Good point that Jon's unlikely to discuss his vocal problems openly, and it makes sense to claim the old songs were written in wrong keys even if it's not true.

Aloha !

You are right, this is normally the case, but just not for the recordings from Bon Jovi, a point I'm trying to make from the beginning. Lots of details are lost, the sharpness is gone on the recordings, while on audience recordings, all of it is there. Soundboard recordings are there to give an actual feeling of the show, while every soundboard recording of Bon Jovi simply sounds the same. A club gig sounds the same as a stadium gig. The sound is muffed, and lots of details are lost, instead of, as usual, gained.

When it comes to Bon Jovi; yes it does.

Yes they do. Have you ever felt like you were listening to a band that was playing in a big stadium when you listened to the Wembley bootleg? No. And it's not because all the crowd noises and echoes are gone, it's because the depth of the overal sound is lost, which is why Jon sounds flat on almost any soundboard recording, Richies guitars asound muffed, Dave can almost not be heard, Tico sounds like he's drumming behind a closed garage door and Hugh is constantly hitting the same snare. There's no depth in the sound, which is why it's a distorted view. The band just simply does not sound like that.

When I was in the Heineken Music Hall, Saturday Night for example, sounded like an acoustic studio version, including Jon's vocals. When I heard the bootleg, it sounded like a tired band.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

I've gotta say that's wrong. It's the sharpness and detail in soundboard recordings that you don't like.....those things don't exist in audience recordings which is why they sound better in a lot of cases. Every soundboard recording of Bon Jovi sounds the same because it's the same band with the same instruments playing the same songs. The things that change are the venue acoustics and the crowds, and therefore audience recordings.

The "depth of the overall sound" you enjoy is created by the different factors of every venue. A soundboard recording from Wembley Stadium will sound almost the same as a soundboard recording from the tiny Shepherds Bush Empire, and both will give a clearer view of what the band are doing, than bootlegs which are affected by other factors

Aloha !

Wrong. It's the sharpness and details in Bon Jovi soundboards I don't like, because there isn't any. On soundboard recordings you can barely hear Dave, and besides guitarsolo's, the real guitarwork can barely be heard. If that's detail, I'm lost.

And if that'd be true, why do soundboard recordings of other bands sound different? Compare a soundboard recording of a club show from Aerosmith to a soundboard show from the live album A Little South Of Sanity. It's a completely different sound. The same goes for many other artists, Clapton sounds different in each venue, and the list goes on, but still, a soundboard show from Clapton sounds exactly like what it was when I heard it live.

Exactly, and it can't be heard on Bon Jovi soundboard shows. If they'd give a clearer view of what the band are doing, you should be able to hear if the band is in shape or not, and what sort of venue a band is playing. A arena show should sound different than a club show. One Wild Night live is the perfect example for Bon Jovi soundboards not representing of what this band is capable off. Everything sounds like it's recorded in the same venue, on the same night, probably on purpose, but not what a Bon Jovi show is like, and therefore what the band is like when they're playing live.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

You're lost because you're confusing the sharpness of a soundboard recording with the mix of a soundboard recording. A soundboard recording taken direct from the show is one that will have been mixed probably for the PA, not for use on standard CD players etc. You could hear a soundboard recording that's been taken away and mixed properly for an album like OWN, which people may not have liked very much, but there's no denying it's sharper and gives more detail than that of someone in the audience with a portable recorder.

Soundboard recordings of other bands sound different for the same reasons. They've been mixed by different people and then maybe remixed if they were intended to be released. When a soundboard recording is remixed, like Aerosmith's A Little South Of Sanity, reverb, delays, chorus, etc etc can be added to enhance the "feel" of the track, make it sound like a bigger venue, improve the overall live feel. Bon Jovi's soundboard recordings aren't any different. You may not like the mix of them because the sound engineer hasn't put Dave loud enough for example, but that doesn't change the fact that they are sharper than audience recordings.


There's no way you should be able to tell what sort of venue the band is playing in from an original soundboard recording. They are direct recordings using close mic, or direct inputs from the instruments and won't be altered by venue acoustics. That's the whole point of a soundboard recording, otherwise engineers would stick mics in the crowd, press record and release that as an album (though in some cases that would have produced better results!) Like I say, it's afterwards that you can add reverb and other effects to enhance the feel, but the soundboard is the clean, original source

Back on track....does anyone know if Jon's still smoking, or if he still has a vocal coach?

Though it's harder to tell, I've not seen any signs of Richie losing his higher register. 90% of the time he's singing a harmony higher than Jon's main vocal line and he doesn't look or sound like he's struggling to me. Anyone else noticed any problems with Richie's vocals?

Aloha !

That's exactly my point! It doesn't give more detail and isn't sharper. There's not any detail coming from the band members, as the entire sound is muffed, while on a good audience recording, take the recent Japanese recordings, you can hear every detail from every band member. That's exactly why an audience recording sounds better and gives a better example of how this band sounds.

Erm, the Aerosmith shows are recorded in large arena's and big stadiums, and it's exactly what they sound like. And an Aerosmith soundboard show gives the same preview of the audience recordings, only in a better mixed way.

Yes you can. I've got three different sort of soundboard shows and one audience show from Clapton. One directly from the soundboard, one TV broadcast from a stadium gig, one official soundboard, and one audience show. On those 4 shows, the band sounds exactly the same. There's no way that there's more detail in the soundboard or the audience recording. And that's the way it should be. And yes, whenever they do record soundboard shows they've got mics pointed to the crowd to record the crowd and give a feeling of the show, something a Bon Jovi soundboard is definitely lacking. Feeling.

If a soundboard source should be providing the clean, original source, why am I able to hear more details in an audience recording? Exactly, because the final mixes are just rubbish.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

No, that's what they sound like once they've reintroduced reverb, allbeit artificially.

Of course they've got audience mics, but an original soundboard recording won't have them in the mix because there's no point feeding a screaming crowd their own screaming through the PA! An original Bon Jovi soundboard recording won't have audience mics mixed in for this reason, unless it's a monitor mix for Jon or the band, in which case they have they are likely to have the audience mics mixed into their in-ear monitors so they can hear the audience.

Because you are comparing mixes that weren't intended to be heard anywhere else than through huge PA systems. They aren't "final mixes". I'm not talking about whether you can hear dave, or tico or whoever better in an audience recording compared to a soundboard recording because that's subject to the mix. I'm talking about the detail being clearer in a soundboard recording because the sound goes from Jon's mouth (for example), into a mic, through a cable, into processors and then directly to the mixing desk where it is attached to the recorder. It doesn't go through Jon's mic, into the mixing desk, out through the PA speakers, over the audience, then into a tiny mic from a portable recorder. That's why it's better to judge vocal ability through a soundboard recording, not from a very distant-sourced audience recording.

Jon still smokes, On the Bounce tour he didn't have a vocal coach, don't know if he will have one on this tour.

Richie has a higher range than jon, he ussually sings a third higher than jon, the only song I can recall Jon singing higher than Richie is Lie to Me on These Days.
To the best of my knowledge Richie doesn't have any vocal problems, or at least not as noticable as Jon.
I don't know if Richie smokes or not, on the This left feels right dvd when the band are playing poker and texas hold 'em you can see everyone of them smoking at one point except richie so maybe he's the smart one.

The third above Jon always works great for Richie. The two voices have always blended so so well (particularly on the These Days album I feel). I was thinking of Lie To Me too. It's unusual to hear Richie singing lower but again it works great. I think it's during the end of "as my guitar lies bleeding" too when Richie sings lower, which again I love!. I've never seen Richie smoke anywhere else so maybe he is the smart one. Very much looking forward to his next album, if we ever see it.