Where has the REAL Jon gone?
 

Just listen to this live version of IBTFY (from May 2011):

https://youtu.be/jqImfJEV0EA

Or this version of Always (from June 2013!!!!!):

https://youtu.be/h11Gz6M8nRs

Jon's passion and artistic creativity used to be astonishing. Night after night, gig after gig, year after year he ripped himself into pieces on stage, improvising and adding little things here and there, giving his absolute all EVERY SINGLE TIME. The guy put such passion in everything he did, and did it all so well. Except for a few occasional "off" moments (These Days in Alpine Valley and Hyde Park '03, Prayer in Tokyo '08, Always in Gdansk '13), up to July 2013 he sounded immense and wasn't afraid to take risks vocally or physically during his performances.

Today, we have a washed-up and clearly insecure, weary-looking man standing still like a statue through (at least) 90% of EVERY SINGLE SHOW and sounding like a cat whose balls have gotten stuck in a milkshake blender. And this massive change happened within A COUPLE OF MONTHS. What the hell happened? Just compare the magnificent performances of above to these murders:

https://youtu.be/nUDQw1zgd60

https://youtu.be/XpZP5Js-D3I

Was JBJ replaced by the lookalike "singer" of a bad BJ tribute band?

Sorry if I sound like a dick, but what are you trying to accomplish with this thread?

Jon never took care of his voice by a) smoking like a chimney and (more importantly) b) singing in an unsustainable manner at the top of his range. He's had many declines over the years, but it finally caught up to him and in 2013 he fell of a cliff. The end.

It's not only his voice - it's also his passion of artistry and overall delivery. In the first two videos you can clearly see (and hear) Jon feel every word he sings. He puts so much emotion into his singing and the overall performance, and holds absolutely nothing back. Can you say the same about the last two clips? Besides sounding like the worst pile of shit humanly imaginable, Jon looks like a used toy robot that hasn't had its batteries changed in years. He sure as hell doesn't look like he wanted to be on stage that night. Especially the version of Always is a literal struggle of death, leaving Jon look extremely frustrated and pissed off on several occasions. That said, I don't know if it's more due to his own disappointment about the vocal results than him actually being down. I'd say it's a combination of both, but what do you think?

In my eyes, Jon hasn't looked to be honestly enjoying himself on stage since 2011. That didn't matter in May/June 2013 yet, as many shows were still enjoyable (Cape Town, Johannesburg, Oslo, Manchester, Birmingham, Slane, Sunderland, Berlin, Cologne, Prague, Milan, Bern), but IMO from July '13 onwards JBJ has been running more or less on autopilot.

Its not just one thing... Its a slow regression of multiple factors...Each year/tour they lose a little more of what once made them amazing...

Jon's voice continues to regress... Losing band members, Ageing, Other Interests, Etc... This then results in a loss of confidence...

When you are on a winning team, you're into it... When you are on a losing one, you want to quit...



Sent from my HTCD160LVW using Tapatalk

about passuon - - artistic ---.. I d say after the nineties it was 90% gone anyway. But yes he had a passion of delivery till more recently.

Agreed, do we really need another thread about this? He's declined, people either know it or pretend not to notice. There's a million threads to discuss this.

I totally agree. I'm Jon's age and it just gets harder to keep up the stamina and enthusiasm one had in the past. It's not that I don't want to keep doing what I've been doing but it gets harder and it's hard to let go. I think Jon is at that point. There is no way he can top or keep up with what he did in the past but at the same time he's not ready to totally give it up. I'm sure he recognizes he's been so lucky getting to have been (be) a "rock star" which only a handful of people ever become so the giving it up and moving on is terribly hard.

He definitely changed overnight during the WAN tour. That tour was too much and certainly his last like that. With the book already coming out for the THINFS tour, I think it's basically over except for the foreign dates already announced.

I believe JBJ will be just fine with all of his extra interests to attend to and his family but it will still sting that the glory days are certainly over.

I'm so sorry to say this and feel for him.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You say it's not just voice, but I'd argue that everything starts with his voice. His "passion" declined together with voice. Think about it if you were in Jon's shoes - how passionate and energetic and joyful would you be on stage if you had to worry constantly about reaching every semi-high note that you could've hit no problem just a few months ago? It's no coincidence that the two correlate so much.

It declined very rapidly, but it's been quite steady from 2011. The few 2012 shows they did he sounded considerably worse, and then with each passing month of 2013 it got progressively worse. Most of your examples come from the European leg, which is somewhat of an exception, because Jon has always brought his A+ game for European crowds for decades. But still, he sounded considerably better in March-April than June-July.

He wanted to keep the machine going....they should've taken longer break periods between albums...but mr. Bongiovi gets his kick out of filling stadiums, so he has to make "hit songs" and release albums constantly to be able to tour...that most likely ruined the band. its a shame.

Pretty much this. As much as I enjoyed them releasing albums during those years (as I wasn't a real diehard until late '06) and being somewhat overly present, the last album where they really had something to write about was Lost Highway with all the personal issues Richie and Dave were going through. There was some honesty behind it. After that they just went creatively blank up until some of the tracks of THINFS. There was an odd exception here and there, but for about 9 years they just kept pushing out records to be able to tour and make money. That's simply not a reason to do it if you don't have anything to say. And now that Jon has something to say again he's so ****ed up physically and mentally that he can't deliver that properly anymore. It's a shame, really.

True and you know what's ironic about this?

He pushed so much to be "relevant" so constantly and it actually hurt their brand a lot as he completely ruining the commercial appetite for general masses with albums and tours every 2-3 years instead of taking the U2 approach. In addition to ****ing up his pipes (or making it sooner), contributing to Richie's departure, it also prevented Jon from achieving that same goal - being big and relevant. But yeah, he added a lot of cash to his bank account, hopefully it was worth it to him...

I see what you're saying but it's not like U2 is selling albums right now either. As far as a relevant recording artist they're pretty dead in the water. Not as much as Bon Jovi but U2 has much bigger tours.

Dismantle sold incredibly well. The fact that U2 was 30 years old as a band and released that album and had a #1 song on the pop charts is incredible.

No Line on The Horizon was a flop, yes. Innocence everyone got for free, and is technically the most downloaded album of all time.

Also, U2 is incredibly relevant with younger people - Bon Jovi isn't. A lot of my friends are well acquainted with Achtung Baby, Joshua Tree, All That You Can't Leave Behind. Young people make fun of those who listen to Slippery.

There is absolutely ZERO factual evidence to back up this claim... and it's total rubbish like the rest of his posts...

Sent from my HTCD160LVW using Tapatalk

Agreed with Distmantle. Anything past that didn't connect as far as sales, radio play and radio relevance. Innocence being the most downloaded album of all time can't really been counted towards this. I understand alot of your friends consider them relevant but it doesn't change that a lot of people find U2 very uncool right now. You're using a kneejerk reaction to trash Bon Jovi as if anyone here is disagreeing that they're not hip right now.

Let's be real. U2 aren't relevant to younger people. Bon Jovi aren't relevant to younger people. You'll be hard pressed to find any band formed in the 80s or earlier who are still relevant with younger people. That is unless your definition of "relevant" is hits from over 10 years ago.

That's not to say that some young people aren't into older bands. But if they are, they are the exception, not the rule. Go up to any kid on the street and ask them to name a song from U2/Bon Jovi that was released in the last 5 years and 90% of them won't be able to answer you.

U2 may be more popular than Bon Jovi because they are more well respected in the music industry, but among the general population the only relevance both bands have these days is due to the legacy they have made in their past (which is actually something to be proud about).

It's been done to death. It's not just Jon's voice that has withered away either. He looks every bit his age. Loads of reasons why.

We'll never see him get back to those glory days. I've accepted it and still enjoy the new album.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Simple, yet perfect answer!!!

This....

The problem is, music genre popularity has drastically changed over the past few years. It's not just 80's bands... It's 90' and 00' bands as well..

This. Radio/TV give U2's new material much more of a chance than any new Bon Jovi releases over the last 7-8 years. Although they are pigeon-holed into the same stations BJ are nowadays, a new U2 release is greeted with much more fanfare than a BJ release which gets a cursory few plays for a week or so and then it's back to Prayer being in rotation.

Yes and that just proves my point.

U2 would get the same treatment if they released 8 albums in 17 years while in thier 40s and 50s. But if they didn't, because their smart. They know how to build public appetite for new music and tours. Hell, I'm a Bon Jovi fan first and foremost, but I would get more excited about a new U2 album rather than another rushed Jovi record.

I dunno. I've been to three U2 shows in the last two years. Who was I surrounded by? Young, energetic people jumping around having a blast. A lot of my friends love U2. The Joshua Tree is still relevant. Achtung Baby is still relevant (although it does have dated songs like Mysterious Ways on it).

When I went to Bon Jovi shows, it's all people older than 40 who can't last the whole show standing up.

Both shows were excellent, both were meaningful. But one had a significantly younger audience.

Also, I'm 24, and the vast majority of my peer group likes U2. I traveled with 10 people from Calgary to Vancouver all my age and younger to see the recent Joshua Tree show.

If that's not proof, I don't know what is?

What is relevant here is that you are obviously biased, your a bigger fan of U2 than Bon Jovi, which is nothing wrong at all, I am a fan to. But to say the things you say here is just crazy, people over 40 who can't last at concert standing up? Really?, but I guess that is what a 24 year old would say, lets see how you like it when your 44 and a 24 year old tells you the same thing, BTW, both Jon and Bono are good friends, there is a lot of respect for each other, Jon just recently attended the U2 concert in Chicago a couple of weeks ago.

Not true. I'm a way bigger fan of Bon Jovi than U2.

However, I don't have Bon Jovi tinted goggles on. U2 is way more relevant, and younger people like them way more. I get made fun of for liking Bon Jovi. It's socially acceptable however to be a fan of U2.

Are you sure you're just not getting made fun of, period?

The REAL Jon has gone for a really long walk and left all the drama here :3

Panda is right though. The shit I get to my head for being a Bon Jovi fan is beyond pleasant. U2 are more relevant nowadays, but Bono is a dick.

Really? Wow! This is ground breaking information!! It's only been like this for the past 30 years.... Or course when you put an 80's Hair Band against a Alternate Rock band, the 80's Hair Band will lose ever time (when it comes to coolness)...

However, you getting shit for being a fan isn't Panda's point... He's saying that U2 is more relevant with the younger generation and I'm saying he's got nothing to back this up with the exception of him getting bullied for being a fan.

My Opinion: I actually don't think either band is relevant right now with kids between the ages of 15 to 21 however if one band actually has an edge, it's Bon Jovi... I think Jon is more recognizable than Bono and I also think Bon Jovi's songs are more recognizable as well... For example, if you polled 100 kids between the ages of 15 to 21, I think Bon Jovi would win the 2 above categories hands down.

Here is a little something, not that it would matter to anyone, https://twitter.com/MelissaVHerald/s...72118488154112

Just saw that myself Rosa and just so happens to prove my points once again...

Sent from my HTCD160LVW using Tapatalk

I can honestly say that I have never been bullied or made fun of for my tastes in music (and I have pretty wide tastes that could be considered ridiculous to a lot of Rock fans). You guys live near some real assholes....

Lol.....

Sent from my HTCD160LVW using Tapatalk

I think some people might be confusing "popularity" and "socially accepted" with "relevant".

Is Donald Trump cool? No. Is he relevant? Yes.

Are vinyl records cool? Yes. Are they relevant? No.

Like I said before, Bon Jovi and U2 have made their mark. They will be forever honoured for their anthems and worldwide legacy. Neither are relevant though.

This doesn't mean that they don't have fans, or that their new music is poor quality, or that they can't sell out stadiums. It just means they no longer make a massive impact in their respective industry.

I could be the one in the wrong. Maybe I'm the one seeing things incorrectly. But that's my view and explanation on the argument of relevane anyway.

I totally agree with the above.. and I think everyone also agrees and understands...

Panda just makes up fake stats in his head that ranks U2's non relevance higher than Bon Jovi's non relevance...

It's like having two empty glasses but the one on the left has more in it...

Sent from my HTCD160LVW using Tapatalk

This is closer to what I was trying to say. Both have younger fans that know the hits but people are kidding themselves if they're saying the younger crowd goes nuts for new material from either.

Why did this discussion go completely off-topic?

By the way, THIS is what I miss the most about JBJ:

https://youtu.be/MfJ5MikUdSk

The way he used to get carried away during songs like Saturday Night, IBTFY, KTF etc. was unique and exciting. Nowadays, he runs through about 80% of the current live set like he was thinking about something else pretty much all the time. IMO the only songs he's been truly delivering on during the THINFS tour (besides the new ones) have been LYHOM, BM and Always.

This isnt appropriate comment, is it?

The thing is, Bon Jovi are widely considered as CHEESY among male-generation. I've felt this since late 80s when I was the biggest fan. After Slippery Bon Jovi wasnt allowed if you were a true metal/rock/pop/disco/whatever-head. Girls band, soft ballads. It was hard to be a dude and get bullied a bit because you were wearing Jovi-shirt...!

Thats not how I felt back in the day. I always adored sognwriting skills & musicianship which were both unnoticed because of Jon's look and hit songs.

BUT thats also how I feel nowdays. If today I say I dig Bon Jovi, I will always add "the 80s stuff" because later catalog isnt widely regarded as "true music" and Jon is considered as too full of himself/too serious/etc...

You know what? Bon Jovi is STILL regarded as a rock or rock'n'roll band among people in their 20s and early 30s. I've been to a lot of clubs and all these bands and musicians play at least one of BJ songs, having so much fun doing so! BJ catalogue is so vast and diverse it's just unfair to narrow it down to SWW and some 'cheesy' anthems which work well in arenas. I haven't listened to U2 for ages, nor have I heard anyone playing their stuff live. When I talk to my friends, they know some BJ classics like IML, LOAP or Always. I can't speak on behalf of teenagers, though. They are deinifitely into the stuff you'd hear on the radio nowadays which is a shame really. Some say the 80s were kitsch but just look at the musicians today. The girls looking like whores, twerking their butts to some up-tempo songs and guys trying to either fit a macho type with their rapping or a baby boy singing about a broken heart. Do we really care what is relevant to really young people if we ourselves don't listen to that stuff either? To fully appreciate Bon Jovi songs both in the musical and lyrical content you need to be mature or at least find the reference to your own life.

I truly cannot believe I have to say this but please let's keep the childish insults out of this debate. If all you want to do is trash someone else you will be banned. We're getting complaints and posts reported because it's getting out of hand.