Rate: Do What You Can

Originally Posted by Alphavictim

For all the shit you can give the band: Releasing new albums is NOT what makes money. If the band (or rather, JBJ and RS) were all about the money, they'd be doing what other 80s bands are doing:

-Mötley Crüe (two new albums in the last 20 years, none in the past 10)
-Poison (no new album since what, 2001?)
-Guns & Roses (one new album since the mid 90s, although I am not too sure if that is downright to Axl's greed and not just his... erraticness)
-Cinderella (strictly a touring act for quite some time, last new album was in the early 90s)
-Journey: Last album has been out for... 9 years?

Also, two bands where I think they aren't doing it just for the money, but still:
-Def Leppard: New album every 5 years or so, if that. They do reinvent themselves a bit, too, but the frequency is much lower
-Metallica: 8 years or so between albums as of late

The output frequency of BJ the band is MUCH HIGHER than that of most contemporaries. The only band I can think of that also releases albums rather regularily AND bests BJ as far as their quality is concerned is Europe. (Also some bands from other genres, but I am not gonna compare Bad Religion to Bon Jovi)

Honestly, the fact that JBJ wrote two new songs in quarantine cos he felt like it (and wrote them on his own, not with "songsmiths") to me is actually - lo and behold - a sign of artistic drive.

Originally Posted by Alphavictim

For all the shit you can give the band: Releasing new albums is NOT what makes money. If the band (or rather, JBJ and RS) were all about the money, they'd be doing what other 80s bands are doing:

-Mötley Crüe (two new albums in the last 20 years, none in the past 10)
-Poison (no new album since what, 2001?)
-Guns & Roses (one new album since the mid 90s, although I am not too sure if that is downright to Axl's greed and not just his... erraticness)
-Cinderella (strictly a touring act for quite some time, last new album was in the early 90s)
-Journey: Last album has been out for... 9 years?

Also, two bands where I think they aren't doing it just for the money, but still:
-Def Leppard: New album every 5 years or so, if that. They do reinvent themselves a bit, too, but the frequency is much lower
-Metallica: 8 years or so between albums as of late

The output frequency of BJ the band is MUCH HIGHER than that of most contemporaries. The only band I can think of that also releases albums rather regularily AND bests BJ as far as their quality is concerned is Europe. (Also some bands from other genres, but I am not gonna compare Bad Religion to Bon Jovi)

Honestly, the fact that JBJ wrote two new songs in quarantine cos he felt like it (and wrote them on his own, not with "songsmiths") to me is actually - lo and behold - a sign of artistic drive.

Originally Posted by Alphavictim

For all the shit you can give the band: Releasing new albums is NOT what makes money. If the band (or rather, JBJ and RS) were all about the money, they'd be doing what other 80s bands are doing:

-Mötley Crüe (two new albums in the last 20 years, none in the past 10)
-Poison (no new album since what, 2001?)
-Guns & Roses (one new album since the mid 90s, although I am not too sure if that is downright to Axl's greed and not just his... erraticness)
-Cinderella (strictly a touring act for quite some time, last new album was in the early 90s)
-Journey: Last album has been out for... 9 years?

Also, two bands where I think they aren't doing it just for the money, but still:
-Def Leppard: New album every 5 years or so, if that. They do reinvent themselves a bit, too, but the frequency is much lower
-Metallica: 8 years or so between albums as of late

The output frequency of BJ the band is MUCH HIGHER than that of most contemporaries. The only band I can think of that also releases albums rather regularily AND bests BJ as far as their quality is concerned is Europe. (Also some bands from other genres, but I am not gonna compare Bad Religion to Bon Jovi)

Honestly, the fact that JBJ wrote two new songs in quarantine cos he felt like it (and wrote them on his own, not with "songsmiths") to me is actually - lo and behold - a sign of artistic drive.

Originally Posted by Thinny

The difference is that those bands were always happy with being nostalgia, Jon always and still does want to be contemporary. There's nothing wrong with that, in fact it's something to be admired. Unfortunately it does sometimes come across as a little desperate. When you've had a 30 plus year career you just have to ackowledge that part of what you do is totally going to be nostaligia to many.

Originally Posted by Captain_jovi

I just don't....understand why people are so concerned what non-fans or former fans think of the band. Who really cares? Do they make ya happy? Do you enjoy the band enough to buy the new album? Will you have fun at a show? If you answer no to 2 of 3 the there's no shame in just saying "not for me". This board feels like it has a handful of people who are just fixated on the glory days and slamming anything past "their" perfect era.

Originally Posted by Thinny

The difference is that those bands were always happy with being nostalgia, Jon always and still does want to be contemporary. There's nothing wrong with that, in fact it's something to be admired. Unfortunately it does sometimes come across as a little desperate. When you've had a 30 plus year career you just have to ackowledge that part of what you do is totally going to be nostaligia to many.

Originally Posted by Alphavictim

The Stones, or rather, Jagger, also always wanted to be more than nostalgia. However, the 60s card was never uncool. BJ were part of a scene that used to be laughed at. Even in the 80s, but even moreso in the 90s. The 80s are cool again now, they've been for a decade or so, but JBJ still seems to think that being considered a peer of Poison would do him more harm than being a peer of Bryan Adams.

Originally Posted by Thinny

I think it's that the fans want other people to see what we see in the band. Even back in the 90s Bon Jovi were not really respected, they were seen as light pop-rock for housewives, no matter how hard fans like us fought their corner. It was frustrating.

Some fans still want others to see that, but unfortunately it's got to the point where some of us can't really defend them based on current output. Which is also frustrating as I know what were once are capable of.

But I gave up that fight a long time ago

Originally Posted by Captain_jovi

But was it any of those band's aims to be nostalgic or did time just pass them by no matter what they put out? I don't think a band like Guns N'Roses our Journey is happy being in that realm but I don't know enough about either to know for sure.