Comparison 2003 - 2011

I think it was because the bigger stage was too wide for some places. They had 3 stages running in Europe that I noticed. The small one, the Black big one and the red big one. I noticed that it wasn't every 3rd show that had the small stages, just the venues with thinner space to fill. The Belgium show was a beach with a field more narrow than a soccer stadium, so I am guessing that is the reasoning behind that.

Aloha !

At the time the Bounce tour was about to start Jon was speaking proudly of the stage they'd got for the tour. There was a special stage for the U.S.A. with the satelites on which the videos were projected, but Jon said the stage for Europe was one that would make the Stones jealous. Once it was shown it was disappointing from the start and never really impressed anyone. I went to see the Stones the following year and while their stage was very basic it looked spectacular compared to Bon Jovi's stage.

The reason why Bon Jovi doesn't use a more impressive stage because an impressive stage costs money. Money to design, money to construct and money to transport, which in the end is money that doesn't make itself back. It's not as if a bigger stage results into more people coming to see the band. Other bands use a bigger stage because they in a way want to show off. Jon doesn't, anything that costs more money than usual won't be used. And while the arena shows for the 2010 tour had a stage with "high tech robots" in the end they looked rather silly and way too technical for a simple rock show. Who really cares about a dancing rock star on a video screen?

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

The beach in Zeebrugge is 'unlimited' in terms of size... they could have set up the 3 stages next to eachother so to speak.

Too bad the band sees it that way ... just look at de videos for the New Jersey tour or Slippery Tour. If at that time they could have had a stage that got up in space they would have had it ....

The robots during the arena tour 2010 were not that spectacular. They were probably cooler for the people sitting than those standing GA. Anyway, check the show of Muse a couple of years ago (Resistance arena shows) and Madonna's MDNA - there you see wat moving screens and led-pillars (stages, platforms) actually can contribute to a spectacular visual show. Oh and since they introduced the gigantic screens, they forgot about the light show - which is not the same cause led screens are visuals that can be cool to watch but does not give that nice glow you need on the stage. And some smoke does miracles (Look at the Cure) - but I guess Jon does not want anything that bothers the view of his gigantic face on the mega screen. Having the biggest screens is ridiculous btw. Combining that with all the rest, that's what's cool.

(As you understood by now, I'm kinda freaky when it comes down to ths visual aspect)

Anecdote: Werchter 2001 - OWN - the electricity went down serveral times - Jon came back out after a break and spoke the words - I don't need the stinking lights, give me a fricking match and we'll just play. - As you can imagine, I did not share that opinion.

Elvistico

I really don't give a flying f*** to what stage they use. Don't get me wrong, but to me Bon Jovi is all about the music itself, not images, lights and special effects.

I'm a big fan of Oasis too, and their stage production were always poor, and yet everytime I've seen them live THEY ROCKED. I was so stuck into the songs that I've never bothered to look for robots, lights and claws. The same with Bon Jovi (except for Dusseldorf).

Take Roger Waters for example. If any of you went to The Wall shows, you noticed that Pink Floyd music is something that gets along very well with choreographed images and stuff, but to me Bon Jovi doesn't fit anywhere near that.

I'd rather have a big screen showing the band (like they did on almost all the songs) than a ridiculous animation like they used for WFTWM.

regards

Eduardo

I couldn't agree more. To me it's all about what happens on that stage, not the flashy effects. I do appreciate good screens, especially if I'm at the back of the stadium, but that's about all I care about other than the music being played.

Same here. The most impressed I've been with a stage set up was the first show I saw on the New Jersey tour. It was small enough to fit inside a little venue, but it had the catwalk and the coolest effect ever--Jon shooting up from the floor with fireworks to start the show. That was my introduction to a rock and roll concert so it's the one that sticks in my memory the best. The one I liked least was the one with the hideous, stupid blow up dolls in 1995.

Cool visual effects are great but the show starts at 20:30 when there's too much of daylight. Completely dark is during the second half of the show. When the show is great, I don't care about any effects. And a big screen is quite useful to be honest.

Bruce's show in Prague started that he just slowly came, strumming a chord and playing bit of harmonica. He greeted us i Czech: "Ahoj, Praho!" and added in English that he was there once in 1996 with an acoustic album and without the E Street Band and so he decided to start the show with song from this album. Just him. And the show was amazing!

I'm with you there. 100% true that the huge production should never replace the quality and intimacy of those things. Just imagine having moments that are bigger than life, supported by a bigger then life spectacle, but starting the show with an acoustic performance or so ...

It's also about the contrast... After 2h of 'huge' a moment of intimacy will be even bigger.

I went to the Roger Waters 'THE WALL' show - it was a thrill - and exactly, what he does is opposite to what BJ does : Waters considers himself as totally unimportant and what he wants to show is an musical and visual spectacle that is in perfect harmony. I am not saying I would be happy to go to a Bon Jovi show where they play most of the time 'behind a wall' only looking at visuals ...

I say it should be a mix of both ...
To me Bon Jovi's competition (if you might call it that way) is U2 and The Stones. I'm not saying Bruce cause for Bruce I know that he does not care about production. That's fine for me cause I don't expect him to.

The only thing I've noticed is : the first tour I saw Bon Jovi in 93 (KTF / I'll Sleep When I'm dead) - there was a simple screen above the stage for the people in the back + the lightshow was stunning, they used pyros on at least 4 songs and other kind of fireworks, they had the piano & drumkit rolling over the stage during the intro of LAY YOUR HANDS ON ME. Besides the terrific energetic show they played this ADDED to the show. It makes things more impressive.

Tour 95 was still ok, and tour 96 was also a visual blast.

2001 OWN tour was also amazing ...
After that, it became all very 'led wall oriented' ... = clean clean clean.


All i am saying is : lots of people still talk about U2 - Zoo TV tour with having live satelite connections with Sarajevo, president Bush, the stage holding german "Trabant" cars etc...
Every one remembers the big yellow lemon of their pop mart tour and when talking about U2 nowadays, every one remembers the stage that looked like a claw. All this does not take away from the great music they make or the quality of their musicianship (I hate to admit that U2 ARE a great band) ...

Even a lot of B and C bands these days put up more spectacular shows than Jovi. Muse, Coldplay.

Also - when watching youtube - aerosmith and guns'n'roses put up decent lightshows...

That's just all I'm saying.