Dedicated to those that say "Bon Jovi is a pop group&qu

Fair enough!

You are a very smart person...

This is increadibly silly..... What you mean, is that pop bands who are put together to be popular, i.e the Steps type bands..... also, the type of band that get's popular because of a movement, like Oasis (who have no ability at all)....

But, what about bands like Genesis. Of cource, a lot of it (cetainly early stuff) was prog rock, but they still had songs like 'invisable touch, e.t.c' which are pop songs, but are musically very good, and are played by an excellent band..... Supertramp are a pop band, but they can play!

I do think there are a lot of 'pop' bands who would..... I personally see Nils Lofgran as somebody capable of soul, rock, blues, and maybe even most, pop. Yet, he tours, and plays as a hobby. So yes, I think there would be a lot who would....

Where I think Bon Jovi are pop, is that if they were making it not for record sales, not for a commercial market, they woudln't be writting the same songs they did for Bounce, Crush e.t.c.... they've proven this in their solo material. So I think by adapting their music so that it is popular, they make themselves a pop band......

Bon Jovi do rock, but they do it very mildly, as opposed to when they really did kick arse in the 80's! Now it's sort of rock in a pop genra, which I don't like..... One or two songs could be good if they were recorded, sang and produced differently.......

Also, rock bands have long hair!!!!!!!!!!!

That just shows how big an impact that song had one me!

Aloha !

If that's true The Beatles also are a band who have no ability at all, and the same for the Rolling Stones.

Everybody keeps picking on Oasis for no reason. They are quite populair since they are still able to fill stadiums. Oasis is a band who has developed more as Bon Jovi did the last 3 years. Most of you haven't listened to their last CD's but a lot of them contain better lyrics then the songs on Bounce and Crush.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

a) an album being better lyrically than Bounce or Crush doesn't exactly make it good!
b) I have never rated Oasis, from the early years of them, when they were basically a cheep Beatles copy band..... In terms of vocals, I can't stand the sound of their voices, in terms of musicians.....please! In terms of songwritting I'd say it's credable that they write their own, however I still think what they do is rubbish. Being better than crap isn't good.

The last single I heard was apauling, as far as I'm awear, it was the same old rubishe I've heard from them before, and it just didn't do anythign for me......

To be basically a poorish guitarest, and a poor vocalist you have to have the carisma, and basically God like presence of Dylan, or Nile Young. I saw Dylan and was blown away, he can't sing, but it's so unique, and what he's doing is just so powerful, that it works. What Oasis are doing just isn't powerful, I feel like I'm watching a bunch of skin heads, who do things like getting in fights, knocking out their front teath e.t.c.

No the movement I'm refering to is the sort of rebirth of British, that it becase fashionable to be from a dogy part of Manchester, to be a jack the lad who snorts too much coke and is far to familiar with a needle. Oasis were a consequence, whilst the Stones, the Beatles pionered a new style of music..... The Beatles genuenly were great songwritters, or rather Lenon and Mcartney were..... Same with the Stones, they were great songwritters. Do you think in 35 years time people will still be covering Oasis songs, with the same sort of respect people hold for the Stones?[/i]

Aloha !

You people can all go into discussion with me about Oasis at :

http://www.bonjovicentral.com/jovita...?p=94692#94692

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan