Jovitalk - Bon Jovi Fan Community

Jovitalk - Bon Jovi Fan Community (https://drycounty.com/jovitalk/index.php)

- General BJ Discussion (https://drycounty.com/jovitalk/forumdisplay.php?f=7)

- - CRUSH vs BOUNCE (https://drycounty.com/jovitalk/showthread.php?t=70233)

I think that being influenced by the actual music has nothing wrong as long as its music continues to maintain its essence. I remember when Bon Jovi went to pick up the Mtv Icon Awards, they went down to pick up the prize and sounded Keep The Faith, it is amazing how great it is compared to everything they have done in the last 15 years.

MTV Global Icon 2010 - Bon Jovi - YouTube

One day we should talk about the influences of Bon Jovi albums, especially the influences on Keep The Faith and These Days.

Quote:

Originally Posted by liljovi93 (Post 1235364)

You seem such a happy soul [emoji12]

I dunno what to choose. Probably Crush. It's easier to listen too. I find Bounce is too much of a yo-yo effect.

Both the poorest two albums post 2000 for me possibly.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

I’m not always moaning.....well maybe!
After IML Crush takes an immediate dip for me.
Say it isn’t so is bang average and TYFLM is one of the worst Jovi songs ever.
It’s a real up and down album.....a bit like everything they have released thereafter.

Crush is a better album for sure, both regular album and b-sides so I've voted for it. But I enjoy Bounce more, probably because I associate Crush with the huge disappointment I got the first time I heard IML.

After TD I was expecting more, much more. I certainly wasn't expecting that kind of song. It was the first album that had songs I skipped. With Bounce at least I knew the band had embraced following trends I don't like and having a blatantly commercial sound so I was kind of expecting it and I liked Bounce for what it was, I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alphavictim (Post 1235370)

Ebbin was hired for Crush precisely because he was good with drumloops and the like. This was in, what, 1999? Plus even Destination Anywhere features them aplenty. For all the ill-led modern influences the band had during that era, drumloops were the one they'd been using for the longest time (even if it dates the album a ton).

Linkin Park were, as weird as that sounds, a highly innovative band that actually utilized loops and effects in creative ways. The reason they were hated is precisely because they did not fit in with the tough guy persona nerdy metalheads and angry bikers alike had developed as part of the genre's identity over the years (they even had a rapper - rap and metal were pretty much opposing tribes in the early 2000s). Yeah, they were never a metal band, but they were lumped in with them, and that challenged the identity of metalheads. They were a pop rock band, but they sure didn't sound like Korn, Limp Bizkit or whoever nu metal act that came before them. They were hated for the same reason emo was hated in punk circles, because it actually was something different. Lots of old scene guys took offense to that, and now both genres are a retro show.

Kid Rock was mostly a rapping crossover act then; the most famous guitar riff he used was sampled; and then a redneck folk singer, so not sure how he fits into that equation. I hear neither Metallica samples nor rapping on Bounce.

And Creed were made fun of because of the lyrics and the religious image mostly - Alter Bridge, who feature the same music writer as Creed, were super respected super quickly.

Plus it's not like Oasis wrote complex songs, or broke new ground. Or is that precisely the reason they never broke big in the US and were over as a cutting edge band by album number three? :) I disagree with the approach to use complexity as the reason for musical staying power. Blues has been around for how long? And if that's not mainstream enough for you, EDM is dominating the clubs still.

Also, HAND has Avril Lavigne guitars (not that her first record is in the same musical style as her last, but whatever). Not sure how that is less offensive, but I agree, it fits the band's musical identity better (and just has better songs). There's a Lindsay Lohan song that sounds like a HAND outtake that Shanks co-wrote and produced (it's on Youtube, check "Nobody Till You").

Agreed that TD is just as much a product of its era as Crush and Slippery were. It's just that up to TD, there was a straight line of development with increased maturity, whereas Crush marked a turning point (although stuff like The Hardest Part Is The Night is more serious than anything on Slippery).

I wish there was a like button for posts like this one.

They always got *inspired* by their peers and/or musical trends. Have they ever been original? I don't think so, not that it matters anyway.

I do agree with Seb, people who don't see it probably haven't listened to lots of bands or different musical styles. It is clear that 90s Bon Jovi veered into 90s rock. Even aesthetics. Doesn't mean that the evolution felt forced or a 180º. That's the problem with albums after Crush.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rdkopper (Post 1235355)

The problem I have with both albums is the production (go figure). Luke Ebbin has some sort of unfinished sound that takes away from most of the songs... I also feel that he never really got the most out of Jon's voice. That's something Bob Rock was known for and there are stories how Bruce Fairbairn made Jon drink wine (my guess is to loosen him up mentally) to get the most out of his voice during Slippery.

Thank You For Loving Me had the potential to be another I'll Be There For You but it just lacks vocal passion and the production sounds incomplete... It's like a demo.... The song sounds so much better live.

But getting back on topic... Crush has more classic Bon Jovi elements... Bounce is more manufactured.

TYFLM is a bland, boring, unispired, lazy ballad. Makes me stabby.

Agree with the rest

Quote:

Originally Posted by symbeline (Post 1235383)

TYFLM is a bland, boring, unispired, lazy ballad. Makes me stabby.

Agree with the rest

For me it's still much better than AALY.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavetheGodofKeys (Post 1235393)

For me it's still much better than AALY.

Both are utterly shite

AALY tries a little bit so I don't hate it as much as TYFLM but both are very poor anyway. Lyrically and musically.

Aloha !

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alphavictim (Post 1235370)

Yeah, that's the official reason they hired him, I very much doubt that though, it's not like he had a massive resume with this stuff. Once Bruce Fairbairn had died both the band and the record company wanted a fresh sound, thus tried an upcoming producer. I've a feeling he was hired because he started the same way Jon did, he's even started his career at the Power Station Station if I remember correct.

I think with nu metal, Bon Jovi weren't able to reproduce nowadays poprock climate because there really wasn't one. There wasn't any popular music out there made on a piano or guitars. Back then it was either nu metal, or the kind of pop music made by Britney Spears and the likes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alphavictim (Post 1235370)

Linkin Park were, as weird as that sounds, a highly innovative band that actually utilized loops and effects in creative ways. The reason they were hated is precisely because they did not fit in with the tough guy persona nerdy metalheads and angry bikers alike had developed as part of the genre's identity over the years (they even had a rapper - rap and metal were pretty much opposing tribes in the early 2000s).

Plus it's not like Oasis wrote complex songs, or broke new ground. Or is that precisely the reason they never broke big in the US and were over as a cutting edge band by album number three? :) I disagree with the approach to use complexity as the reason for musical staying power.

I never said complexity is needed, but maybe I wasn't clear in what I tried to say?

Once britpop came, I think in a way, the circle was complete. We'd started with britpop in the sixties and the circle ended in the late nineties with the same kind of guitar orientated rock and pop songs. Once nu metal followed, it really was more of what had happened the last 10 years. It was more hiphop but without the wit and storytelling and more metal but without the musicianship usually coming from the pioneering metal bands, hence saying it was a rather dumbed down. It didn't really offer anything new. I'm not sure if I can explain myself any better, but I think you get the gist of it? :)

Now I never really "got" the nu metal genre. Sure, there were exceptions, but a lot of the stuff out there was really similar. Papa Roach and Limp Bizkit were all the same to your average radio listener while, with grunge for example, Nirvana and Pearl Jam both had its own sound. I liked Limp Bizkit for its gimmick, but Korn and the likes... Meh. To me, the instrumentation is just a bunch of chords with drumloops and the rapping is nothing but rhymes, there's no witty stuff or storytelling in there like there was with late eighties, early nineties hip hop. But then again, I never got past the singles, I wouldn't know what the albums sound like. :)

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supersonic (Post 1235468)

I think with nu metal, Bon Jovi weren't able to reproduce nowadays poprock climate because there really wasn't one. There wasn't any popular music out there made on a piano or guitars. Back then it was either nu metal, or the kind of pop music made by Britney Spears and the likes.

Not entirely true, Blink 182 sold about ten million copies of Enema of the State right around that time as well. I don't get why the band didn't do more of the Misunderstood-type tracks, which is pretty close to the sound of the Goo Goo Dolls, a band they even toured with, but who by that point played a (popular) style of music that BJ could have done in a convincing manner. Not quite so for nu metal or pop punk. (Plus the vocal range required would have helped out Jon's ailing voice.)

Quote:

Once britpop came, I think in a way, the circle was complete. We'd started with britpop in the sixties and the circle ended in the late nineties with the same kind of guitar orientated rock and pop songs. Once nu metal followed, it really was more of what had happened the last 10 years. It was more hiphop but without the wit and storytelling and more metal but without the musicianship usually coming from the pioneering metal bands, hence saying it was a rather dumbed down. It didn't really offer anything new. I'm not sure if I can explain myself any better, but I think you get the gist of it? :)

Eh, retro waves have happened before, though. The 90s had yet another wave of punk rock, and alternative had already happened in the 80s, just not as a mainstream phenomenon.

Nu metal was always just groovy crossover music to me. Limp Bizkit suffered from an incredibly shitty lyricist / MC, Papa Roach were the most fun when they simply played cock rock (they even toured with Mötley Crüe eventually), and Linkin Park were by all means simply the same as BJ were in the 80s: A pop/rock band that took popular contemporary influences but mostly was about the hooks. Granted, their main songwriter always was the guy who actually did the raps, but nu metal was never as technical in terms of rapping, or as heavy on the wordplay. Maybe stuff like Sevendust was, I don't know, but I don't think any of the rappers from that scene were ever respected among rap circles as greats.

I guess it's like Richie in Bon Jovi, he doesn't play blazing riffs or solos because that's just not what you do in the context of that band.

That being said, the genre was incredibly angsty and heavy on now very dated effects; I'm very fine with it being dead, even if I liked some bands of that era. But then again, those kinda had these gimmicks going like you add a shower scene to a b-movie. It wasn't at the core of their sound. Korn, on the other hand, they WERE that sound, and to me are super boring.