Some thoughts on U2 and Bon Jovi

U2: Loved by media, bit of a reliance on their 'style' of melodic echo and signature delay but have had some classic tunes, Tours sell well, Set-lists look pretty unimaginative apart from mini-covers, not much in the way of album cuts. Bonos voice pretty consistent.

Jovi: Disliked in most media, Jovi is harder to classify, hair metal to country, pop and adult contemporary. There is something for everyone. Tours sell well too, Set-lists can be a treat when they want to be but the staple set in generally acceptable. Jons voice has had its down points but is now recovering.

The reason I take Jovi over U2 (apart from Bono been a pretentious twat) is that Jovi have experimented more musically (may be not much in the last ten years) but they have written the darkest soul searching songs to the biggest air punching anthems. Jovi have mastered the power ballad, pop song, rock song and plain old slow MAM type ballad. Wheras as U2 always seem to have this tried and tested style of theirs nailed.

I prefer Jons voice, even now. I also prefer Jon as a front man, when I see him live I think 'there he is, the guy from Jersey who had a hand in writing some of the best records EVER to go in my ears'. But very little Bono has written would affected me in that way. I'm writing this pretty fast but theres some of the reasons I prefer Jovi and why I'm not on U2.com right now.

Hello,

I just joined this forum, and found this thread, which is of interest to me because I am a fan of both bands.

My husband is a diehard U2 fan so I became a fan of U2 first. At the beginning, I only really knew their radio hits, but I gained a deeper appreciation once I looked into their catalogue.

Same thing happened to me with Bon Jovi: I tended to stereotype them for their 80s hits, until I happened to see some great live performances posted on YouTube; then I looked deeper into their catalogue and realized they had some real gems of which I hadn't been aware.

In any case, someone posted earlier that U2 is fundamentally a Christian band, and I believe this is indeed the truth. I noticed that, as a listener, I go to U2 to sort of "lift me up," to put me on some esoteric plane of existence. Listen to songs like "The Unforgettable Fire" or "Drowning Man;" both have this sort of transcendental quality that, no matter what state of mind I am in when I start listening, is changed to something else by the time the song is complete. (In addition, "Drowning Man" in particular is charged with Christian imagery).

By contrast, when I started listening more to Bon Jovi's music, it didn't "hit" me in the same place that U2's music did. There is no significant Christian imagery in their music (at least not as a continuing theme); but it appeals more to everyday life, common concerns, things people can relate to in any walk of life. Musically, it's kind of like putting on your favorite cozy sweater; there's a comfort level, a familiarity, a warmth to it.

Of course, there are spiritual, introspective themes to some of Bon Jovi's songs; I love most of what I've heard so far on the "These Days" album; and I particularly like "Something to Believe In"--it just grabbed me when I first heard a live version on YouTube.

Even though my diehard U2-fan-husband is joking around with me about it now that he knows I like Bon Jovi, he only knows the radio hits, but I think I could get him to appreciate the band more hearing, say, a whole concert, or at least some different songs. I think Bon Jovi is musically talented and it is too bad they have so often gotten short-changed by the critics and media who can't seem to get past their 80s hair-band days! I mean, they gave U2 a pass out of the 80s and wasn't Bono in possession of one of the most epic mullets of that decade?!

Anyway, I think there is room for people to be fans of both bands; I know I am. I think you have to go into it realizing the differences they present, the backstories, the themes, and then go ahead and appreciate them on their own merits, not necessarily in comparison to one another.

Listen to Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby back to back.
Anyway, The U2/Jovi thing is always interesting to me, since diehards of both bands seem to get very twisted over it. U2 fans seem to get mad that Jovi are the only other band from the same period to match U2's level, whilst Jovi fans seem to take to heart how critically overrated U2 are compared to Jovi. Me personally, I'm a big fan of both. Now, obviously I'm a much bigger Bon Jovi fan, I have them inked on my body for ****'s sake. That being said, I listen to a lot of U2, and I do think they have two absolutely brilliant records (Achtung Baby and All That You Can't Leave Behind) with a third (The Joshua Tree) being close behind. They are incredibly in critical circles though.

U2 were originally called 'The Hype'

The media here is going ape with U2 playing in Melbourne. They've had them on the news, in the newspapers. It's all about how great U2 is and how everyone is oh so excited they are playing.

What about Jovi? Jovi actually managed to sell out, but tickets for U2's concerts were still on sale just hours BEFORE they took the stage!
I doubt the media here will run a story about Jovi playing for a packed stadium. That really pisses me off.

let the media go ape for u2 because that just makes bon jovi work even harder and Australia may get some good setlists

They better mother****ing have great setlist when they play here. BOBITA is mandatory.

Anyway, I went to see U2. It was NOT sold out. Not even close, there are many empty seats. Plus, even though they advertised this as a 360 tour, I don't think they utilized the set properly, they seemed to focus on the 'front' side of the stage, WTF, if this is 360, you are not supposed to have 'a front', every part of the stage is 'the front'. ****ing Metallica played 'in the round' a couple of weeks back and they got it right (awesome concert by the way).

But I quite enjoyed the U2 concert because:

1. They upgraded my seat.
2. The base ticket price is 40 bucks. In Australia, this is considered good deal (which is kind of sad - ticket prices should average this much, not over 100 bucks).
3. Bono kept his bullshit preaching to the minimum.
4. The stage is spectacular. I love goofy shit like "the claw".

So, as I paid 150 bucks for Bon Jovi, and I know am not in front row in level 1, Bon Jovi must play more than 24 songs (U2 played that many - excluding the snippets). U2 charged less for ticket and got a major act opening for them (yes it's Jay Z, and I hate rap and that clown ruined Sunday Bloody Sunday, but the point is, U2 must have paid more for their opening act compared to Bon Jovi who is going to have local band opening for them). Plus if Bon Jovi really sold out, and U2 didn't, U2 probably lost money, and Bon Jovi made profit, so they better deliver the goods.

Anything less than 24 songs, without BOBITA is NOT acceptable and I guarantee a scathing review here, and anybody who dislikes my upcoming review (if it's going to be negative) can go eat a dick.

I just dont get U2 - There are probably people saying that about Bon Jovi but I really dont understand U2.

They have (in my opinion) a small handful of very good songs.

Its just like Coldplay, Kasabian, Kings of Leon - i think they are all just average bands,

Couldn't have said it better myself...

thats because Jovi are not here yet. U2 are.

How would it you feel if Jovi were here before U2 and they went on about U2 instead of focusing on the band that is here right now??