Oh, I've just GOT to reply to this message.

If the only way you can "prove" your point is by mentioning Marillion, Styx, and Wildest Dreams you need to try a little harder. That's really reaching there, pal.

Look, as was said in an earlier post --- FIRST doesn't equal BEST.

In this case the argument is NOT that "Steve Perry" was first. Everyone knows Perry wasn't there from the beginning. The OPINION expressed by myself and a precious few others on this board is that Perry, during his time with Journey, BECAME such an integral part of the band's identity that it seems ludicrous to expect that the band will still be Journey without him.

sfk kurt wrote:

"Have you forgotten that Perry was not an original member of the band? Technically, maybe they weren't Journey without Robert Fleichman. "

Hey, pal... To me, Journey never really was JOURNEY before Perry came onboard. It's the same way that Rush before Neil Peart isn't really Rush. Peart came into the band, began writing 99.95% of all the songs they've done in the past 25 years or so and brought his identifiable and unique drumwork to the band's music. So that now, if Peart were to leave the band and Rush decided to continue without him it might be something but it wouldn't be RUSH.

Sometimes a member of a band becomes truly "irreplaceable." Hey, I'd feel the same way if Perry was trying to do Journey without Neal Schon. For me, those two are the true heart of Journey. One without the other is really nothing more than a glorified solo project. Perry's solo albums aren't Journey. Bad English wasn't Journey. And this new thing calling itself "Journey" isn't Journey. I'm finished trying to tell you guys you aren't gonna like it. Apparently a lot of you DO like it. Fine. All I'm asking is that you at least concede the point that it's not the Journey we could have had if they'd waited for Perry to recover. Give me that at least.