by Greg » Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:47 am
I have tried writing about this for the last hour and wind up feeling like I was rambling along. So, let me try to summarize myself the best I can.
Both Herbie and Perry believe their side of the story is completely true. Who are we to say they're not? Perry probably didn't think he was a part of the band. Neal and the others didn't welcome him with open arms apparently. But, it's funny how success helps bring people together huh?
Herbie felt this was HIS band. He wanted to have all the albums named and complete with artwork before they were even started. HE worked to make the band successful, HE this and HE that! He wanted to have the final say of when Journey started and stopped. Most bands starting off probably don't have alot of room to say, "hey let us have more control over our destiny," but how many bands continue to subject themselves to being slaves of the system after they have reaped the benefits of the success?
If anything, the band should have taken Perry's lead and been more hands on with control of the band. That doesn't mean I feel like they should have dumped Herbert long before his time, but I think Herbie should have allowed the players of the band to feel like they were a part of the decision making. As much as I think Perry overstepped his boundaries on the control thing - and I believe he did it in abundance - at least he was sending the message that performers shouldn't be slaves to the system. Of course, that doesn't mean the other performers should have been slaves to Perry.
One thing I question is: if Perry's THAT much of a vindictive person, why is it that through all the "troubles" the band has apparently had with him, that they still hold an open invitation for him to come back to the band? While some might argue that isn't completely accurate, well by saying, "hey you can come on stage with us and sing a few songs...." sorry but that's an open invitation. Truth is, the band knows that with Perry they are commerical successes again. Maybe not near as successful as the 80's version, but successful nevertheless. But certainly, the invitation is conditional and rightfully so.
We all need to admit to a few things. First of all, Perry was probably irreplaceable after hearing the first few notes out of his mouth on his first album with Journey. I know of nobody else from that era that would have made us forget about Steve Perry's ties with Journey. Therefore, it's wrong to think that Journey would have been Journey after Frontiers if the frontman was gone. Secondly, this current version of Journey is a great, great band! It's that way for a few reasons.
First of all, there is no way whatsoever that Augeri nor Deen C will question Neal Schon or Jon Cain. Everyone in that band feels greatful to have the chance to continue the Journey. Secondly on that point - the songs are solid quality songs! The only beef that strict Perry fans have against the songs is the fact that Perry isn't singing them. Other than that - the songs rock! Thirdly, much of the band has already found success and made their riches from it. It is a shame that some of the bandmates feel into the trap of drugs, alcohol, or divorce...but they have nobody to blame but themselves for that.
Lastly, Herbie helped build the empire of Journey, but Journey showed success without Herbert. Maybe those projects (ROR and TBF) could have been better - but they were still successful - and any classic 80's band that is able to have success in the 90's grunge and alternative movement is a band that accomplishes much!
Some will say they were fans of Journey before Steve Perry and that is fine - but you were fans of two different bands, two different styles of music. The Pre-Perry stuff would have faded much faster because it was not commerically sound. The fact is, Journey's bulk of success came because of Steve Perry, Neal Schon, Jon Cain, Ross Valory, Steve Smith, Gregg Rollie, and Herbie Herbert - not in any order of significants! And yes, it is a contradiction to say that the whole band was successful and not because of one person, but yet that isn't completely true. No matter how much we will deny it, 9 times out of 10 - the frontman or front woman gives the band identity.
That isn't necessarily a praise of Steve Perry per se, but just the facts of the business. If not - there would have been no need to find another singer who could cover the old stuff. Luckily for Journey, they found a great singer who has now been able to put his own style to this band and although I feel this is yet a different band from the 80's version -it's a great band with Augeri singing.
But, if you deny the importance of the frontman - why is it that Foreigner hires a Lou Gramm "clone?"
Thanks 
