Quote:
Originally Posted by Jovi98
One meaning probably more official from the web is: “ The title "Bounce" was a reference to New York City's and the United States' ability to bounce back from the World Trade Center attacks as a nation.”
Another unofficial meaning I found is: “Bon Jovi's skill in having known how to "bounce" during the years…”
|
I'm not very knowledgeable about this era, but from today's perspective, I would use Bounce as first single. If not, I would either not include it on album, or put it in front of album, not relegate it almost last (with no reason or flow).
EDIT: This is interesting:
Stephen Thomas Erlewine from Allmusic gave the album 2 stars out of 5 stating that album "After all, this is a record where Bon Jovi seems to have consciously decided to avoid everything that gives their music character, melody, and muscle, a move that would have been odd at any point during their career, but is particularly puzzling after they delivered an album that found them growing old gracefully. It's as if they want to undo everything Crush did for them".
From today's perspective, it seems counterintuitive to go for more hard and heavy sound then (and then not go for it for 20 years, despite pleas from fanbase haha). It was perfect time for Jovi to produce another hit single, just basically anything acceptable would be a hit after IML, similar as to how today's hit artists can have follow up to hit with a (minor) hit. Also, not unlike Jovi with New Jersey's 5 top10 singles. But they just didn't do it
BTW I don't think the album is the problem, disregarding the dichotomy. But the use of singles. Perhaps even B-sides could of been regarded as potential singles, but anyhow more consideration should of been done in that sense