing else, but not essential to our liking of the band, in the end.

Ok, so let's say Perry freaks out in a studio session and throws a fire extinguisher and destroys his producer's computer, and then the producer quits and Perry begs him to return and finish the album. Would knowing that make you like the album any less? Nobody was murdered, no crime was committed...just people getting all pissy over their work and each other....

Now, let's say Perry gets control over Journey, forces them to rewrite an album three times, fires the drummer and bassist, changes the bands image from being a rock band to some kinda retro 50's pop band, and releases what YOU think is a mediocre pop album?

Do you not see the difference here? Being a 'control freak' is irrelevant as long as the flaw does NOT affect the band or the music. When it DOES affect the band and/or the music, THEN it is a problem that the BAND (or management) must deal with. THAT is what happened with Journey and Steve Perry.

I can't imagine that Perry still owns part of the Journey name. I don't know that much about how these things work, but I certainly didn't think you could OWN part of the name of a band.

It is a business partnership and that business has the name of Journey. Perry is a kinda silent partner in the business named Journey. ANYTHING that is sold with the Journey name on it, Perry has a certain amount of control over it and earns a certain amount of money from it...everything from old AND NEW albums to concert tickets and merchandise.

So he still has control over some of the things they can do? That doesn't seem right. Does he still get money, too, from the things they are doing?? Herbie seemed to allude to that.

Kevin Chalfant said in an interview that Herbie has led him to believe that Perry will never let go of his portion of Journey, and has enough power that he could return to the band at anytime he chose.

I do think Perry brought a ton to Journey. And I continue to think they were silly for carrying on Journey without him.

They had nothing to lose by carrying on without Perry. A year after the TBF reunion, Journey basicaly did not exist. To continue with Perry meant that Journey would no longer exist, indefinitely....In fact, read above, it is PERRY's choice to not be in the band - not Journey's.

I just think they coulda moved on, and done different things (as Schon has done with his solo stuff, which I want to get). It seems weird to continue with the Journey institution, especially considering what they have to sacrifice because of it.

What exactly have they sacrificed over the past seven years or so? It seems to me that if they did NOT replace Perry, they would have sacrificed JOURNEY...there would be no tours and no new songs.

by **yak** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:11 pm

Monker wrote:Now, let's say Perry gets control over Journey, forces them to rewrite an album three times, fires the drummer and bassist, changes the bands image from being a rock band to some kinda retro 50's pop band, and releases what YOU think is a mediocre pop album?

Do you not see the difference here? Being a 'control freak' is irrelevant as long as the flaw does NOT affect the band or the music. When it DOES affect the band and/or the music, THEN it is a problem that the BAND (or management) must deal with. THAT is what happened with Journey and Steve Perry.

Maybe it's time to play Perry's game right back in his face, and chuck the name "Journey." Doesn't seem all the crap is worth it just to keep a name. Sure, the name has a distinct legacy attached to it, but the present band is good on its own, so rename it and move on........and leave the control freak's coattails behind!

by **Rockindeano** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:17 pm

yak wrote:
Monker wrote:Now, let's say Perry gets control over Journey, forces them to rewrite an album three times, fires the drummer and bassist, changes the bands image from being a rock band to some kinda retro 50's pop band, and releases what YOU think is a mediocre pop album?

Do you not see the difference here? Being a 'control freak' is irrelevant as long as the flaw does NOT affect the band or the music. When it DOES affect the band and/or the music, THEN it is a problem that the BAND (or management) must deal with. THAT is what happened with Journey and Steve Perry.

Maybe it's time to play Perry's game right back in his face, and chuck the name "Journey." Doesn't seem all the crap is worth it just to keep a name. Sure, the name has a distinct legacy attached to it, but the present band is good on its own, so rename it and move on........and leave the control freak's coattails behind!

No Yak. No way. They are good now. Hell, they're better now. Keep the name Journey. I was always of the opinion that JOURNEY was bigger than any one individual, and still do. The name does have a legacy tied to it, so why shouldn't Neal use that to his and the other 4's advantge. Once you see them with the cutrrent lineup, Perry's image gets smaller and smaller in the rear view mirror. Journey was never Perry...Journey was Journey. That son-of-a-bitch almost ruined that band.. I say to Hell with him, and Keep the name. There was a Journey before Perry, and there is one after her too..

by **OpeningAct** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:17 pm

yak wrote:
Monker wrote:Now, let's say Perry gets control over Journey, forces them to rewrite an album three times, fires the drummer and bassist, changes the bands image from being a rock band to some kinda retro 50's pop band, and releases what YOU think is a mediocre pop album?

Do you not see the difference here? Being a 'control freak' is irrelevant as long as the flaw does NOT affect the band or the music. When it DOES affect the band and/or the music, THEN it is a problem that the BAND (or management) must deal with. THAT is what happened with Journey and Steve Perry.

Maybe it's time to play Perry's game right back in his face, and chuck the name "Journey." Doesn't seem all the crap is worth it just to keep a name. Sure, the name has a distinct legacy attached to it, but the present band is good on its own, so rename it and move on........and leave the control freak's coattails behind!

Yeah, a name change...as if their marketing and promotion doesn't suck enough.... :roll:

by **yak** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 11:01 pm

Rock'ndeano wrote:No Yak. No way. They are good now. Hell, they're better now. Keep the name Journey. I was always of the opinion that JOURNEY was bigger than any one individual, and still do. The name does have a legacy tied to it, so why shouldn't Neal use that to his and the other 4's advantge. Once you see them with the cutrrent lineup, Perry's image gets smaller and smaller in the rear view mirror. Journey was never Perry...Journey was Journey. That son-of-a-bitch almost ruined that band.. I say to Hell with him, and Keep the name. There was a Journey before Perry, and there is one after her too..

Points well taken, Deano, but..........If keeping Perry's ass attached to everything means he is controlling concerts and what gets played, and what doesn't, and he is in some way controlling Generations not getting out to the public, and he is controlling what this band can and cannot do, then I say the name isn't worth crap anymore....Journey is a great band still, but if one little mole is going to continue to muck up the works and the band can't truly be the band they already are.....then what's the point?

Try changing the name to something with Journey in it, or put a subtitle on the new name that lets people know it's still Journey....but get rid of the faceless ass.

OpeningAct wrote: Yeah, a name change...as if their marketing and promotion doesn't suck enough....

Maybe the control freak also has a hand in this somehow? :roll:

He's been called a prick by many in the business for some reason.

by **Rockindeano** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 2:57 am

Yak-

I totally get what you are implying. We don't have the facts of the deal, we just know Neal and Jon shouldn't quit their day jobs to become negotiators anytime in this century. Herbie was pissed they gave so much away to Mr. Ass...

I would think NEW material can't be influenced by him...That is too drastic.. I would think that there MUST be some time frame in which Neals band can break the ties that bind him.. Either that or Perry has to die in order for them to be free. This must make the Loons very happy. They see how Perry can keep the current lineup down, suppressing sales and then say, "Journey was so much popular when Perry was there." Just fucked up all the way around from Neal's inadequate negotiating, to Perry's lawyers, to Perry Herself, and to the Heads and Loons for supporting such a sonofabitch."

If that is the case, yeah, change the name to Jornee, Journy, Journey* etc..

MR

Herbie Herbert interview

Who is online