I simply want to share my experience last night and see what some of you guys may think.

WARNING: This is a massive post so be prepared for a lot of reading and occasional bullshit!

My brother-in-law and I, for the last five years or so, have had a constant battle going on between U2 and Bon Jovi. The problem is that he hates Bon Jovi and I actually think U2 are a very good band. When I make the effort to show interest and watch and listen to whatever he presents to me, he will not to the same for me. For the first time ever I sat him down and he watched (These Days Sao Paulo 1995) 'These Days', which he had no interest in whatsoever. I am starting to assume that he may have a problem with the whole 'american rock band' thing. He didn't appreciate it at all. Anyway, failing to understand such a thing and quite honestly feeling a little disappointed at his reaction I was made to watch some of this dvd he 'bought' for me! I had never heard of it before but I now realise after some research that this appears to be a very iconic piece of work. It is the 'zoo TV' tour from Sydney 1993. Now in many ways I felt that it was awfully good and I can appreciate that the U2 experience certainly is a spectacle. However, I feel that (my brother-in-law) and many others must simply find that extra excitement or status for U2 because of the 'external' show they put on, in that there is so much going on outside the music, this becoming a serious distraction from the music itself. I noticed that as my brother-in-law was flicking through bits of the dvd for me to, what he wanted me to see were more production bits and pieces and bits where you couldn't see where Bono was, because there were about 40 screens and you couldn't tell which one he was doing a fly-kick in, instead of him wanting to show me a performance of a song in the set! I think musically it is fair to say that both are 'big bar-bands', however with our boys it is all about the music, just like it is with the Eagles, Dire Straits, Bryan Adams, Chris Rea etc etc. In that sense, I have no issue that Jovi do not do this kind of stuff and I really do not care for that sort of shit when I go to see a band. Bono dresses up as the devil and sings to the crowd in his dressing room looking in a mirror etc and certainly plays many characters, doing countless nobbish, but apparently appealing things, according to a fan, on stage.

Does it make Bon Jovi any less of a band because they do not do these sorts of things? I believe that Bon Jovi play better and have more to offer in their music and performance, from a musical and lyrical perspective, but i wonder are they thought less highly of than U2, partly because they do things more simply? I mean, we all know Bon Jovi's reputation lies heavily on what they got up to in the 80's and everything else, but are we missing out, not being U2 fans instead of Bon Jovi fans, from an experience point of view? (Slightly off topic, does Bono do more than Jon for charity and is it more known when Bono does something because he pushes that and Jon does not?)

Lastly, vocals. Bono appears to have a phenomenal range in his voice at this time, maybe more impressive than Jon at his best or is it simply that they are just very different singers? See the following link from the same show and share your opinions please.

(watch 1:20-40)

Sorry about the length of this monster and thank you to any who bothered to read the whole thing.

Johnny