my main argument was since its been 5 years now there was no need for jon to mention the "habbits". he could deliver his squared answer without any digs to Rich. both moved on, you said you love him when you met him for the rehearsal oof hof , why keep bringing that aspect up when the interviewer didnt push you at all and richie totally avoids to mention it. in my book it was a bit unclassy from jon.
there was an interview that richie was asked if any of the band members visited him in rehab in 2007 i think and responded a bit akward no. i m sure they were friends but through the years there was distance between them.
tico in the hof fame speech wisely spoke about Richies heart proving that he appreciates him for what he is. maybe none of them want to go through this again but he appreciates his role and his character.
i read a lot the argument that since Richie wrote a lot of the material he cant complain about the bands direction...i consider it wrong. i also consider richie contribution poor compared to his younger years BUT i believe Richie wasnt happy with the single choices...(til we aint strangers../superman to name a few), the fast pace which resulted in mediocre quality and the whole idea that everyone in the studio is replacable by a session musician or shanks...which longterm ended in watering down the studio outcome and we all listen to the results..(when previous songs and albums were wrote again and again to be perfect we ended up in a new procedure where we dont even demo the songs...)
To conclude i m sure richie did may faults but after 5 years there is no need to mention his "habbits" and make the public eye saw him as another rockstar addict since he doesnt want to project this and wants t keep it private.

But what is that based on?

my memory...richie had stated during the lost highway and circle promos,not early on, that they are at a stage in their career where they shouldnt chase fashions, it was a soft critique...he was happy with make a memory and i think he had stated he preffered another song than till we aint strangers..
he had certainly said that when we were beautiful should be backed up and not superman, (the initial plan was to support when we were beautiful after we werent born to follow)

This is the first I'm hearing about any of this. Was it radio/internet/tv? The last one I kind of remember, he was saying the single order should have been swapped and When We Were Beautiful should have been the second single instead, yeah.

FYI, I haven't been ignoring your posts, here or on other threads. I’ve been trying to describe the dynamic in the early days in a way that won’t imply that I ever saw them as equals.:)

The answer to how I could have assumed there was equity between Jon and Richie is mainly a gut reaction to a lot of things; so if I neglect to indicate, in context, that I’m talking purely about how something came across to me, please take that as a given.

I know that Jon’s name has always been on the contract, that he’s always been the boss, and that the others, including Richie, have always been employees, technically. But a combination of things made me wonder how clearly those lines were drawn, in practice.

First, in Neil Daniels’ Bon Jovi Encyclopedia, Derek Shulman's comments raised questions for me about the early structure of “Jon’s” band.

Second, there’s a huge difference in the band’s presence, on stage and in interviews, back in the day vs how it seems now. Early on, there seemed to be mutual respect and a recognition that they were a team with a common goal; and input was needed from everyone for the team to succeed. But somewhere, maybe on the NJ tour or during the break afterwards, that respect, recognition, and team spirit started waning; and it seems that it diminished further after each hiatus. Pure speculation on my part, but in retrospect, I think each hiatus possibly owed more to tension in the band, esp between Jon and Richie, than to the band simply needing a "vacation". Because of Richie’s high profile, on stage and in interviews, the change in his and Jon’s relationship was less evident, since he was still present more than the others. I think fans may not have been aware of the shifting dynamics, at the time, because none of it was made public. There wasn’t always an internet and it was gradual, coinciding with “breaks”, so there was nothing to bring it to anyone’s attention.

During the break between TD and Crush, Jon and Richie both wrote songs that seem, to me, to indicate some rethinking of their situations; and Jon said in interviews, during that time, that he didn’t know if the band was going to go on or not. After Bobby was brought on board for TLFR and with Richie’s struggles on the HAND tour, I think he may have been contemplating breaking away after HAND; maybe because of friction with Jon (over his diminishing role in the band and the substance abuse) or perhaps, just to get himself together after his father’s death and his divorce. I believe that’s the story behind WLOL (regardless of what Jon says about one line being about Dot, and the rest being about Richie’s dad and Heather). The clues are in the song itself and in the official video. Also, people have said that Richie was planning another solo album around that time; and apparently, there was talk about LH being an acoustic Jon and Richie album. But I think Jon hadn’t yet reached the conclusion that, with Shanks, he didn’t need Richie as much as he had before, so he may have persuaded Richie to give the band another go. Or maybe Richie decided to continue on his own. Either way, they went forward again, with another shift in dynamics, until the last break between TC/GH and WAN.

IF friction is what led to the breaks, it was kept behind closed doors until Calgary. I thought everything was like it had been in the beginning, since there was no reason to think otherwise. But when Richie said, in his first interview after Calgary, that “me and Jon aren’t happening right now; the band is like a family and family business stays inside the family”; and then Jon unintentionally confirmed that there was some friction by saying, “…or you say, ‘I hate my brother and I’m quitting the band’ ” it was clear that all was not well in Camelot.

Shortly after that, Bandiera did a podcast where he talked about Jon bringing him on board, saying he would have to convince the band to accept it. I don’t know if Jon tried to get buy-in or just went through the motions; but he ultimately brought Bobby in anyway. As you say, that’s how things work when someone owns the band.

Richie initially seemed happy about Shanks, because of the expediency it allowed, iirc. But I think that was before he realized he would be playing solos that somebody else wrote, or that Jon and Shanks were going to be joined at the hip, meaning his role was going to be further diminished. It has been debated here whether Bobby and Shanks were brought in because Richie was becoming (more) unreliable, but I don’t think that was considered until after Calgary. I’m fairly certain that Jon never said that he kept Bobby around in case Richie ****ed up, until after it was discussed, on this board, as a possible reason that Bobby was kept on after TLFR.

So yeah, I know Richie was always an employee, and I agree that there's never been any doubt who the boss was, but the way employees are treated and the value they have can change over time; and as you said, that’s clearly what happened here. Jon has said, as far back as NJ, that he was beholden to no one, including Richie; but I think there was a time when Jon and Richie both thought Richie was essential to the band. After working with Shanks, though, I think Jon began to see Richie as more expendable than he had before.

As for why it took me until the last few years to reach the conclusion that they aren’t the team I thought they were, and they never have been, it probably goes back to 2005, when I first became a fan. A friend gave me the box set and, silly me, I actually believed Jon when he talked about "Garageland" in the DVD (@ 18:17):

https://youtu.be/sWCAWfBl-NQ?t=1109

If Jon meant it, at the time, then somewhere along the way, he must have forgot about the 5-fingered fist. He doesn't seem to care now if one member of the band is more important than the others – as long as it's him. I also fully believed that the band didn’t air their dirty laundry in public; but that doesn't seem to matter to Jon, either; and hasn’t for a long time – as long as he’s the one doing the laundry.

As most people here know, once I make up my mind to something, it takes solid evidence to change it and, even then, it can be a slow process. But I got more than enough proof to change my thinking about both of those things during the THINFS promos. And, based on this latest interview, apparently the beat goes on.

I hope that answers your question.

You make valid points about Richie being the architect of his own downfall. I don’t disagree with your summary or that Richie is ultimately responsible for his own actions; but I’d like to add a few details to your list.

And now, I have a question for you. :)

Are 'semigoodlooking' and the artist formerly known here as ‘semigoodlookin’ one and the same?

It's confusing to me, too; esp with his statements that Crush was the most Jon and Richie album since NJ and that The Circle was the most Jon and Richie album since SWW. Because both comments skip TD, which to me seems to be the most Jon and Richie album of any of them.:)

Not that it matters, because it's a cover anyway and I just wanted to make sure we were talking about the one-offs; but When a Blind Man Cries was released in 2004. I checked because I thought I may have confused it with The Wind Cries Mary. But that one was definitely pre-Crush because it was released as a bonus track on SITT.

Are you sayin' that JBJ talked about Richie and the Kardashians to bring attention to his Europe tour???
I think you're right! >_< lol

I knew the only way to bring this thread up was if JBJ mentioned to Richie
It's not only about JBJ... he just made in NY the announcement of Europe with David... hihih

Are you sure? It was with Stuart Smith/Heaven and Hell. I've always had it as Pre-Crush. ie https://www.discogs.com/Stuart-Smith...elease/4763305

Well, I'm not now!! :)

But here's where I saw it:
https://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-...n+and+earth+cd

And Wiki has it as 2004, too. Of course, we know how unreliable that can be.

At any rate, your Discogs trumps my Amazon. I stand corrected. :)

I did read all of your post and the reason I am not replying with a similarly lengthy post is because I don't really disagree with what you said. And, I am mostly on the same page about the role Richie has played over the years, although I push more towards Jon having far mor power at the beginning than you do.

Regarding Richie leaving, there should be no doubt that Jon played his part in Richie's departure, but for me Richie made the move so the burden of proof should be on him.

Richie has never disputed that it was his decision not to turn up. If Jon had effectively fired him then why not say so? I understand why he may be legally bound to not discuss the politics in the band that led to his departure. However, I struggle to see how any legal framework would prevent him from simply saying "I was fired" even if he cannot elaborate on why.

Judging the brief comments we have had from both sides, I think it is safe to say Richie decided to leave (jumped or pushed, sabbatical or permanent is up for debate). I believe it should be the person who took the action who explains it and Richie never really has.

To answer your question. Yes, same person. I used to sign in automatically on the old account but then changed laptop and forgot my password. Couldn't send a password reminder because the old account was linked to a hotmail email that I also forgot the password to.