Would rather have quality over quantity

Yes, for someone who supposedly has lost his passion he could be laying his ass up in his new million dollar mansion in Florida vs writing new songs. Maybe fans don't dig them but he wrote because he had something to say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I also prefer quality over quantity, but you can always just take the best songs of the past 8 years and make your own "if BJ were like Metallica" album.

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.

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.

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

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.

The band in 2020 has zero in common with Poison so to be honest, I kinda get that. A Poison audience is no longer a Bon Jovi audience.

Not sure he even wants to be a peer of Adams, he wants to be on the same level as The Stones.

Fair! I think if at their creative height that most of this board cherishes, they were still seen as a housewives band....it's a dead fight. If the world didn't see them then like we do there's no hope so it's just not a fight worth having. Almost to the point where people saying "the world is laughing at the band because the new music is so bad" no no, the world is laughing at the band because they're Bon Jovi. Doesn't so much matter what they put out, it's pissing SOME group off. Too aggressive and it goes against the housewives, too country and it pisses off the rockers, too pop and it pisses off the fans that have been bitching since 2005 or 2007, or 2000 (pick your year). You're right, it's not a fight worth having.

I don't think it's any bands aim, but it gets to a poin where you relaise that you're older and radio isn't going the play you anymore and you just get out there and do it. Journey's set is 90% 80s stuff and has be for 20 years. Guns is probably 70% 80s, early 90s. They are certainly comfortable with it.

There's a great quote from Rob Thomas in this clip that I think sums it up pretty well about how you relaise that you get to a point where you're not going to be massive anymore, but thats' ok, you have your core fans what will follow whatever you do

https://youtu.be/Z4hK7t-IgnU?t=132

Very off topic but I've always loved Rob Thomas's candor during interviews, he always seemed to "get it".

Love the song and an 8 for me. I've listened to it a bunch of times; it's catchy as hell. I love the upbeat and positive vibe. It feels comfortable, and very 'Bon Jovi'.

Sure, Jon's vocals suck and the production is OTT because it has to be to cover his vocal weaknesses.

I get your point but Def Leppard, as much as I love them, are a nostalgia act. They tour almost every year (kudos to them) and the sets are basically Hysteria megahits + Pyromania hits and a few other songs in a quite short setlist (don't count the Vegas residency now)

The frequency of albums is also longer. 2002, 2008, 2015 and no plans for anything new.

Horrible. Just horrible.

Jon pursues the success and greatness of U2 in his own way.

I am far from being a U2 fan and the last known memory I have of them doing anything is some album they gave away for free... I couldn't tell you one song they've done or one thing they've released after that.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using Tapatalk

6/10

Do What You can is very upbeat and catchy, but in terms of the production it's the same old tired formula. Jon's vocals are again auto-tuned, Jon's vocal delivery in the verses heavily lack any emotion or conviction but it does pick up during the chorus,the auto-tune seems to pay off in this area because Jon's vocals sound near his 2010 vocals. To me it sounds as if Jon decided to use layer his vocals in the chorus so it sounds slightly thicker.

For me the chorus is probably the only thing that stands out on this track, overall it's a good track but heavy overproduction and poor vocal delivery are the let downs in this song.

Same, I couldn't name a thing they've done in the last in probably 15 years. But are Bon Jovi any different? Would a non fan be able to name anything they've done in the last 15 years? I doubt it. In England, the last thing the average person remembers is It's My Life and that was 20 years ago. I guess America may remember Who Says? but still that's 15 years ago. Nothing from the last few albums have been in the consience of the general public.

U2 however, seems to retain a lot more respect, probably because they were always seen as a more respectable band even back in the day.

Superman Tonight screams U2 from all sides. We have even criticized John Shanks for it.

I agree with you - but I would say Have A Nice Day was the last single even average persons might remember. At least it's the case with people I know.

To me there's nothing wrong with Jon wanting to stay relevant. The way he tries to just annoys me.
I don't expect them to write another Slippery/KTF/TD. Those days are 1. gone and 2. would tank big due to today's music.
What I expect is some creativity instead of the same formula over and over again. I wasn't a big fan of We Don't Run when it came out. But it was the first song in more than a decade that had a fresh sound and still being Bon Jovi (at least what's left of them). Songs like A Teardrop To The Sea or Who Would You Die For gave the same impression. If they had followed that direction with 2020 I'd be much more satisfied with their output. But what I've heard so far it's the same stuff we already heard a thousand times.
Btw. by saying that - Limitless, to me, is more of a We Don't Run copy than another It's my Life clone. So I'm not that critical about that song although I haven't listened to it more than once after its release (and once more when a radio station played it while I drove in my car).

Aloha !

So what you're essentially saying is an album similar to Slippery's style would tank harder than the way the albums now disappear from everyone's radar?

The days of Slippery have gone. But the classic rock market is still massive. AC/DC, Black Sabbath, Motley Crue, Scorpions, David Bowie, The Rolling Stones, Iron Maiden, Def Leppard... The list is endless. They all release or have released new albums with an updated sound and sell loads of copies.

Iron Maiden sold 170.000 copies in the U.S. without needing to add it to a ticket bundle. Bon Jovi have loads more exposure, play in front of bigger crowds and add their album to a ticket bundle and sell 130.000 albums. The constant talk of "It wouldn't work with Bon Jovi" has been proven wrong by pretty much all of their peers.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

No, it's not what I said. And what I said applys more to the songs than the full albums. A song like Bad Medicine wouldn't be a successful radio single anymore. And all the bands listed in your post don't have successful radio singles either. They get played by rock stations which have nothing to do with single or album charts. They just play it because they're rock artists. And at least in German rock radio, Bon Jovi gets played quite often as well - from Runaway to Limitless.
Furthermore what I mean is another Slippery wouldn't bring them the same success like they had in the old days. I'm not one of those romantics who dream of another Slippery.


True, but they don't release that many albums in the same time frame than Bon Jovi do:

Released studio albums in the last 15 years:
AC/DC: Black Ice (2008 ), Rock Or Bust (2014)
Black Sabbath: 13 (2013)
Motley Crue: Saints Of Los Angeles (2008 )
Scorpions: Humanity Hour I (2007), Sting In The Tail (2010), Return To Forever (2015)
David Bowie: The Next Day (2013), Blackstar (2016)
The Rolling Stones: A Bigger Bang (2005), Blue & Lonesome (2016)
Iron Maiden: A Matter Of Life And Death (2006), The Final Frontier (2010), The Book Of Souls (2015)
Def Leppard: Yeah (2006), Songs From The Sparkle Lounge (2008 ), Def Leppard (2015)

Bon Jovi: Have A Nice Day (2005), Lost Highway (2007), The Circle (2009), What About Now (2013), Burning Bridges (2015), This House Is Not For Sale (2016), 2020 (2020)

So a sum of 17 studio albums from 8 different bands/artists vs. 7 albums from Bon Jovi alone.

It's much more likely that a casual buys the new album from an act who hasn't released one for years instead of buying another album from a band who releases new material every couple of years.

I agree with you on that one.
But like I said above, I'm not saying a real rock record from Bon Jovi would sell worse than what we get the last 15 years. But it wouldn't sell any better either.
It's a mix of quality and output frequency.

Classic Rock market is massive sure, but the key word there is classic. It doesn't apply when we're talking about new material and how often it would be played. Those stations aren't necessarily putting the new Rolling Stones into heavy rotation.

Beyond having a successful hook song or not, these more classic rock bands sell a lot of records because they preserve their fan base very well. Bon Jovi however has never kept his fans, with each album he loses a fan base, and having had no radio hits in recent years, he doesn't get a new fan base like they used to in the early 2000s.

A return to rock wise, you may not get a hit song accessible to everyone, but it would get a large chunk of your fan base, and bring you some glory these days. It would also be a breath of fresh air for his music. I think that the album would sell better than now.

But how would the new songs be successful at radio if classic rock radio doesn't play the new singles? Saying "has had no radio hits in recent years" is kind of a moot point then, isn't it?

They got a new fan base in the 2000's by adapting their sound to a younger audience which worked. They've constantly tried to recreate that effect over and over and over again and it hasn't worked so it's silly we're saying it's okay to do it when it works but sad and pathetic when it doesn't.

Bon Jovi no longer has anything to do to bring a new generation, but he can recover the rock fan base, which was losing over the years.

It's too late. It's done.

You guys are looking at it way too deep.

I'm a Paul McCartney fan. I love everything Beatles and early solo stuff... I'll try some recent stuff from time to time and it just doesn't grab me so I move on... I don't think any less of the guy, I don't think he ruined his legacy, and I'm still as much of a fan as I was before.

And there are plenty of other bands and artists I feel the same way about.

So sure, you're going to have those pompous fans who need every album to be 100% perfect or they'll bail... but most fans, cherish the classics, might find a few things from the newer music they like and understand that it's kinda just the pathway for most, if not all, artists.

Bon Jovi are legends. They had a killer 80s and 90s and very good 00's to 10.

And even looking back from '13 to now, there are some really good things out there...

The guys pushing 60. 40 years in, you gotta give a little wiggle room.

My 3 biggest issue are:
1. Writing about politics.
2. His voice - but more so, getting the right producer who can make him sound more natural in a studio.
3. Using the John Shanks sound on every album. It's all so repetitive.

But I feel like all three are fixable... I'm hopeful that this NEW album will surprise me. I'm looking forward to Beautiful Drug. I really liked what I heard of that.







Sent from my HTC6535LVW using Tapatalk

Isn't 'staying relevant' a big wink at the younger generations? Jon's been chasing fads and number one hits for years and all those efforts are made to grab a new audience. So what if a few bickering die-hards fall off? RDK - no one expects another perfect album but when 4 consecutive singles suck, you gotta wake up *and brush your teeth*.

Crazy Lixx's "Ruff Justice" was the best AOR/hair metal record since Crashdiet's debut. It sold worse than Burning Bridges.

-The Scorpions went on a farewell tour 10 years ago. They've since released a couple of new records. I can only imagine your reaction if BJ pulled this shit. And you're not seriously defending stuff like Eye 2 Eye?

-AC/DC have updated their sound. Right.

-Black Sabbath have updated their sound. Right. They also played zero new songs by the end of the last tour.

-Mötley Crüe haven't released a new studio album since 2008. They also pulled the faux farewell card, and Vince sounds about as good as JBJ nowadays.

-David Bowie died about 5 years ago. He had been on a ~10 year hiatus until shortly before.

-The Stones haven't updated their sound. Period. Their last record was a blues cover record, their last album of original material was released in 2005.

-Iron Maiden have sounded the same since the mid 90s. Which is fine.

Apparently the list is very much finite.

Why would you think that? Serious question. You just claim that. Why would young rock fans who grew up on Alter Bridge, Slipknot and Halestorm be awaiting the return of Bon Jovi to a rock sound?

Because his minds are open when it's rock n roll sound. Why the people that listened Keith Urban and other country bands, they got interested in listen Bon Jovi's Lost highway?

Not sure I follow. Whose minds?

I'm a massive Scorpions fan. Eye II Eye is probably their worst album, they tried to be a boy band in some songs, but the album is more harder rock than What About Now and HAND. They ****ed up trying to drastically change their sound on the main singles, but there is some modern hard rock songs there.

Bon Jovi is not a harder rock band because they don't want to, the market is still active and going strong.

Sure but that's not the argument. They're trying to sound like artists that still sell massive amounts of albums. To the point where they've given up their identity to try and sound relevant. But classic rock artists aren't selling that great with their new material in America and end of the day that's the market it feels like they are the most chasing.

Unless the other songs on the album are somewhat listenable, this is shaping up to be not only BJ’s worst record but one of the worst records I’ve ever listened to. So far, I find the 4 songs to be terrible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aloha !

I know a song like Bad Medicine wouldn't be as succesful but Limitless is not a succesful single either. It gets played on the radio because it's by Bon Jovi, not because it's deemed a good song. Would Bon Jovi release something with a more classic rock sound it'd get played as well. You're still under the assumption the sound they have now is what gives them an audience but I don't think it does.

But that's still saying they "need" to have this poppy production in order to sell. It's as if Bon Jovi fans think they need to sound like this in order to sell this many copies while the people still buying Bon Jovi albums will buy it regardless of quality or sound. It's a "I'll buy this one because I've got all the other ones" mentality as opposed to "I'll buy this one as well because I like it". They've not gained any new fans with this stuff. If they had the albums wouldn't dissappear from the charts in a few weeks.

Crazy Lixx never had the same audience Bon Jovi had, they're obviously not going to outsell anyone here. Apples and oranges.

Eye 2 Eye is 2 decades ago, it's a different world. The Scorpions returned to the sound they have now exactly because stuff like Eye 2 Eye didn't work. Whether they've gone on a farewell tour or whatever has little to do with this.

Yes. They still make the same songs but drums and guitars all sound different compared to the eighties. It's not much, but there's a difference there.

Same like AC/DC. Whether they played the songs live is irrelevant. Bon Jovi do play the updated stuff live and no one cares for that either.

Vince not being able to sing has nothing to do with this. Mötley Crüe tried a more poppy sound in the nineties and it didn't work. Their comeback album was with similar songs to the eighties but with an updated sound and worked like a charm because there's a hunger for classic rock.

Doesn't matter. David Bowie wasn't incorporating nowaday's pop music in his songs either. He didn't do so in 2002 and 2003 either.

Doom and Gloom is the same Stones but with a updated sound. Songs of this decade sound different than the stuff produced in the nineties.

No, it isn't. You're bringing in a lot of arguments which have little to do with the subject. Not being able to sing, farewell tours, not playing the songs live., times when an album gets released... It all has little to do with it. Classic rock still sells a lot.

Bon Jovi fans always, for whatever reason, take pride in the band "evolving". It's as if the bullshit fed by Jon is a testament to their opinion on Bon Jovi's changing sound. "If they hadn't changed their sound they wouldn't get played on the radio". Bon Jovi don't get played on the radio for over a decade now. Songs of The Circle, What About Now, This House Is Not For Sale weren't played on the radio either. Why bother with this faux-modern sound when all it does is ultimately drive fans away?

All these poppy elements since Crush have made every album sound so very very dated the moment it got released. A new Bon Jovi record always sounds like it was released last year. 2020, especially with it being delayed for half a year, is going to suffer that same fate. It's as if they only people who really enjoy what Bon Jovi songs sound like are Jon and John Shanks.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

The problem for me is that Shanks is too involved and long past his use. HAND, Lost Highway and The Circle all have good monents and are all different in style and sound. That should have ended the bands association with Shanks, but I imagine Richie lost interest during What About Now, with that album then becoming more Jon and his reliance on Shanks. Jon trusts him and has been lazy in not wanting another producer to push him and the band in another direction, or even back to a more classic rock sound. There is a huge market for classic rock but Jon confuses nostalgia with what still sells, or maybe Shanks does. I don't know many bands who place their producer in the band and have them play in the live shows, I guess it's because he also plays more in the studio than any of us know.

Bon Jovi have been on the decline for a number of years, yes Jons voice doesn't help, yes no Richie doesn't help but it is Jon's decision making that has ultimately given us what we now have.

Absolutely! Blaming Shanks is an easy excuse to direct your disappointment/put a blame on sb, but ultimately it's all about what Jon wants. And Jon wants it this way.

New Tattoo being their comeback album? That one didn't sell. Period. Saints of Los Angeles sounded nothing like old Crue, since you could tell it was co-written by a bunch of professional songwriters. Supposedly Tommy didn't even play on it.

Not bothering with the rest, 'cos after 20 years, your spiel is so damn tired.

100% right and I never said anything opposing.

Please give me the quote where I said that - because I didn't.
I'm with you on that one.

What I said was that the sound they have now pisses me off and that I'm missing the courage and the creativity to reinvent themselves once more.
We Don't Run, A Teadrop To The Sea or Who Would You Die For where somehow different and I would've liked to see them following that direction - which they obviously didn't.
For their chart success it wouldn't make any difference if they released a new Bad Medicine, Limitless or Jon reading the phone book.