(Live at Carnegie Hall, 5/13/10)”
by Shirley Bassey, Debbie Harry, Elton John, Lady Gaga, Bruce Springsteen, and Sting
(YouTube)
This performance, ridiculous by definition and in recorded fact, climaxed a Sting-organized rainforest benefit a couple weeks ago. Jon Pareles’s New York Times review concluded, “Sting said that Mr. Springsteen also chose the concert’s all-star finale… [Journey’s] 1981 arena crowd-pleaser once scorned as cheesy corporate rock. Now, from its appearance in the finale of The Sopranos to a best-selling version from Glee to a Springsteen endorsement at Carnegie Hall, it’s well on its way to rehabilitation.”
Not on its way: It’s there. Springsteen is not going to sing Styx. You’re never going to hear the E Street Band air out “Time for Me to Fly.” Just this one, and it got there not because of Glee or The Pitchfork 500 (where Journey are sandwiched between Springsteen’s “Atlantic City” and Bad Brains’ “Pay to Cum”) or The Sopranos or Bruuuuce. It’s because of VH1’s Behind the Music.
Before music television, rock history was print’s domain, outside the occasional biopic or TV special. In the late ’70s and early ’80s—the era of high AOR that Journey apotheosizes—that meant music mags (and the odd book), which were written by people who detested Journey et al. and found them unworthy of poring over the way they had Dylan, Lennon, or Springsteen. With the Beatles, people got a story; with Journey, people got songs.
Behind the Music premiered in 1997, and musicians one might not have cared about were suddenly really interesting. In February 2001, the Journey episode premiered, and it was riveting. The band had started out as prog rock; acquired the nakedly ambitious lead singer Steve Perry, who wrote and sang gut-busting prom songs; and the tension between him and the band suddenly gave them a human dimension. Perry leaving and the band hiring Steve Augeri, who happens to sound exactly like Perry, was stupid on paper and looked ridiculous and dramatic enacted on-screen. As someone who’d basically found a calling as a rock critic because I had found other people who hated Journey, too, I was stunned that I couldn’t stop watching. Suddenly, Journey weren’t just a bunch of songs—they had an arc that everyone could know. It gave people a story to go with the songs. And people tend to canonize stories more than songs. 
The Badfinger episode was also very interesting. They’re even some updated episodes. Genesis, Judas Priest, etc…
How pretentious can you get? I suppose people like Bon Jovi because U-571 was such an incredible, life-changing film? Listen. You know why people like Journey? People like Journey because Journey is FUCKING AWESOME.
You say… “that meant music mags (and the odd book), which were written by people who detested Journey et al.”
Nope. They were written by shit rags who’s only job was to shoot the hell out of anything with talent in the hopes that it would uplift all those shitty alt-punk-grunge bands that no one gives a crap about to this day. Pretty much the same dufusses who write for magazines like this one that wouldn’t know a band with talent if it fucked them in the ass.
Neil Schon can eat anyone’s lunch at guitar, (Yes, by playing fast, or “soulful” If he chooses, which is the retards excuse for dissing someone with actual talent, as in “he plays fast, but has no soul”). The songs (not just don’t stop) were well crafted works of art that bands today wish they could come close to creating, never mind the production. Find it funny that bands now all want that “analog warmth” that came natural to those guys and their contemporaries
As teenage SF Bay Area fans of Journey and their first three albums, the addition of Steve Perry was a horrible insult to me and my partying pals, a betrayal of everything important about music and life. The big sell-out.
Out in the real world I rarely find anyone who has heard a song off one of those first three albums, which is a shame, because they are truly great albums.
Still, I secretly enjoyed Wheel in the Sky, When the Lights Go Down in the City, and Dont’ Stop Believing. And I find the story of their new lead singer, Filipino Arnel Pineda, and his addition to the band quite endearing.
What? I thought rock snobbery was over. Cmon dude. People like Journey because they rock. Their music had power, it made you feel good, and it was good art. Their lyrics spoke universal messages. They had those mysterious components known as chords and melodies, that pop artists nowadays (and a lot of indie acts, until recent years when they started raiding the ’80s for ideas again) seem totally unable to grasp. They were about music, not critical theory, and they were superb at it.
–LAC
What? I thought rockist snobbery was over. Cmon dude. People like Journey because they rock. Their music had power, it made you feel good, and it was good art. Their lyrics spoke universal messages. They had those mysterious components known as chords and melodies, that pop artists nowadays (and a lot of indie acts, until recent years when they started raiding the ’80s for ideas again) seem totally unable to grasp. They were about music, not social theory, and they were superb at it.
—LAC
“In the late ’70s and early ’80s—the era of high AOR that Journey apotheosizes—that meant music mags (and the odd book), which were written by people who detested Journey et al.”
= pretentious wankers all.
“… and found them unworthy of poring over the way they had Dylan, Lennon, or Springsteen. With the Beatles, people got a story; with Journey, people got songs…”
Well, these are, musicians, so they’re supposed to make songs. Um, right?
I’m a musician. Musicians primarily make music. They may be colorful personalities, or not; a music fan (as opposed to cult-of-personality follower) will appreciate the music regardless. They may tell a story in their songs, or not (maybe they don’t sing at all). They may wear a costume, or not. They may use light shows, smoke, fancy stages, multimillion-dollar videos, or not. They may excite academics, or not. They may give alienated, vaguely guilty-feeling white guys a feeling of primitivist “authenticity” via vicarious identification with oppressed minorities, or not. Regardless of any of these things, the thing to judge musicians by is their music. You seem to think the exact opposite: that personality, “story,” image, costumery, staging are what matters, and the musical arts take a back seat. That pretty much sums up what’s so mind-bogglingly wrong with an entire generation of rock critics. They just don’t seem to like actual music.
—LAC