Excellent article

Boss? Yes.

The entire band? No.

I don't give a shit whether casual fans know anyone other than Jon. He isn't the whole band. There wouldn't be a Bon Jovi without him. It wouldn't be "Bon Jovi" without them.

Wow- great article.

I am trying to remember where I heard Jon discuss what Bed of Roses is all about...I think it was on An Evening with Bon Jovi where he referred to it as a confessional?...dunno. Anyways, great read. Thanks!

Everybody who knows something about rock 'n' roll knows who RICHIE SAMBORA is. Everybody who is a little into drums knows who Tico Torres is so son't come here with bullshit like this. Jon is the most important member of the band which wears his name. Why? Not because he is the best singer, songwriter or player in the band, NO! Only because he is the best looking one. If you think the band BON JOVI exists just because JBJ is good looking, than you most probably are one of those lifeless 200 kg women who put lipstick and makeup on right before Jon comes onstage.

Bon Jovi IS NOT Jon Bon Jovi. Otherwise, the stadiums wouldn't go NUTS when JBJ says RICHIE SAMBORA's name.

Oh, and most people know only AXL ROSE, most people know only JAMES HETFIELD, most people know only Steven Tyler or Bono, still everybody knows they are the singesr of Guns N' Roses, Metallica, Aerosmith or U2. The frontmen always get most attention, that doesn' t mean that those bands would exist without Slash, Ulrich, Joe Perry or The Edge.
Just turn your brain on before posting.

Besides, the article was just plain boring. It's not like i haven't read all that cliche before. It was only written as if Jon Bon Jovi was a sort of hero. Well, HE IS NOT!

Without Jon, there would be no Bon Jovi. Deal with it!

It didn't make him look like a hero at all. And it was significantly less cliched than most articles about Jon.

Overall, I liked the article. I thought it was refreshing to see someone not treating Jon/the band like drivel that need to be exposed or like a guilty pleasure that need to be justified. It was a nice, straightforward "this is the band. This is the guy. This is how people view them. This is how he wants them to be viewed." As devoid of judgement as any piece I've ever read on the boys.

And even the "Jon is Bon Jovi" made sense in the context of the article. I don't agree with it, I don't like that he used it, but I see the logic behind it.

And without the rest of 'em, Jon would have kept recording Runaways and Don't Leave Me Tonights and Talking in Your Sleeps.

The others are important too. Deal with it.

What did I say about brain and posting?

I never said that there would be a BON JOVI without Jon. Just as I am SURE there would be NO BON JOVI (as we know it today) without Richie Sambora.

Same argument: there would be no Aerosmith without Steven Tyler, there would be no U2 without Bono, there would be no VAN HALEN without Eddie. Are we playing virtual history here?! No, sorry, you are just plain stupid. Bon Jovi is a band. I am a fan of BON JOVI because Richie Sambora is a genius. What more do you want to prove that BON JOVI is NOT JON BON JOVI.

You mean ......... he's not a hero ???? Really ... ????




Oh well .... for backstagers he is.
Ok the band is named by his name, ok he's good looking etc etc ... and i'm the first to say he is and that i looove his voice etc etc .. but i simply hate it when people say "He" when they're talking about the band and when they start to argue about the fact that he is the most important member of the band !!! They are a band, that's all ....
If tomorrow Richie was leaving the band imagine : no Bon Jovi anymore !!!

Enjoyed that, was a heck of a lot better than the Guardian piece.