Should Journey Have Changed Their Name?

[Voyager]

This argument is absurd. Journey has always been an ever changing array of talent. Perry was obviously the brightest star, but Schon has proven to be the most consistent, most durable and most importantly the fucking most reliable.

Neal Schon without Steve Perry is like Joe Perry without Steven Tyler or Keith Richards without Mick Jagger: No hits.

[NealIsGod]

This argument is absurd. Journey has always been an ever changing array of talent. Perry was obviously the brightest star, but Schon has proven to be the most consistent, most durable and most importantly the fucking most reliable.

Neal Schon without Steve Perry is like Joe Perry without Steven Tyler or Keith Richards without Mick Jagger: No hits.

When's the last time the Stones had a "hit"?

[Saint John]

This argument is absurd. Journey has always been an ever changing array of talent. Perry was obviously the brightest star, but Schon has proven to be the most consistent, most durable and most importantly the fucking most reliable.

Neal Schon without Steve Perry is like Joe Perry without Steven Tyler or Keith Richards without Mick Jagger: No hits.

FTLOSM really burned up the charts though, huh?

[Voyager]

Did it ever occur to you Perry had the right timing? He came in when Rock was king, and got out before it went down the shitter.

Well said. Also, Perry was a perfectionist, and when he found in 1996 that his voice was no longer capable of hitting those piercing highs that were once his trademark anymore, he decided to throw in the towel. Who can blame him? There may be singers such as David Lee Roth who keep on singing after their voice has crapped out, but Perry is not one of them. I don't think anyone should condemn him for that.

Journey is still living off of the Steve Perry era. That's why they hire Steve Perry soundalike singers. If they doesn't prove that Journey was Steve Perry, I don't know what will. I take that back - I guess it will be when they make a hit record without a Steve Perry soundalike (like Van Halen did without their former singer).

[Saint John]

This argument is absurd. Journey has always been an ever changing array of talent. Perry was obviously the brightest star, but Schon has proven to be the most consistent, most durable and most importantly the fucking most reliable.

Neal Schon without Steve Perry is like Joe Perry without Steven Tyler or Keith Richards without Mick Jagger: No hits.

Neal Schon was also nominated for a Grammy as a solo artist and was part of another band (Bad English) that scored a number 1 hit and a top 5 hit. For the record, that's one more number one hit than Steve Perry had. Again, advantage Schon.

[Voyager]

This argument is absurd. Journey has always been an ever changing array of talent. Perry was obviously the brightest star, but Schon has proven to be the most consistent, most durable and most importantly the fucking most reliable.

Neal Schon without Steve Perry is like Joe Perry without Steven Tyler or Keith Richards without Mick Jagger: No hits.

FTLOSM really burned up the charts though, huh?

Goog point. That's why I think Steve Perry and Neal Schon needed each other to make the hits. The same thing happened when Steven Tyler tried to make records without Joe Perry - no hits.

[Voyager]

This argument is absurd. Journey has always been an ever changing array of talent. Perry was obviously the brightest star, but Schon has proven to be the most consistent, most durable and most importantly the fucking most reliable.

Neal Schon without Steve Perry is like Joe Perry without Steven Tyler or Keith Richards without Mick Jagger: No hits.

Neal Schon was also nominated for a Grammy as a solo artist and was part of another band (Bad English) that scored a number 1 hit and a top 5 hit. For the record, that's one more number one hit than Steve Perry had. Again, advantage Schon.

Errr.... slight correction... advantage = John Waite + Neal Schon + Jon Cain, with John Waite already having made hits on his own with Jon Cain before Neal Schon entered the picture.

[STORY_TELLER]

Your mama! Neal can't sing like Steve Perry and neither can any of the others.

Actually Deen does a pretty good Perry.

So does Jeremy when he sings songs originate by Perry. But neither Jeremy, Deen, Augeri or Chalfant can originate songs of Perry's caliber and that's the difference. Time will tell what Arnel can or can't do.

I would argue that Chalfant can and has albeit without the same level of commercial success. The dude's still out there writing and performing though.

Jeremey is apparantly working on new material and if it's the same caliber as the three original songs that he already has online I for one look forward to hearing it.

I couldn't disagree more.

Surface technique from both at best. No sophistication, no depth and certainly not the same level of talent for inventing melodies, (IMO) but to each his own-

[Saint John]

This argument is absurd. Journey has always been an ever changing array of talent. Perry was obviously the brightest star, but Schon has proven to be the most consistent, most durable and most importantly the fucking most reliable.

Neal Schon without Steve Perry is like Joe Perry without Steven Tyler or Keith Richards without Mick Jagger: No hits.

Neal Schon was also nominated for a Grammy as a solo artist and was part of another band (Bad English) that scored a number 1 hit and a top 5 hit. For the record, that's one more number one hit than Steve Perry had. Again, advantage Schon.

Errr.... slight correction... advantage = John Waite + Neal Schon + Jon Cain, with John Waite already having made hits on his own with Jon Cain before Neal Schon entered the picture.

Your exact quote was "Neal Schon without Steve Perry..." Last time I checked Steve Perry wasn't in Bad English. Now you're propping up John Waite as to take away from Neal and Jon. This further proves that Steve Perry completely (and in my mind intentionally) wasted Journey's opportunity to move on without him. If they could score 2 top 10 hits with Waite, I'm quite sure that bringing in a better singer (than Chalfant), coupled with the Journey name, they could have been very "relevant" back in the day. Perry knew this. However, the unconditional loyalty they showed for Perry (in the form of patiently waiting 10+ years) was rewarded with the destruction of the Chalfant and Rolie lineup, an aborted tour, a new relationship with Lee Phillips and Perry as a member of the band...though he didn't tour. Pure class.

[jrnyman28]

This argument is absurd. Journey has always been an ever changing array of talent. Perry was obviously the brightest star, but Schon has proven to be the most consistent, most durable and most importantly the fucking most reliable.

Neal Schon without Steve Perry is like Joe Perry without Steven Tyler or Keith Richards without Mick Jagger: No hits.

Neal Schon was also nominated for a Grammy as a solo artist and was part of another band (Bad English) that scored a number 1 hit and a top 5 hit. For the record, that's one more number one hit than Steve Perry had. Again, advantage Schon.

Errr.... slight correction... advantage = John Waite + Neal Schon + Jon Cain, with John Waite already having made hits on his own with Jon Cain before Neal Schon entered the picture.

Actually that would be "advantage Diane Warren" for writing that #1 hit.

[Voyager]

This further proves that Steve Perry completely (and in my mind intentionally) wasted Journey's opportunity to move on without him.

I don't know if it was intentional, but that is what happened. This is probably why Neal has so much disdain for Steve Perry that he would go as far as to re-record the Journey classics with a Steve Perry soundalike. Perry wasted a lot of years for Neal, and Neal obviously hasn't forgotten about it.

[finalfight]

This argument is absurd. Journey has always been an ever changing array of talent. Perry was obviously the brightest star, but Schon has proven to be the most consistent, most durable and most importantly the fucking most reliable.

Neal Schon without Steve Perry is like Joe Perry without Steven Tyler or Keith Richards without Mick Jagger: No hits.

Neal Schon was also nominated for a Grammy as a solo artist and was part of another band (Bad English) that scored a number 1 hit and a top 5 hit. For the record, that's one more number one hit than Steve Perry had. Again, advantage Schon.

Errr.... slight correction... advantage = John Waite + Neal Schon + Jon Cain, with John Waite already having made hits on his own with Jon Cain before Neal Schon entered the picture.

Your exact quote was "Neal Schon without Steve Perry..." Last time I checked Steve Perry wasn't in Bad English. Now you're propping up John Waite as to take away from Neal and Jon. This further proves that Steve Perry completely (and in my mind intentionally) wasted Journey's opportunity to move on without him. If they could score 2 top 10 hits with Waite, I'm quite sure that bringing in a better singer (than Chalfant), coupled with the Journey name, they could have been very "relevant" back in the day. Perry knew this. However, the unconditional loyalty they showed for Perry (in the form of patiently waiting 10+ years) was rewarded with the destruction of the Chalfant and Rolie lineup, an aborted tour, a new relationship with Lee Phillips and Perry as a member of the band...though he didn't tour. Pure class.

Now that's a great post.

[ttango1]

Was this ever done before in the history of rock?Did any of the famous bands changed their name after the lead singer was replaced?
I can't remember any legendary band doing that.

I can remember one. Try Jefferson Starship.
Grace Slick left and her and Paul Kantner had legal issues so the name got changed to Startship.

[xflajrnylvr]

There was JOurney before and after Perry

Steve just elevated this band to it high point

[StoneCold]

Since they're in the biz to make money, keeping the original name is the only way they'd stay viable.

I can just see it if they had.

Headlining the show will be "X band" with 3 former members of Journey!

Get your tix before they sell out!

[jrnyman28]

If Journey had changed their name, they would have been like Prince when he went to the symbol. They would be the band fomerly known as Journey.

[Tomulator]

This further proves that Steve Perry completely (and in my mind intentionally) wasted Journey's opportunity to move on without him.

I don't know if it was intentional, but that is what happened. This is probably why Neal has so much disdain for Steve Perry that he would go as far as to re-record the Journey classics with a Steve Perry soundalike. Perry wasted a lot of years for Neal, and Neal obviously hasn't forgotten about it.

Poor Neal!!

What a terrific guy...NEVER did ANYTHING wrong in all of this. Just a "victim".

[finalfight]

Since they're in the biz to make money, keeping the original name is the only way they'd stay viable.

I can just see it if they had.

Headlining the show will be "X band" with 3 former members of Journey!

Get your tix before they sell out!

.

Yep that would be The Storm.

[Voyager]

This further proves that Steve Perry completely (and in my mind intentionally) wasted Journey's opportunity to move on without him.

I don't know if it was intentional, but that is what happened. This is probably why Neal has so much disdain for Steve Perry that he would go as far as to re-record the Journey classics with a Steve Perry soundalike. Perry wasted a lot of years for Neal, and Neal obviously hasn't forgotten about it.

Poor Neal!!

What a terrific guy...NEVER did ANYTHING wrong in all of this. Just a "victim".

I wouldn't go as far as to say that. Neal obviously has made his share of mistakes and sins. But I don't blame him for wanting to continue making money from playing the music that was the most successful of his career. What would Joe Perry have done is Steven Tyler had quit singing 12 years ago? What would Keith Richards have done if Mick Jagger had quit singing 12 years ago? Probably what Mick Jones of Foreigner did when Lou Gramm quit the band, or what Styx did when Dennis De Young quit the band - hire a new replacement singer and go on tour playing the hits.

Re-recording the classics is a different matter though. I do not remember any major national act doing something like that.

[Voyager]

If Journey had changed their name, they would have been like Prince when he went to the symbol. They would be the band fomerly known as Journey.

Maybe, but my guess is that they would have been known as "The band that formerly had Steve Perry as their lead singer." That is, unless they would have hired a non-soundalike singer and created some more hits.

[Playitloudforme]

My two cents.

While one can argue that Perry was just a part of the band, he was, in fact, a critical part of the band's success.

Steven Tyler is a part of Aerosmith, but would the rest of the band under another singer reap success?
Geoff Tate is a part of Queensryche, " " " " " " " " " " " "?
Joe Elliott is part of Def Leppard, " " " " " " " " " " " "?

Remove any of them...do you still have the band?

When the vocals are more than a key element to the band's notariety, you run a risk. Van Halen was not completely dependant on vocals, nor was Queen. Both found success with other singers, but then again, both had rock GODS as their guitarists. Schon doesn't rank up there, as much as he'd LIKE to... he doesn't. I'm not saying he's not brilliant...he is. But is NOT regarded that high up the rock god ladder (meaning public & industry opinions... if you had to rank them all, and not just you, cause we all know which way you'd vote, but say, everyone in your city, Neal wouldn't make the list of the top 10. I'd venture to say Eddie Van Halen and Brian May would -- http://www.votenumber1.com/vote1rockguitarist.html for an example. Neal was the first voted off. On the lead singer poll, even tho Perry hasn't sung in 10 years... he's #2. That's rock god status).

INXS tried a new singer, and didn't fair that well. Everyone compares Mr. Elvis impersonator to Michael, and he's just not THAT successful.

Should they have changed their name? I for one, think they should have. Neal could have had the total freedom to do whatever he wanted, have the band as all HIS, which is what he wanted it to be about to begin with. As long as it had the name JOURNEY,... it will forever be compared to the Steve Perry version of the band. Shoot, who was it that heard a DJ who STILL thought Perry was in the band....The fan base would forever be split apart, constantly comparing. Using another name, it would be brand new, and his success would be made or broken by his own merit, and not because it failed to meet expectations based upon past experience. Neal took the easy money way out. He knew he could make money playing the songs that worked, and he'd rather have the money than risk being out there with something new. Shit...they got rid of JSS...and with HIM they could have had NEW. I don't think Neal's into risk. JMHO.

[stevew2]

Retarded question and Vladan, take your dick out of your mouth when typing. I know it's Valentine's Day and all, and you are looking to get some, but check yourself.

Journey was Journey from 1973 until now. Oh, I am sorry, the REAL Journey is playing Charlotte this weekend Nevermind.

However, in all seriousness, Journey was a brand name, a piece of Americana, and it's sad that they have taken a classic and turned it into a fuckin Yugo. Perry helped create a beautiful machine. They should treat it with respect, and not piss in the gas tank.

On behalf of of Neal and Jon and a lot of the assface fans, I apologize to you Steve Perry.

I knew you would finally come round

[bluejeangirl76]

No, of course they should not have changed their name.

Did they change it when Aynsley left?
Did they change it when Rolie left?
Did they change it when Valory and Smith left? I mean "left".
Did they change it when Perry left? I mean "left".
Did they change it when Augeri "left"?
When JSS "left"?
Are they going to change it when Arnel "leaves"? (sorry.. )

No. The name is the moneymaker. Think about it... in '98... THREE Bad English members, Journey's bass player, and Steve Augeri... they didn't call it Bad English did they? No money in that.

I realize that Van Halen didn't change their name, but they did change their sound. Sammy Hagar did not try to re-record the David Lee Roth era songs, nor did he even sing but two or three of them in concert. Van Halen did not try to live on the successes of the David Lee Roth. In contrast, Journey has lived on the successes of the Steve Perry era. They haven't made any hits before or after Steve Perry's involvement.

Yep. Because the name brings in the money.
What made the name THE name? We ALL know the answer. So does Journey.
But that's not really for them to be concerned about at this point.
The identity is with the name and that's the only sure way they're going to sell tickets.

Yeah they could change it, but that would be an extremely poor decision from a business standpoint.

You can totally understand why Perry would ask them not to use the name and let it rest with the history they worked so hard to give it. But you can also understand why they would say "absolutely not." I mean Neal and Jon did the work too, right? Right. It's their band name too. And 2/3 majority ruled. For Perry, it was "don't fuck it all up... call your new band something else..." and for FrigFro is was "bullshit, it's our band too and it's our name too..." (I'm assuming that's a pretty fair abridgement of what happened but I could be off). Plus, they knew they needed the name to sell tickets. That may sound like a chep shot but it's not. It's business.

I still believe that it's that 1/3 minority that had the right idea, but who could have known that 10 years ago. I would defend their right to use the name Journey all the way up to last summer. What's happening now, I don't agree with and my personal belief if they are fucking it up big time. 10 years ago I'd have said "Well, I can see Perry's point, but... sorry... if they want to sontinue as Journey they have the right." And I guess they still do, but it turns out Perry was right. They jacked it all up. But. It's still business.

[youkeepmewaiting]

Actually this argument was interesting 10 years.. TEN YEARS AGO!

SP is gone. Journey is here.


get over it for fucks sake!

[ohsherrie]

My two cents.

While one can argue that Perry was just a part of the band, he was, in fact, a critical part of the band's success.

Steven Tyler is a part of Aerosmith, but would the rest of the band under another singer reap success?
Geoff Tate is a part of Queensryche, " " " " " " " " " " " "?
Joe Elliott is part of Def Leppard, " " " " " " " " " " " "?

Remove any of them...do you still have the band?

When the vocals are more than a key element to the band's notariety, you run a risk. Van Halen was not completely dependant on vocals, nor was Queen. Both found success with other singers, but then again, both had rock GODS as their guitarists. Schon doesn't rank up there, as much as he'd LIKE to... he doesn't. I'm not saying he's not brilliant...he is. But is NOT regarded that high up the rock god ladder (meaning public & industry opinions... if you had to rank them all, and not just you, cause we all know which way you'd vote, but say, everyone in your city, Neal wouldn't make the list of the top 10. I'd venture to say Eddie Van Halen and Brian May would -- http://www.votenumber1.com/vote1rockguitarist.html for an example. Neal was the first voted off. On the lead singer poll, even tho Perry hasn't sung in 10 years... he's #2. That's rock god status).

INXS tried a new singer, and didn't fair that well. Everyone compares Mr. Elvis impersonator to Michael, and he's just not THAT successful.

Should they have changed their name? I for one, think they should have. Neal could have had the total freedom to do whatever he wanted, have the band as all HIS, which is what he wanted it to be about to begin with. As long as it had the name JOURNEY,... it will forever be compared to the Steve Perry version of the band. Shoot, who was it that heard a DJ who STILL thought Perry was in the band....The fan base would forever be split apart, constantly comparing. Using another name, it would be brand new, and his success would be made or broken by his own merit, and not because it failed to meet expectations based upon past experience. Neal took the easy money way out. He knew he could make money playing the songs that worked, and he'd rather have the money than risk being out there with something new. Shit...they got rid of JSS...and with HIM they could have had NEW. I don't think Neal's into risk. JMHO.

Abso-fuckin-lutely what she said.

[Playitloudforme]

Thanks girl.. LOVE the avatar btw. LOVE IT! And he'd answer C btw...

[mikemarrs]

i have to say KISS is doing something similar in that even when crucial members left like peter criss and ace frehley the band soldiered on and kept making music because the band is greater than one person.there was a quote where a member said when someone leaves its like a flat tire.you get out replace the tire and you keep on moving.i agree that jon and neal have every right to keep going.just because perry wants to sit at home and quit doesn't mean they have to also.they want to keep working and if they have a guy to do perry's vocals more power to 'em.

[ProgRocker53]

Boy, chart-topping hit singles are a great way to judge how good a band is.

[annie89509]

These kinds of debate get recycled from time to time, knowing full well people's mindsets are already ingrained in their heads. We, the hardcore fans, all know the Journey back stories. There's not much to dispute over anyone's point of view. However, what makes my skin crawl is the repeated assertions that Neal & Jon (or Herbie, for that matter) should have replaced SteveP in 1987 (or even after Frontiers). What a ridiculous premise.

Argue all you want about whether the name Journey is SP. Fact of the matter is, everyone that is remotely connected with and/or interested in music knows the Journey sound (in the ‘80s, especially) as what came through the singing of SP. Neal & Jon knew this (and Herbie, I'd bet). That's why they voluntarily put Journey on hiatus, went and did their own projects, and waited for their lead singer "to find himself."

Yes, 10 years is a long time to have put the band on hold. But, other famous bands have gone through long dry spells before making new music, the Eagles and Boston are 2 that come to mind.

As much a Perry fan as I am, I will never advocate that they do not have the right to go on in ‘97 without SP or to change their name. But, it's also ridiculous to suggest that SP sabotaged, out of spite or whatever, their every move in forging ahead. By all accounts, even from Jon at the time in an interview right here with Andrew, SP did not stand in their way. He could have tied them up in court for years over the use of the name (as many, many band splits have encountered this problem). Sure, he put conditions on how they could use the music. As the singer and main creator of the songs, who wouldn't?

[finalfight]

When the vocals are more than a key element to the band's notariety, you run a risk. Van Halen was not completely dependant on vocals, nor was Queen. Both found success with other singers, but then again, both had rock GODS as their guitarists. Schon doesn't rank up there, as much as he'd LIKE to... he doesn't. I'm not saying he's not brilliant...he is. But is NOT regarded that high up the rock god ladder (meaning public & industry opinions... if you had to rank them all, and not just you, cause we all know which way you'd vote, but say, everyone in your city, Neal wouldn't make the list of the top 10. I'd venture to say Eddie Van Halen and Brian May would -- http://www.votenumber1.com/vote1rockguitarist.html for an example. Neal was the first voted off. On the lead singer poll, even tho Perry hasn't sung in 10 years... he's #2. That's rock god status).

Should they have changed their name? I for one, think they should have. Neal could have had the total freedom to do whatever he wanted, have the band as all HIS, which is what he wanted it to be about to begin with. As long as it had the name JOURNEY,... it will forever be compared to the Steve Perry version of the band. Shoot, who was it that heard a DJ who STILL thought Perry was in the band....The fan base would forever be split apart, constantly comparing. Using another name, it would be brand new, and his success would be made or broken by his own merit, and not because it failed to meet expectations based upon past experience. Neal took the easy money way out. He knew he could make money playing the songs that worked, and he'd rather have the money than risk being out there with something new. Shit...they got rid of JSS...and with HIM they could have had NEW. I don't think Neal's into risk. JMHO.

And what would happen to the Journey catalogue and name, would you rather it was left to deteriorate along with Perry's vocal ability? Schon tried the new approach at least twice with questionable success. Bad English and the so called new approach with JSS in Soul Sirkus. It just didn't wash with the majority. I am sure Schon would love to have massive success outside of Journey so he could step out of Steve Perry's shadow once and for all but it appears that it is not going to happen so better not to derail the money train.

As for that ridiculous best of 'whatever' poll - there is a dedicated thread on this very board that has kept Perry in contention. Without that he would have dropped off it ages ago. Want proof go check the position of Don't Stop Believin' on the best rock song poll...Seems that everyone so far forgot to vote on that one they did with Schon as best guitarist. No rock god status merely a handful of dedicated fans who dutifully vote as often as they are able.

The remainder of the band have done enough over the past decade to be called Journey. In fact this whole thread is ten years too late. Seriously no-one seemed this pissed when Paul Rogers took on the frontman role in Queen and that could really be considered messing with a legacy. In fact fans appeared to be pleased that they would get a chance to see the band play once again and many considered the move in some ways respectful. To my ears Rogers sounds horrible on those songs but different enough from Freddie to avoid the sound alike and coverband jibes that Journey are frequently subjected to. Now what if JSS was given the frontman role in Queen instead of Rogers? Would there have been so much bitterness then? Jeff is amazing on that material matching Freddie note for note and bettering him live for consistancy in my opinion. Does he sound too similar to Freddie? Would Queen then be a cover band despite the inclusion of a performer far more suited to that material and a much better frontman tehn a short Northerner with the charisma of a 2x4? Of course not.

Journey is the money maker and the current members better damn well shake it for all its worth before the bottom falls off.