Which Bon Jovi do you prefer?

Now wait a minute here. First you're saying their too image concious, and it shouldn't matter. Then you're saying that they don't have a rock band image anymore, which obviously matters to you. Make up your mind!
Personally, I think that yes, they are different....its inevitable. And they probably are more pop orientated, but then again, look at Aerosmith and Def Leppard etc.... they're not exactly at their musical peak anymore either.

And just as a final note:

Thats an interesting way of looking at it

Keep On Rockin'

Man give up saying anything positive about crush or bounce is like swearing. Your jus gonna get the usuall ah but they suck after 1999 ....yawn

From past discussions regarding this, I think many of the males in this board don't have problem with that. Their problem is with those female fans who like Jon partially because of his looks but yet always claim that it's all about music. I guess the hypocritical part pissed off those fans. There's nothing wrong with admitting liking someone because of their looks - I think it's better to be 'shallow' but honest rather than to appear 'deep' but actually hypocritical.

But how do you judge that? Fill me in, please. Personally, I can't even understand the concept of liking someone or following a band just because of one of the band members' looks. How do LOOKS make a person like SOUND? How does visual perception alter auditory perception? Or do these people who like the band just because of their looks actually hate/dislike the music? If so, why buy it? Buy magazines instead. How do you tell a person who likes the band JUST because of the looks from a person who likes the music and can appreciate the asthetics as well?

Becky

You can tell from the posts that those members make really. Sometimes it's quite obvious that they focus more on the looks - they tend to discuss more on the cuteness of the band members over the music. When one like something more than something else, one will want to talk more about the former than the latter. Let's say I like watching the TV series Friends but I like listening to rock n roll more. Of course I'd like to discuss rock n roll more.

The concept of following a band just because of some band member's looks may seem incredulous, but it does exist and not limited to Bon Jovi only. An easy example would be some of those who like the boy bands. These people are attracted to the band, first because they find the singer/guitarist/whatever is attractive and then only they start liking the music. This is possible ever since the advent of music video.

Logically one may think that a person's appearance is independent from the person's sound. However, the former can affect the latter... you can see in music industry that right now after the era of music videos, successful artists/bands/singers tend to be good looking. It is easier for the public to embrace and accept those who look good over those ugly ones. Let's say person A and B have the same singing talent but A is pretty and B is ugly. Who would the public choose? Yep, A. Not really fair for B, but that's the way it is.

And if you are still dabbling in psychology, I'm sure you are aware that two stimuli can interfere with each other (Stroop test). So, it is not farfetched that looks can influence how a person sounds.

I must say I'm impressed with that answer. It's more thought out and logical than many of the things said on postboards. LOL I do agree that a person can be influenced to like something by something unrelated (like sound by looks). But I don't think that looks can keep a person a fan for a long time. It seems most people who post have been fans a while--at least since Crush, so there ought to be something more than looks coming in to play. If there isn't, then that person really is shallow.

BTW, I don't "dabble" in psychology. I have two degrees and multiple ceritification areas in it.

Becky

i think that the band is more consious of their looks now that they're getting older and they're over doing the image slightly.

What I was trying to say is that I got the impression that before they were like: "Looks aren't important, let the music do the talking" but now I get the impression it's the other way around. I don't like the direction they took with Crush so maybe that has something to do with it. Maybe they realise the music isn't their strong point any longer and decided to start cashing in the looks eventhough they were against that back then when their music was still the best around. Sorry to all the Crush/Bounce fans but that's how I feel.

I know I wouldn't be a fan if Crush and Bounce were their only two albums. I'd probably think they're just another pop band who know a few power chords. It makes me sad that the best rock band in the world turned into what it is now.

Maybe Aerosmith and Def Leppard aren't at their peak in popularity but at least they stayed true to their music and image.

So you reckon Just Push Play is a typical Aerosmith album?

Keep On Rockin'

My all time favorite if KTF...does that make me a girl in here for the look of Jon's butt? I don't Think so...
But, to talk about jon's look for a second, try comparing Bed of Roses video to a new one. Jon had the slick look in Bed of Roses! I don't think the look changed much from the KTF era.

So if the look didn't change much from KTF times, then what changed today is not the look, but the sound. KTF is really different from TD and then TD is a world apart from Crush or Bounce...