First, who are you to decide what is "too much" to analyze vs. what is enough? Is there an official regulatory scale of analysis that we are not aware of?

Second, music has different purposes for different people - some are amateur musicians themselves, some are concert geeks (like me), some just have more trained ears that cannot tolerate songs being butchered. You don't get to decide that music can only exist "for joy and not for deconstruction". And this goes to any other form of entertainment - movies, video games, sports - some people take it more seriously than others.

Third, "no band stay the same over the years" argument would have been valid until 2013 - when they were definitely sounding different from themselves in the 80s and 90s (much like most other bands from those eras that are around today) but were still fairly good. The argument stopped having any validity once Jon stopped singing in key.

Fourth, and most importantly (honestly, feel free to ignore the previous questions and you don't need to reply, but maybe just answer this to yourself), why the hell are you so bothered by a dude on a discussion board not liking recent performances of the band you love? I don't like modern-day Bon Jovi as a live act. In contrast, I like plenty of current pop artists as live acts - e.g. Bruno Mars, Jason Mraz, Ed Sheeran, Kelly Clarkson - which I'm sure many fellow Bon Jovi fans here don't care for or think they suck. But I have my own reasons for liking their performances and other opinions don't matter to me. Why does it matter to you?