Billy Corgan says Bon Jovi is "formulaic"

danfan · #31 07-27-2012, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rdkopper

And the reason why Bon Jovi are hated vs. all the others you named is because they are the typical 80's hair metal band.... Which brings my argument full circle.

Get your countries right and take it from someone who lived through that period.

That's not why. It's because they don't fit into any specific genre of music. They're not metal or alternative. It's people that like those 2 types of music that hate Bon Jovi.

DevilsSon · #32 07-27-2012, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rdkopper

I'm stopping after this because you are really annoying me.

The difference between the two of us right there (one of the very many obviously!). While I annoy you, you amuse me. Or maybe it's bemuse me. Entertainment.

Quote:

Bleach was never big in '89. No one knew Bleach even existed until Nevermind became successful. There might have been some underground fans, but that's it. Smells Like Teen Spirit lifted Nevermind to success and Bleach followed after.
QUOTE:
"The unexpected success of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" in LATE 1991 propelled Nevermind to the top of the charts at the start of 1992"

Who are you quoting? Are you citing yourself? Sometimes that is early signs of schizophrenia. Just saying, you might want to check it out.

Nevermind came out at the end of September, 1991 and was already a top 10 record by November, 1991. That is about 6 weeks. I thought you were saying ' 6 months to a year', weren't you?

And while you are at it, see who else was Top 10 the same week.
http://www.billboard.com/charts/bill...ate=1991-11-16

Bleach was a big hit for Sub-Pop records. I guess that doesn't necessarily make it a big record.

Quote:

There were a ton of other bands during that time. What about STP? They had success past '96 with Tiny Music... Songs from the Vatican Gift Shop.

And the point is? Tiny Music sold less than anything else STP had done before and it's not really a grunge record anyway. Calling that record grunge is like calling These Days hair metal.

Quote:

And Why are Aerosmith getting thrown into this? They are a 70's band. Yes they had success in the 80's but to me, they are not the typical 80's hair metal band that I'm referring to.

I give you that. Your story doesn't really make much sense though. In 1989 Aeromsith were as 'hair metal' as you can get, no question asked. Yet somehow you are saying that these grunge bands, similarly to fascist extermination units, specifically targeted ONLY bands that started out in the 80s and played that type of music. Who knows. Maybe you are right. Yet Alice Cooper lost his commercial success. So did Van Halen. Just saying...but before we go further into this, I was wondering, when exactly did the 70s end? Was it roughly 1985?

Quote:

The Scorpions are not successful at all in America.

So what exactly are you trying to say with this? They might not be successful anymore, yet they have sold over 25 million records over there, most of them being what you define as 'typical 80s hair metal'. Yet Billy doesn't hate them. He loves them. And he knows that they can sell out 20 000 seaters all across Europe, while he can't. Yet he does play on their record...which brings me to your next point.

Quote:

And the reason why Bon Jovi are hated vs. all the others you named is because they are the typical 80's hair metal band.... Which brings my argument full circle.

Come on, don't abuse words such as 'argument'. Or 'full circle'. You just blabber stuff making no sense whatsoever. These are no arguments, and there is no full circle. It's just lots of words thrown together. Brownie points for trying though.

Quote:

Get your countries right and take it from someone who lived through that period.

Get my countries right? Ahh, the irony. That's the funniest thing you said all day. That's quite an achievement, considering all the non-sense you post. And well done for living through that period. Didn't realise dementia can hit so early.

DevilsSon · #33 07-27-2012, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danfan

That's not why. It's because they don't fit into any specific genre of music. They're not metal or alternative. It's people that like those 2 types of music that hate Bon Jovi.

It's not true really. The Kinks fans hate Bon Jovi. The Clash fans hate Bon Jovi. Van Halen fans hate Bon Jovi. Everyone who doesn't know Bon Jovi, hates Bon Jovi. And why is that? It's because they never tried to show the world that they are an album band. That they are more than just the 'formula'. Once people know, like we do here on this forum, it becomes easier to appreciate them. When you know that they have a Dry County in their catalogue, a Hey God, a These Days.

Thing is, while those songs become fewer and fewer, it becomes easier and easier to understand all the negativity from critics and other artists. In the end, if one little bite of your meal tasted good while the rest was very very mediocre, you wouldn't say that you had a great meal. And what Bon Jovi have been doing for years now, is become increasingly mediocre. I think that people like Corgan et. all can deal with bad stuff, and with good stuff. It's mediocrity that bothers them. And no matter how you turn it around, Bon Jovi have become the glorification of mediocrity and that's why I get increasingly estranged from this band.

ticos_stick · #34 07-27-2012, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevilsSon

It's not true really. The Kinks fans hate Bon Jovi. The Clash fans hate Bon Jovi. Van Halen fans hate Bon Jovi. Everyone who doesn't know Bon Jovi, hates Bon Jovi. And why is that? It's because they never tried to show the world that they are an album band. That they are more than just the 'formula'. Once people know, like we do here on this forum, it becomes easier to appreciate them. When you know that they have a Dry County in their catalogue, a Hey God, a These Days.

Thing is, while those songs become fewer and fewer, it becomes easier and easier to understand all the negativity from critics and other artists. In the end, if one little bite of your meal tasted good while the rest was very very mediocre, you wouldn't say that you had a great meal. And what Bon Jovi have been doing for years now, is become increasingly mediocre. I think that people like Corgan et. all can deal with bad stuff, and with good stuff. It's mediocrity that bothers them. And no matter how you turn it around, Bon Jovi have become the glorification of mediocrity and that's why I get increasingly estranged from this band.

Very true.

Bon Jovi have made some great albums and are a brilliant live act, most genuine music fans appreciate this. There are snobs and ignorant people who will cast the aside as hair metal nonsense though, but what most people realise now (on either side) is that the post 2000 Bon Jovi are bland, contrived and almost entirely irrelevant to the music scene today. People can say they are still successful but it's at the cost to the legacy of the band.

danfan · #35 07-27-2012, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevilsSon

It's not true really. The Kinks fans hate Bon Jovi. The Clash fans hate Bon Jovi. Van Halen fans hate Bon Jovi. Everyone who doesn't know Bon Jovi, hates Bon Jovi. And why is that? It's because they never tried to show the world that they are an album band. That they are more than just the 'formula'. Once people know, like we do here on this forum, it becomes easier to appreciate them. When you know that they have a Dry County in their catalogue, a Hey God, a These Days.

Thing is, while those songs become fewer and fewer, it becomes easier and easier to understand all the negativity from critics and other artists. In the end, if one little bite of your meal tasted good while the rest was very very mediocre, you wouldn't say that you had a great meal. And what Bon Jovi have been doing for years now, is become increasingly mediocre. I think that people like Corgan et. all can deal with bad stuff, and with good stuff. It's mediocrity that bothers them. And no matter how you turn it around, Bon Jovi have become the glorification of mediocrity and that's why I get increasingly estranged from this band.

I find so much music to be like that nowadays, that I don't really fault Bon Jovi anymore than I would anyone else. I of course expect more from Bon Jovi, but honestly, I was very happy with both Have A Nice Day and The Circle. I even liked some of Crush, Bounce and Lost Highway. It might not come close to their earlier work, but many of the biggest bands fall into that category - U2, Metallica, Aerosmith. They all keep pumping out new records (well, not really Aerosmith), but they can't hold a candle to their earlier work.

Rdkopper · #36 07-27-2012, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevilsSon

The difference between the two of us right there (one of the very many obviously!). While I annoy you, you amuse me. Or maybe it's bemuse me. Entertainment.

Who are you quoting? Are you citing yourself? Sometimes that is early signs of schizophrenia. Just saying, you might want to check it out.

Nevermind came out at the end of September, 1991 and was already a top 10 record by November, 1991. That is about 6 weeks. I thought you were saying ' 6 months to a year', weren't you?

And while you are at it, see who else was Top 10 the same week.
http://www.billboard.com/charts/bill...ate=1991-11-16

Bleach was a big hit for Sub-Pop records. I guess that doesn't necessarily make it a big record.

And the point is? Tiny Music sold less than anything else STP had done before and it's not really a grunge record anyway. Calling that record grunge is like calling These Days hair metal.

I give you that. Your story doesn't really make much sense though. In 1989 Aeromsith were as 'hair metal' as you can get, no question asked. Yet somehow you are saying that these grunge bands, similarly to fascist extermination units, specifically targeted ONLY bands that started out in the 80s and played that type of music. Who knows. Maybe you are right. Yet Alice Cooper lost his commercial success. So did Van Halen. Just saying...but before we go further into this, I was wondering, when exactly did the 70s end? Was it roughly 1985?

So what exactly are you trying to say with this? They might not be successful anymore, yet they have sold over 25 million records over there, most of them being what you define as 'typical 80s hair metal'. Yet Billy doesn't hate them. He loves them. And he knows that they can sell out 20 000 seaters all across Europe, while he can't. Yet he does play on their record...which brings me to your next point.

Come on, don't abuse words such as 'argument'. Or 'full circle'. You just blabber stuff making no sense whatsoever. These are no arguments, and there is no full circle. It's just lots of words thrown together. Brownie points for trying though.

Get my countries right? Ahh, the irony. That's the funniest thing you said all day. That's quite an achievement, considering all the non-sense you post. And well done for living through that period. Didn't realise dementia can hit so early.

If this amuses you, you have a warped sense of humor

Point A:

Yes, 6 months to a year to gain popularity. You showing me a number 9 position in November tells me that they were gaining in popularity but considering how massive they were, that number means nothing. What about all the other Grunge releases that you showed me in your other post that had releases in 1991? Why isn't Pearl Jam there if it takes less than 6 months?
Pearl Jam - Ten - 1991
Nirvana - Nevermind - 1991
Soundgarden - Badmotorfinger - 1991
Alice in Chains - Dirt - 1992

Point B:

By the way, you are totally drifting because you have no real arguments. Let me get you back on track. You said grunge was popular in America in 1991 and showed me the release years of all the grunge artists. I came back with a logical response saying. NO! It's wasn't until 1992 because it took 6 months to a year to kick in.

Then, as stated above, you show me the Billboard Chart and Nirvana is the only Grunge band on it so if Grunge was so popular in November of 1991, why are they the only band there holding a number 9 position? Why isn't Pearl Jam there yet?

So you accidently proved two of my comments to be correct. Now that's hysterical!

Point C:

Aerosmith had gained respect from their 70 years and because they had two albums in 3 years of hair metal, that doesn't make them a hair metal band. It's just like when Kiss did it in the 80's. Are they Hair Metal?

Point D:

You said Grunge was done in 1994 once Kurt died. I showed you a release from STP in 1996 to give one example. It had nothing to do with how many albums it sold. Was Grunge starting to decline at that time? YES! but it was still there big time.

Simon · #37 07-28-2012, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rdkopper

Guns and Roses - Using my Google skills - The Spaghetti Incident?" was released in 1993 which spawned three singles of which all 3 didn't chart. Wait, Since I Don't Have You peaked at 69. Yes, this was a covers album but Guns and Roses were known for putting out successful covers. Sympathy for the Devil was released in '94 and only peaked at #55. It did however beat When Love & Hate Collide.

You can't say that G&R would have been great in the 90's because you don't know. Appetite and Lies were brilliant. UYI 1 and 2 had a few great songs but weren’t masterpieces. They weren't as raw as the first two.

Hmmm hmmm. I don't really wanna interrupt your interesting debate, but you're mixing up facts and personal taste here. UYI 1&2 weren't as good as AFD? Depends. Were they as succesful? USY 1 sold 17 millions, the other one 18. That ain't big? The songs & videos were everywhere, the endless tour went into 1993, everyone knew who they were. They were relevant. TSI was just an addition. Fame and fortune then faded of course... because the band did.
To say GnR weren't big in the early 90s (91-93) is just rubbish. For 2 weeks in late 1991 they were topping the billboard charts with two albums:

http://www.billboard.com/charts/bill...ate=1991-10-05

Rdkopper · #38 07-28-2012, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon

Hmmm hmmm. I don't really wanna interrupt your interesting debate, but you're mixing up facts and personal taste here. UYI 1&2 weren't as good as AFD? Depends. Were they as succesful? USY 1 sold 17 millions, the other one 18. That ain't big? The songs & videos were everywhere, the endless tour went into 1993, everyone knew who they were. They were relevant. TSI was just an addition. Fame and fortune then faded of course... because the band did.
To say GnR weren't big in the early 90s (91-93) is just rubbish. For 2 weeks in late 1991 they were topping the billboard charts with two albums:

http://www.billboard.com/charts/bill...ate=1991-10-05

In the US UYI 1 and 2 sold 7 million each! Appetite sold 18! I don't know where you are getting getting your numbers from.

How can a tour be endless?and how do you quantify that?

Show me where I said they weren't big in the early 90s?

Panda · #39 07-28-2012, 01:33 AM

The problem about Amurricans is that they think everything is all about them.

Panda · #40 07-28-2012, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rdkopper

In the United States, Use Your Illusion 1 and 2 sold 7 million each! Appetite For Destruction sold 18! I don't know where you are getting getting your numbers from, could you cite your source? That would be much appreciated.

How can a tour be endless? And how do you quantify that? I obviously know you were using "endless" as a metaphor, something I explained to you rather rudely earlier on in the argument.

Could you please show me where I said they weren't big in the early 90s?

Corrected so you don't constantly appear to look like a douche.

Billy Corgan says Bon Jovi is "formulaic"

General BJ Discussion