I disagree with most of what you all have to say, obviously.


I'm not trying to say this as a bragging point, but I have a lot of friends, and a lot of connections, a lot of which are local musicians, etc. People are talking about the U2 album. I have yet to hear of people talking about Bon Jovi. Maybe that's a coincidence. But I don't think so. I think people actually give a shit about U2, and they're becoming quite relevant.

For example,

Jonathan Fenn
Yesterday at 15:14 ·
All That You Can't Leave Behind is better than Joshua Tree. And Songs of Innocence is better than both of them, though less nostalgic I guess. Songs of Experience is the best of them all, but probably doesn't include any of their top 5 or 6 songs.
Come at me bro.

Then there's loads of comments talking about it, and arguing which U2 album is better, etc.

Or this facebook post?

Madeline Wilfley
December 1 at 10:14 ·
U2's best album of the last decade, maybe of their last 30 years. Check out Songs of Experience.

I know these people are nobodies to you, and they will be because they're just friends. But they are both people that take music quite seriously, and are also both younger than me. All this is to say that U2 gets talked about, and Bon Jovi does not.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but the point of bringing up the reviews of the Bon Jovi album was to deter from what the actual conversation is about: Can Bon Jovi be as relevant as U2? I went to the Joshua Tree tour in Vancouver. There were just as many young people as older. This is not the case with Bon Jovi.

U2 is not in the same boat as Bon Jovi, and I'm wondering if it's possible for Bon Jovi to rise up and be talked about like Songs of Experience Is. I have no idea why, but somehow U2 stayed relevant, and Bon Jovi did not. And I have no idea why.