Ian Perkins

njguy99 wrote:

"Hello, I'm Ian. I live behind the CD. Nice to meet you, mate!"

I also live in here:

I think he seems like a lovely bloke, it's gonna take some time for him to get in to the flow of playing live with the rest of the guys and, personally, if the band think its right then I agree with them. They're yet to dissapoint me, so I'm fully supportive of Ian staying as a touring member. However, I wouldn't really like to see him join the band fully.

First off thanks to steady now steady now for unlocking the thread and for his comments.

For some reason this topic seems to make some people extremely upset and sensitive and I'm really not sure why. I think we can all agree that Ian is a great guy, I admitted that his play seems to have improved some and hasn't been disruptive to shows. It just really boils down to a.) what is Ian adding to the band, and b.) whether that should mean he's a "member". To me, a. is not very much (except when Brian wants to not play) and b. definitely not. Lots and lots of bands have touring members who are never more than that. Hell Pearl Jam has had a touring keyboardist for a decade and he's still not in the band. If anyone can tell me one thing that Ian has done to improve a song, a show, etc. from a musical standpoint, then maybe I can see a point. As Dan Gaslight said, it's hard to find the need that he's filling. Is that not worth discussing?

Of course we have no say, of course it's the bands decision and this discussion doesn't matter. The same can be said for most posts on here, or any message board, it's just discussion. Personally, I think debating the merits of the band adding a member and what that means musically are more interesting than whether or not your CD is in the mail, but to each his own.

I was noticing at the end of "45", it seems like they are three guitar parts. Granted it took me about 50 listens to even notice that.

I have nothing against debating stuff, infact I can be a pretty obnoxious and persistent debater myself, but I honestly think this discussion is a bit unnecessary.

A few pages back, Lorraine said you're just gonna have to deal with it, and while it might seem a bit rude, it's the truth. The band members don't need a special (or even a good) reason to do anything, because it's their band.

"If anyone can tell me one thing that Ian has done to improve a song, a show, etc. from a musical standpoint, then maybe I can see a point"
I think that's an irrelevant question to ask because I'm sure there's a whole bunch of things he's contributed without really feeling the need to take credit for it. Maybe he's secretly the mastermind behind their entire career, maybe he's just some English bloke who can play a couple chords, what is it to you?

It doesn't matter.

Harbortown wrote:

I have nothing against debating stuff, infact I can be a pretty obnoxious and persistent debater myself, but I honestly think this discussion is a bit unnecessary.

A few pages back, Lorraine said you're just gonna have to deal with it, and while it might seem a bit rude, it's the truth. The band members don't need a special (or even a good) reason to do anything, because it's their band.

"If anyone can tell me one thing that Ian has done to improve a song, a show, etc. from a musical standpoint, then maybe I can see a point"
I think that's an irrelevant question to ask because I'm sure there's a whole bunch of things he's contributed without really feeling the need to take credit for it. Maybe he's secretly the mastermind behind their entire career, maybe he's just some English bloke who can play a couple chords, what is it to you?

It doesn't matter.

What is any of this to any of us? We're fans discussing a band and music, none of this matters beyond that.

Well duh. We're all fans discussing a band and music, but you and this other guy seem exceedingly adamant about questioning his involvement in the band.

Feck, is this STILL going....?

...and yes, I realised I've just bumped it back to the top of the board...

I'll go stand in the corner.

bakerfall wrote:

If anyone can tell me one thing that Ian has done to improve a song, a show, etc. from a musical standpoint, then maybe I can see a point.

That's the thing...LOTS of people have, including people that have seen them live, and not via a YT video...

Klown wrote:

Feck, is this STILL going....?

...and yes, I realised I've just bumped it back to the top of the board...

I'll go stand in the corner.

bakerfall wrote:

If anyone can tell me one thing that Ian has done to improve a song, a show, etc. from a musical standpoint, then maybe I can see a point.

That's the thing...LOTS of people have, including people that have seen them live, and not via a YT video...

Sorry dude, that's just not true. Lots of people have said "he sounded fine to me" or "I didn't notice a problem" which isn't at all what I'm even talking about. I didn't notice him at all when I saw them a few weeks back, which just underscores the question of what is he adding.

Whatever, I'm done with this. I only responded because I just find it asinine that people keep posting how Ian should be a full member of the band because he's a nice guy. I just would hope people are smarter than that when it comes to music.

You're a Pearl Jam fan, what are your thoughts on Boom? Did you ever voice those thoughts? If you thought he was the nicest guy in the world, would you want him as a full member of the band? This discussion is NO different than that one.

Klown wrote:

Feck, is this STILL going....?

...and yes, I realised I've just bumped it back to the top of the board...

I'll go stand in the corner.

bakerfall wrote:

If anyone can tell me one thing that Ian has done to improve a song, a show, etc. from a musical standpoint, then maybe I can see a point.

That's the thing...LOTS of people have, including people that have seen them live, and not via a YT video...

Maybe I missed it but where have people mentioned this? The only thing I remember is people saying it's great that Ian is there so that Brian can stagedive during Baba.

I just feel this topic, is one that is going to go round and round, with no ending, neither side 'budging', and whilst it's good to discuss, I don't think that is how this will end up with this one.

As for Boom, I think he takes away from the PJ live experience, seems a nice bloke, just instead of enhancing something, like an extra touring guitarist could do, he just adds a big wishy washy element of nothing.

Ian live, give the band a bigger live feel, allowed Brian to step away from the guitar and start taking on more of the feel of a frontman, and he seems to be revelling in it. If anything, we have seen an even more confident Brian now, which moving up the size of venues, can only be a good thing, if Brian wants to live true to his word of 'having the person in the back row of an arena, feel like they are in a club show'. Has there been mistakes, of course, but if you want to liken this to PJ, then you have a wealth of mistakes in the live arena to pick from ...

ral wrote:

Maybe I missed it but where have people mentioned this? The only thing I remember is people saying it's great that Ian is there so that Brian can stagedive during Baba.

There was lots of reports from Koko, not just about the stagedive, but talking about how the band seemed far tighter after a few shows under their belts, and how improved they thought the sound was.

Klown wrote:

I just feel this topic, is one that is going to go round and round, with no ending, neither side 'budging', and whilst it's good to discuss, I don't think that is how this will end up with this one.

As for Boom, I think he takes away from the PJ live experience, seems a nice bloke, just instead of enhancing something, like an extra touring guitarist could do, he just adds a big wishy washy element of nothing.

Ian live, give the band a bigger live feel, allowed Brian to step away from the guitar and start taking on more of the feel of a frontman, and he seems to be revelling in it. If anything, we have seen an even more confident Brian now, which moving up the size of venues, can only be a good thing, if Brian wants to live true to his word of 'having the person in the back row of an arena, feel like they are in a club show'. Has there been mistakes, of course, but if you want to liken this to PJ, then you have a wealth of mistakes in the live arena to pick from ...

ral wrote:

Maybe I missed it but where have people mentioned this? The only thing I remember is people saying it's great that Ian is there so that Brian can stagedive during Baba.

There was lots of reports from Koko, not just about the stagedive, but talking about how the band seemed far tighter after a few shows under their belts, and how improved they thought the sound was.

People were saying they sounded better as a band than at previous shows, I don't think anyone said "Ian made XX song SO much better". At the end of this, that is my only point. He isn't really adding anything, so why have him there.

You're right that no one is going to change their opinion on this (apparently). I just wanted someone to give an actual opinion beyond "it's their choice" and "he's nice". At least you gave your opinion that you thought he made them fuller sounding. We can disagree on that, but at least it's an actual thought.

No, I do see your point on the basis of the 'he is nice' and 'it's their choice' arguments. It's not valid reasons to back up the live setting discussion. Whilst the only one that holds any weight out of the two is the 'it's their choice', it is, and they are bound to have their reasons, I think (and it's only me thinking here) is that it is for the bigger sound and to take over guitar duties in certain songs. It's added a new dynamic to the band in that Brian now has freedom and isn't restricted by his guitar all the time now, I honestly feel that is going to help him progress as a front-man, which can only be a good thing.

In regards to what songs? I haven't had a chance to watch the dvds I'm working on at the moment, but I do feel that what I saw in the Koko setting, sounded damn good with them all up there, I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what songs benefited, but that's not from struggling to pick them out, probably more from jumping about like a loon. I'll have a listen through on the stuff when I get the dvd done.

I think this tour, before the album release is more of a 'live rehearsal', iron out the glitches and whatnot, and get ready to hit the ground running for the tours proper. At the end of the day, they could have done that behind closed doors to the point of getting it down to a T, but instead, we got the chance to see them grow.

As Dave Hause said..."Only time will tell"

Klown wrote:

No, I do see your point on the basis of the 'he is nice' and 'it's their choice' arguments. It's not valid reasons to back up the live setting discussion. Whilst the only one that holds any weight out of the two is the 'it's their choice', it is, and they are bound to have their reasons, I think (and it's only me thinking here) is that it is for the bigger sound and to take over guitar duties in certain songs. It's added a new dynamic to the band in that Brian now has freedom and isn't restricted by his guitar all the time now, I honestly feel that is going to help him progress as a front-man, which can only be a good thing.

In regards to what songs? I haven't had a chance to watch the dvds I'm working on at the moment, but I do feel that what I saw in the Koko setting, sounded damn good with them all up there, I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what songs benefited, but that's not from struggling to pick them out, probably more from jumping about like a loon. I'll have a listen through on the stuff when I get the dvd done.

I think this tour, before the album release is more of a 'live rehearsal', iron out the glitches and whatnot, and get ready to hit the ground running for the tours proper. At the end of the day, they could have done that behind closed doors to the point of getting it down to a T, but instead, we got the chance to see them grow.

As Dave Hause said..."Only time will tell"

Clearly Brian does want to have some songs where he isn't playing so he be that frontman. Maybe they thought it was easier/less disruptive to just leave Ian up there the whole time. I can honestly say if you find a single song where Ian did anything beyond playing straight rhythm, I will be very surprised. Honestly, I wish adding another guitar player DID change things more. I wish it led to better jams, more improv, more creativity. Maybe they will get to that, who knows.

Thank you for having an actual discussion btw, it's refreshing and you've made some actual points.

bakerfall wrote:

Clearly Brian does want to have some songs where he isn't playing so he be that frontman. Maybe they thought it was easier/less disruptive to just leave Ian up there the whole time. I can honestly say if you find a single song where Ian did anything beyond playing straight rhythm, I will be very surprised. Honestly, I wish adding another guitar player DID change things more. I wish it led to better jams, more improv, more creativity. Maybe they will get to that, who knows.

It will be interesting to see if he stays as JUST a touring guitarist, I can't see it to be honest, and I honestly wouldn't have a problem, as that would give him more of a 'purpose' in things, and help the band gel more in the live setting. I think he would be someone that would contribute more to thinks, that a keyboard player that is just there to supply the weed...

In regards to keeping Ian up there, I think it's a strong possibility that it's through to been less disruptive, but again, whilst early days might be a hindrance, and lead to mistakes or stuff not woring out as well, it also does give them that chance to sort it out, instead of x amount of months down the line, and coming into problems.

Again, this is all only my thoughts, but I think the bigger picture is the bands growth in this, live and in studio, and it is all we can do ... speculate.

Klown - some interesting points - thank you for actually injecting some mature, considered thoughts into the other side of the argument.

Like bakerfall, I just think it's an interesting subject to talk about and it would be cool if we could all debate it in a calmer fashion.

is it just me or is ian a bit shit at playing guitar? never noticed it before but he's kind of crap isn't he? i dunno maybe it's just me. any thoughts?

Labhras wrote:

is it just me or is ian a bit shit at playing guitar? never noticed it before but he's kind of crap isn't he? i dunno maybe it's just me. any thoughts?

my thoughts are if you're serious, read the thread. if not, stop trolling.

ral wrote:

Labhras wrote:

is it just me or is ian a bit shit at playing guitar? never noticed it before but he's kind of crap isn't he? i dunno maybe it's just me. any thoughts?

my thoughts are if you're serious, read the thread. if not, stop trolling.

no no i mean, i get that some ppl think he's ineffectual or not a good fit. but i mean proper crap, y'know what i mean?

Labhras wrote:

is it just me or is ian a bit shit at playing guitar? never noticed it before but he's kind of crap isn't he? i dunno maybe it's just me. any thoughts?

"Ineffectual" and " not a good fit" - that pretty much sums up my opinion on Ian/Gaslight perfectly - thank you!

As for him being crap on guitar; well it's hard to judge what he's actually capable of doing. In Gaslight he does 'nothing' of note and on Elsie there's nothing that makes you sit up and listen and go, "wow, that was some killer guitar". On the evidence we have seen and heard so far, I would certainly say he's capable and proficient enough to play a few chords but what that brings to Gaslight is what's lost on me!

At this level of the game, if that is your limits, you will be called out and questioned because you'll stick out like a sore thumb.

Mmmm - Totalitarianism lives at dimestoresaints.com. Why are Ian's 'fans' allowed to post at will in this thread but anyone else isn't? Consider me 'silenced'!!!

If this thread is "boring" I hope you all enjoy your lively debates on 'CD's in the post', pictures of Handwritten on shop shelves, Brian's hats and t-shirts etc etc etc etc.

Thanks to bakerfall and A_Regular for the support and trying to encourage legitimate debate and to Klown who brought up some interesting points on the other side of the argument.

This site has some great folk on it and it has the potential to be really great - but it needs run better than this.

Hopefully Gaslight will bring out their own official forum and debate there will be encouraged rather than stifled.

Thanks.

P.S . for what it's worth I don't think 'boring' has anything to do with why this thread has been moderated with such fervour.

For some reason folk have been allowed to debate the pros and cons of:

*Endorsing Levis
*Signing to a Major
* Records and songs
* Ticket prices and Fan Club details etc etc

For some reason, "Ian Perkins" is deemed off limits, no discussion, end of story. Accept him as part of the band because he's nice or shut up and go away if you question it. I just don't get that either.

dan gaslight wrote:

Mmmm - Totalitarianism lives at dimestoresaints.com. Why are Ian's 'fans' allowed to post at will in this thread but anyone else isn't? Consider me 'silenced'!!!

If this thread is "boring" I hope you all enjoy your lively debates on 'CD's in the post', pictures of Handwritten on shop shelves, Brian's hats and t-shirts etc etc etc etc.

Hopefully Gaslight will bring out their own official forum and debate there will be encouraged rather than stifled.

Ian's critics are welcome to post in this thread, if they have something new to say. No one was saying anything new, that was boring (that goes for fans as well). At least pics of Handwritten on a shelf tend to be of a different shelf, ina different shop, etc.

And if you think that an official forum will allow a more open debate than this forum, you'll be in for a shock.

Anyway, we have a 'forum complaints' thread for this sort of thing, so enough of that.

dan gaslight wrote:

Accept him as part of the band because he's nice or shut up and go away if you question it.

Where exactly did anyone say he's part of the band because he's nice?

An official forum is only going to be worse than this, c'mon, the one for Pearl Jam was banning people because they were posting photos of Eddie during his mohawk stage...!