What Would've Happened.....

[Greg]

They certainly would have had a better chance because they were still a big name band at that time and their style of music was more popular. I'm not sure the casual fans were all that disappointed in ROR though. I think it was more the harder edged rock fans that didn't like it.

That and the fact that AOR music was at the height of it's popularity. Van Halen switched lead singers around that time, and somewhere in the mid-80's Bad Company switched as well. Not to mention Survivor, Kansas....etc.... I think in retrospect....it WAS the music that carried the bands more than just the vocals...however...today, the orginal vocal sound is important because it's a sense of familiarity.

[The_Noble_Cause]

wtf?
Am I the only one at a loss for why the 'Loons are now coming out in droves to innundate this thread with inexplicable smiley faces?

They do it to get reactions like the one you gave them.

Doubtful.
They most certainly post their inflamatory pablum in order to provoke reactions that lead to thread-subverting argument, however, I'm not angered or trying to argue anything here -I just plain don't get it.
A 'smiley' face is posted to convey exuberance or joy.
What exactly are they reveling in?

If their intent was to get me to scratch my head in confusion then they most certainly succeeded.

[Greg]

What IFFFFFFFFFFFFf.....................

Michael Bolton had been chosen to be the next Journey lead singer. OUCH!!!!!!!!!

[The_Noble_Cause]

What IFFFFFFFFFFFFf.....................

Michael Bolton had been chosen to be the next Journey lead singer. OUCH!!!!!!!!!

That was a rumored possibility.
It was through Herbie that Bolton was placed with Neal and Jon who then helped produce his album (don't remember the title...the one with the Otis Redding/Sittin' on the dock cover)
Personally I don't harbor nearly as much loathing for Bolton as some.
One downside (among numerous others I'm sure) of selecting Bolton is that he can't cover the high notes.

[Greg]

I dont' know man....I don't loathe the guy at all - just don't think he would have fitted with Journey. However, he was rockin' early in his career...and from what I heard, it was actually pretty good! (Getting this from the VH1's 100 Most UnMetal Moments.)

At that point, I think I would have had to agreed with Steve Perry about calling it something else besides Journey. Maybe an allstar group or something....I dunno! To me, it would have ranked up there with having Geoff Tate in the band.

[ohsherrie]

Micheall Bolton has a great, soulful voice, but it would never have fit with Journey music as it had come to be recognized. If they were truly going for a different sound it might have worked, but not with the Journey name. A different sound needs a different name after a band had established a signature sound.

[Monker]

You know what I think is funny?

I had that impression long before anybody on this forum knew who I was.

I don't get what you're saying Monker.
[/quote]

Point is that I had that opinion of some Perry fans LONG before I invented the Journey internet. HOTS, nor anybody else on this forum, put it there. So, for them to throw a smilie up in reply to that post is quite funny to me since they had absolutely nothing to do with why I orignaly formed that opinion.

[Andrew]

Micheall Bolton has a great, soulful voice, but it would never have fit with Journey music as it had come to be recognized. If they were truly going for a different sound it might have worked, but not with the Journey name. A different sound needs a different name after a band had established a signature sound.

I 100% agree.....100%

BUT - some Perry "fans" on this very board have curesed until they were blue in the face that replacing Steve Perry with a clone was WRONG and an insult to Perry and the good name Journey!

[ohsherrie]

Micheall Bolton has a great, soulful voice, but it would never have fit with Journey music as it had come to be recognized. If they were truly going for a different sound it might have worked, but not with the Journey name. A different sound needs a different name after a band had established a signature sound.

I 100% agree.....100%

BUT - some Perry "fans" on this very board have curesed until they were blue in the face that replacing Steve Perry with a clone was WRONG and an insult to Perry and the good name Journey!

I think our message was more that replacing Perry in a band named Journey was wrong no matter who it was. I actually still feel that way, because I think his voice was a large part of Journey's signature sound. That's not to say I don't understand the band's point of view, or that I don't think they've made any good music since. I honestly think, for their sakes as well as Perry's, that in this music market they would have been more successful at getting new music heard if they'd gone with a different name. Even though the Journey name and catalogue carry a lot of weight with some people, and therefore sell a lot of tickets, to a lot of other people, most notably critics and radio, they carry preconceptions. Some of those preconceptions are attached to the Perry name in that people are expecting to hear him, others are about that old stigma of "corporate rock" that turned the critics off in the '80s. JMO, I hope I didn't offend anyone. I'm not putting down this band as a band, only questioning the wisdom of some of their choices. They sound too good not to even be given a chance because of people's mind sets.

[ohsherrie]

Point is that I had that opinion of some Perry fans LONG before I invented the Journey internet. HOTS, nor anybody else on this forum, put it there. So, for them to throw a smilie up in reply to that post is quite funny to me since they had absolutely nothing to do with why I orignaly formed that opinion.

I see what you mean, but I didn't think they were saying they thought they had influenced you. I think they were just saying they agreed with what you said.

[perryfaithful]

I think they were just saying they agreed with what you said.

As simple as that! Thanks ohsherrie...

[NealIsGod]

So Van Halen should have changed their name when Hagar joined, even though Eddie owns the name? Just because Roth was the "signature" voice of VH? Nah...

[OpeningAct]

So Van Halen should have changed their name when Hagar joined, even though Eddie owns the name? Just because Roth was the "signature" voice of VH? Nah...

And look at the great tunes VH has put out with Haggar singing lead...GREAT stuff!!!!
And ASIA is still kicking around with only ONE original member...Geoffrey Downes!!!!

[NealIsGod]

So Van Halen should have changed their name when Hagar joined, even though Eddie owns the name? Just because Roth was the "signature" voice of VH? Nah...

And look at the great tunes VH has put out with Haggar singing lead...GREAT stuff!!!!
And ASIA is still kicking around with only ONE original member...Geoffrey Downes!!!!

And Journey is also putting out great songs, just in a different era. Had Perry been gone in 1985, like Roth was, they would have had a chance to establish themselves with a new singer.

[OpeningAct]

So Van Halen should have changed their name when Hagar joined, even though Eddie owns the name? Just because Roth was the "signature" voice of VH? Nah...

And look at the great tunes VH has put out with Haggar singing lead...GREAT stuff!!!!
And ASIA is still kicking around with only ONE original member...Geoffrey Downes!!!!

And Journey is also putting out great songs, just in a different era. Had Perry been gone in 1985, like Roth was, they would have had a chance to establish themselves with a new singer.

Perry would be an afterthought at this point had that been the case...and less of a headache for the band.

[ohsherrie]

So Van Halen should have changed their name when Hagar joined, even though Eddie owns the name? Just because Roth was the "signature" voice of VH? Nah...

Van Halen IS Eddie's name, just like Bon Jovi is Jon's name. That makes a difference to the public perception. Journey wasn't named after any of the members. The Journey name became more identified with Steve Perry than with any of the other members in the band regardless of who owned the name. Neal even said he felt like people only knew him as "that guy" in Journey.

I quit being a fan of Van Halen when Roth left, and the same when DeYoung left Styx. They just didn't have the sound I wanted from those bands anymore. That doesn't mean they didn't have a good sound, well, I never liked Hagar, but it meant they weren't the band that I had been a fan of anymore.

If what the band wanted was to continue with the same sound and be known for their history then I can see how going with a "Perry Clone" made sense to them from that point of view. Doing so however, locked them into preconceived expectations that alienated part of the fanbase as well as some critics and radio stations. If they wanted to change their direction by going with a harder edged rock sound that focused more on Neal, then I think they would have been better served by using a different name. It may have been harder for them to be recognized in the beginning, but they wouldn't have started out with so many people being disappointed that Perry wasn't there and judging everything new that they do according to a standard that was set by his vocals. It would probably have been more satisfying to them creatively in the long run.

It's all water under the bridge now anyway, what's done is done.

[NealIsGod]

It may have been harder for them to be recognized in the beginning, but they wouldn't have started out with so many people being disappointed that Perry wasn't there and judging everything new that they do according to a standard that was set by his vocals.

I hate to break this to you, but the casual fan thinks it IS Steve Perry up there at the shows. Sure, there are diehard Perry fans, but the fans who come to the shows for the "dirty dozen" (probably 90% of the fans at each show) don't even know any better. Which proves that Journey, to most people, is the MUSIC.

[jrnyman28]

Van Halen IS Eddie's name, just like Bon Jovi is Jon's name. That makes a difference to the public perception. Journey wasn't named after any of the members.

Yet that is the VERY reason why the band should not (or did not need) to change their name!

[Red13JoePa]

Home run.
UPPER DECK 500 foot home run, J28.

What is this change the name sour grapes? It's Neal's band. he started it. He retains it. It's not a matter of lack of sucess, either given the numbers they put up touring. It's a matter of bitterness and axes to grind.

"So many people disappointed" that Perry is not in the band anymore?

Er, someone forgot to tell the tens of thousands of fans who go see Journey every year that they're supposed to be disapointed Augeri's up there.

[Greg]

So Van Halen should have changed their name when Hagar joined, even though Eddie owns the name? Just because Roth was the "signature" voice of VH? Nah...

And look at the great tunes VH has put out with Haggar singing lead...GREAT stuff!!!!
And ASIA is still kicking around with only ONE original member...Geoffrey Downes!!!!

The thing with VH having loads of success with Hagar is that Hagar was already established as a solo artist, I think that contributed greatly to Van Halen's continued commerical success after DLR left.

[ohsherrie]

I didn't say EVERYONE was disappointed in the results of what they did. You guys are proof that there are people who are perfectly happy with it, even though you've all expressed disappointment that they're not doing better than they are with getting the new music out there.

I, along with lots of other people that I know, wish they had done things differently, but that's not even the point of what I was trying to say.

All of those people who come to those shows absolutely do come there to hear the music, for nostalgia purposes, and they keep buying those old songs. That's fine. What I was saying was that they would have had more success at selling NEW music if they had gone with a different name. There are just too many people who only want Journey to be the Journey that made those classics. It's the reaction of the crowds to the new stuff, the reluctance of radio to play the new stuff, and the sales of the old rather than the new stuff that proves that.

It's not that what they're doing isn't GOOD, it's that it's not what people think of as Journey. I can't say things would be all that different if Steve was still with them. I think it would, but that's just because I'm such a diehard Perry fan. What I've been trying to say here isn't about that. It's about what I honestly think would have been better for this band as far any new music and changing directions is concerned.

It's a matter of bitterness and axes to grind.

On whose part Joe? I hope you don't mean you think I'm saying this out of bitterness or spite. I'm really not at all.

A while back some of the guys said they wished I would be more candid and conversational so we could talk about this stuff instead of arguing all the time. That's all I'm doing. At least I thought I was.

[OpeningAct]

So Van Halen should have changed their name when Hagar joined, even though Eddie owns the name? Just because Roth was the "signature" voice of VH? Nah...

And look at the great tunes VH has put out with Haggar singing lead...GREAT stuff!!!!
And ASIA is still kicking around with only ONE original member...Geoffrey Downes!!!!

The thing with VH having loads of success with Hagar is that Hagar was already established as a solo artist, I think that contributed greatly to Van Halen's continued commerical success after DLR left.

True enough!

[Red13JoePa]

Journey having to change their name because they and Perry mutually opted to carry on without Perry in 1998.

I just do not see how that is fair to Neal Schon who founded the band, let alone Cain and Valory. They had EVERY right in the world to continue with that name and it's a bag-over-the-head, punch-in-the-face that perry even had the balls to try to require that of them. Totally self-centered.

[Greg]

Journey having to change their name because they and Perry mutually opted to carry on without Perry in 1998.

I just do not see how that is fair to Neal Schon who founded the band, let alone Cain and Valory. They had EVERY right in the world to continue with that name and it's a bag-over-the-head, punch-in-the-face that perry even had the balls to try to require that of them. Totally self-centered.

I can see what Perry was saying from the standpoint of the record company. The company knows that Perry being in the band means the band has something that makes it familar to the casual listeners. The truth is, like it or not, Perry is probably more of a household name than Neal Schon. Even some of my friends who played in rock bands back when they were younger, and were into all the guitar driven rock didn't know who Neal Schon was until I told them he was the guitarist from Journey. Yet, they knew who Steve Perry was. Does it seem self-centered? Yep...definitely! But, how far from the truth is it really?

[NoMoreTails]

If they wanted to change their direction by going with a harder edged rock sound that focused more on Neal, then I think they would have been better served by using a different name.
It's all water under the bridge now anyway, what's done is done.

Its not so much changing their direction as it is getting back to the direction of the real Journey, not the Perry-pop backup band.

[Red13JoePa]

Hey, I'm the choir and you're the preacher on that one, Greggie. IE, I know. I'm not debating wether perry or record companies thought Perry was the household name.

At the point it happened, it became apparent that the band was exasperated and wanted to continue with or without the guy. which meant they didn't CARE if they got the extra pub, notoriety and money that came with having perry. They simply wanted to continue as JOURNEY, the band Neal started and Cain and Valory also helped make famous (don't forget, the commercial breakthrough came with the advent of CAIN, not perry) for their own reasons (and having been foreced into a 10-year sabattical before by perry can anyone blame them for not wanting THAT again?!?!?!) and be FREE to do so. But no, they had to come to some kind of legal soul sale agreement because of perry's vindictiveness over the fact that they were prepared to go on without him.

[ohsherrie]

This has gone in a direction that I never intended. I guess it's just too much of a hot button. I think I'll just let it go.

I don't know when our Deano is coming back, but I don't want to be part of stirring up something that he might get himself kicked off again over.

[yak]

"So many people disappointed" that Perry is not in the band anymore?

Er, someone forgot to tell the tens of thousands of fans who go see Journey every year that they're supposed to be disapointed Augeri's up there.

Imagine being a Perrypile, and having to come to terms with THAT fact.

I hate to break this to you, but the casual fan thinks it IS Steve Perry up there at the shows. Sure, there are diehard Perry fans, but the fans who come to the shows for the "dirty dozen" (probably 90% of the fans at each show) don't even know any better. Which proves that Journey, to most people, is the MUSIC.

Who is it here who always says "It's all about the music?"

Fact of the matter is, it IS about the music. The fans bought tickets to hear Steve Augeri sing their favorites. If he is as unpalatable as some would have you believe, the fans wouldn't have been part of the venue sellouts this summer.

[Rockindeano]

This has gone in a direction that I never intended. I guess it's just too much of a hot button. I think I'll just let it go.

I don't know when our Deano is coming back, but I don't want to be part of stirring up something that he might get himself kicked off again over.

lol..The FIRST post I see..is from my esteemed friend, Journeytroll..You don't think I wanted to tear into him? But, I took the high road.....

[ohsherrie]

Hi sugar, it's great to see you back. You did good.