Why the band chooses rubbish support acts...

If they have Ronan Keating they're coming on to a cold audiance, who are gasping for something, just something. Bon Jovi come on and do the worst show ever and they still look good!!!!

I don't consider Bon Jovi "very much" rock... They are about 30-40% rock, which is still worth going out to see because what rock there is, it's still very good. But most of it will be pop, or very very weak rock (like Bad name has become)...

Popularity means nothing, becuase it's not all about recognising something. Blue are more popular than Bon Jovi, in that there are more people who buy their music, know the band, and they have more people who like the music. However, they are absolute shite! Would they be a good suport act? well people would know the songs, but they'd be terrible, they can't give anything...

Y&T were a band I've never heard of, I didn't know a single song of theirs, yet I still really apreciated and ejoyed SOME of what they did (it was all more than ok, but only bits were very good). They were a good suport because they played good music, at (minus drums) a good level. Acts like Ronan ****in' Keaton rely on popularity, and recognision to get a reaction, because they're music is dead. Even Bon Jovi do this, stip down an audiance, and you'll have less than 50% who are genuin music fans, and real fans of Bon Jovi's music, because they're popularity gets in the way... Like I said, I've seen bands like Manfred Mann, Rick Wakeman, Walter Trout, in small pub like gigs, who struggle to get records out now! However, they're some of the best bands Ive seen, as a live act certainly as good as Bon Jovi... So this judging music by popularity is a lode of shit.

Music is probably the one thing that is most widely liked, but is most widely unapreciated.

i still don't take your point about good music having nothing to do with popularity. in your opinion, yes, blue are shite, but there must be a hell of a lot of people out there that do actually think their music is good or they wouldn't be so successful.

Let it rock confirming that as sang before "I'm ready to rock"

I'll repETE, "Music is probably the one thing that is most widely liked, but is most widely unapreciated."

meaning, people who 'like' bands like Blue are liking them because they're 'easy' to listen too, because they're popular, because they're what they are told to listen too... In the 80's people were told to like music along the lines of Bon Jovi, however, take away this market, and you still have a band becuause the music is still very strong. However, you don't have this with bands like Blue...

People who like bands like that are generally not interested in music, and don't really like music... but everybody listens to music, everybody hears music, so stuff like that requires nothing to have on...

Yep it's my opinion, however, I'm not easily impressed, and I do genuenly love music.... I'm guessing that most people who have my passion, and my knowledge of music would agree with me that Blue are shit!!!!!!
Anybody who plays in a band, who pushes themselves, and who is (of cource in my opinion) actually very good, understand about musical intensity, and what goes into something when it's preformed live. Not the only way of cource, but because of my involement., I can see what Bon Jovi are doing, I can see what bands like Live are doing, and I can see what bands like Whitesnake are doing, this is what I'm making my judgement from

this is going off the point somewhat:

back to topic:

whitesnake, manowar, judas priest, scorpions, dio etc whoever you want to name would blow BJ out of the water in a rock environment, but in europe no they wouldn't because that's not the type of crowd that is drawn in

I think I see what you are trying to say. But look at it this way.
These bands you mention play arena's or clubs right? not stadiums. If they were to play a stadium, do you think they would create the same impact?
No, it would be totally different I think.

Now how about if Bon Jovi were to play an arena or a club, the whole thing would be different too. Were you at the Shepherds Bush club gig? I was.
I can tell you they stripped it down to the bare minimum, wore casual clothes, there was NO security across the front row at all and NO press.
It was just the band and their fans. That show was awesome. You would not have thought that they were the same band as they are at a stadium gig. Same goes when they play the arena's. It is just a totally different
vibe. I'm not saying they are better playing smaller venues, just different.

Donna,

I agree to a great part yes - and though it's become a cliche of the band's to say they are bar bands who play big bars, i personally think this is true in essence - noone can deny this has changed though, but i wouldn't expect it to stay the same playing stadiums night after night.

however i could have added Iron Maiden to the list and they are perfectly capable of playing stadiums either by themselves or headlining...

trust me if the flyer i received from Mercury/BJ/Ticketmaster in 2001 was to be true about BJ playing the Manchester Evening News Arena the day after Huddersfield I'd be saying the same things about BJ regarding most other bands - I'm sure anyway

But it wasn't true. so how can you be sure?
You are going on speculation. trust me. if you were at sheps bush you would have a whole different outlook on things.

by "the same things"

i mean the same things i'm saying about whitesnake at the moment

i have a real love for this particular venue you see and i cuold have just slept right outside the doors no problem and gone to the front

would have been a great experience, and in my home town

Oh ok! i get it now. sorry man. yeah it would have been a killer gig, if it were to happen.