THIS is how you write a review

The thing I really don't like about it is that it cuts new, young fans out from a "real" experience y'know... There's enough people just on this board in their late teens who'll never get to be up close, in a real rock audience.

It absolutely changed my life seeing Bon Jovi at 14. It really was the single most exciting experience of my life at that point. Now the best most kids could hope for is 100 yards away on the third tier of a stadium watching through screens.

This is me at every gig I've been too.

I've only been at the very front at one gig. That was Amy Macdonald. Love her to bits, but it's not quite the same...

I disagree strongly with your opinion on Hallelujah. I have loved this song as a Leonard Cohen song for more years than I care to count. Several of the "popular" covers have made me cringe. The very first time I heard Jon cover this in 2007 I was blown away. I don't think he does it with the intensity that he did then - it has become part of the show and lost some of the power that it has in 2007. It is still a display of emotion and power that most cannot accomplish though.

I just saw Leonard Cohen himself do this in concert at Madison Square Garden last summer (long after Jon first sang it). His version was almost exactly the same musically as Jon's version - and it was delivered in the same manner. I'm not sure who is borrowing from whom but honestly, I don't care. That song is always chill inducing (to me at least) when I hear it sung by either of them.

I dont know how you can say its a state of the art review.Even in your own words you want it so
•Makes it clear Bon Jovi's music is being reviewd on a level playing field to all other popular music- which its clearly not(not a mention of the duration of the show or even how the production looked yet Jons white teeth get a metion(if reviewing shane mcgowan you dont say oh look how bad his teeth are)

•Outlines the history and longevity of the band -no he doesnt he mentioned that slipperey was 24 years ago-so if we are to take it like you stated "which the writer has to assume has never so much as heard of the band" are they then to think that Slippery was the only album released-not a mention of the others

•Tells the reader exactly where in society their cultural impact has been felt-again no that shouldnt come into it,not when reviewing a concert unless its live aid
•Presents both the highlights and the limitations of the show--was not done yet a FULL paragraph WAS given to one song.Prayer wasnt mention wanted etc

•Doesn't slate Hallelujah for the sake of it, expands on the life of its own that the song has had, shows "why" Jovi's version doesn't work - Empty stage gestures, vs. considered, mysterious poetry. Ya give you this one

•Describes Jon's stage personality in crystal clear terms. I got a little excited at the mention of "Sounds like church music to me, Baby" line.Again only in a bad light ,i.e didnt mention that he worked his ass off and was allover the stage

•Lets you know that the review is written from the context of a Leonard Cohen Fan & that you are free to disagree if you choose
In fact, points out that the audience did just this..Again give you that but to have the state of the art review and concentrate on one song is not good writing but then again it is Alexis Petridis-who's reveiws for GQ are questionable too and when it comes to live reviews he usually only gives a couple of lines about actual gigs the majority is made up of -who the band artist- sounds like and he usually never refers to songs that get played with the excetption of a few bands that he likes (paul weller springs to mind)I have seen JLS been mentioned in a few of his reviews too.

So in general you may agree with him but to call it a state of the art review is kind of stating that something like this is all you need to read about in order to make a judjement about goin to a concert or not-then thats pretty fickle

Or maybe he actually did, and was just more, and enjoyably so, descriptive about it.

And he does it with a smile!


My reading age.

You don't question that Petridis has the body of experience to back up his opinion. Obviously, as well as Cohen, he hints at where Jovi stand in relation to mainstream popular culture: they think themselves more serious than x-factor; they are impeervious to *any* fashion which has passed in the last 24 years. It is not necessary to name them all individually.


Neither the length of the show, nor the production are outstanding, interesting features - 2.5 hours on a stage with some pretty screens - what makes it different to any other show? With 400 words, why would you write about it?

Jon's teeth, however, do tell you something about the band - his eagerness to please everyone, the degree of superficiality, presentation over substance. And Jon's teeth *do* get brighter, more noteworthy every year. They just do.

They're fixed now. But jeesus, people talked about his teeth!

No, but a mention of the fact that they have grown or sustained a *remarkable* audience in that time, and have done so by dispensing family-friendly rock. The precise names of the albums are unimportant in this context.

In EVERY review. I want to learn.

If sacrificing 20 words of song titles meant I got the line about Cohen's sense of humour, it was more than worth it.

If you know Bon Jovi (to the extent of owning a copy of Crossroads), you will know walking in 60% of the tunes you are going to hear. Was there a song played that night worth talking about more than hallelujah.

You absolutely do get that it was a party for the audience and that they largely ****ing loved it. Indeed, that is the conclusion of the article.

And this is a case where the star-rating gives information additional to the body of the text. The rating allows you to interpret the tone the words are written in - you know that it's a solid rock show that won't really change the world, and can interpret the rest of the review knowing this.

What more information do you need?

If what will really make the difference for you buying a ticket or not is whether they played Lost Highway songs, then you will have that information anyway, and you should still be able to find something in writing like this that you can enjoy (can you come up with a better phrase to describe Jon's teeth?!).

I could quote what you said and give you more examples and you can then re quote me and it could continue forever

So in short I do think its a poor review though.As he should have treated the review as the people reading it had never have heard of Bon Jovi-something he didnt do and could easliy been done in under 400 words.

He simply waisted a whole paragraph by given it to Halle if it were me i would have written about Work-which while writting about it a line about set design would have been easily included as well as the irony of the title and ticket price's etc.You could even go so far as to say that the performance of that song was as choreographed as any boy band(cringe)
To me that was the worst part of the show Halle was actually ok considering

I don't find this to be well written or to cover the subject of a concert well. I just wasted two minutes of my life reading it.

It's good enough to provoke a discussion.

Which is also going on here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010...on-jovi-review

If you're at all interested in how the general public views Bon Jovi (cause obviously, we can't sleep at night otherwise), that's a pretty interesting thread!

My favourite comment -

tobyd

9 Jun 2010, 12:19PM

I really enjoyed this review regardless of what the moaners in this thread say. And you just know that Mr Petridis was singing along to "Livin' On A Prayer" at the top of his voice


Also contains this from another Guardian reviewer (who does seem a normal down to earth guy)

DaveSimpson

9 Jun 2010, 4:05PM

Can't confirm the story about a hair weave, but I did stand behind JBJ at a very surreal aftershow party for one of his solo gigs and there was a definite and not exactly minor bald patch. By his next TOTP appearance it had gone and has never been sighted since

dude i think your posts are very intelligent and i agree with almost everything you said...

except the Hallelujah part - however - due to the thought with which you put into this - which this board could use more of IMHO (esp the part abt enabling and actually contributing to these outrageous prices and supporting bland setlists which i am hypocriticlaly guilty of but have since ceased or at least on hiatus - i will listen to the kd lang version

i have to pm you my thoughts though bc kathleen maybe never invite me over again should i stray this far from the base !

i do think she makes a very valid point though that may wrap this whole thing up - when he first played it it came across VERY deep from my memories at least - now it has entered into the regular spin with all that includes including the predictable cliched moves associated with the song - i surprised they didnt mention his firing the gun move

well done...

It doesn't do any of those things, and it barely addresses the band's show. If anything, the main portion of the article deals with the band's version of Hallelujah. And yes, I can recognize the band, and I thought some of the observations were quite amusing, but as a gig review, it sucks.
And FTR, if you think I can't laugh at the band, you're very mistaken. Ask Terri about our discussion on antaomically correct bobbleheads