"I'm pretty. Now kiss my ass!"

It's unbelivable, yet it's a fact. The guy does he wants and his massive following just gasp in awe. There's no way any falling-out is just one person's fault. No way in heaven or hell. Just f***in' no! Not buying that, Jonny.

Of course he does what he wants, that's what being the owner of a business allows (within legal frameworks of course). It amazes me that people don't get that this was always Jon's show and always his path that was being taken. Level headed people on here seem to be in complete denial about that even now.

Richie was always an employee. Employees can be highliy contributing members, supporting, and yes, even friends, but still an employee. I have no doubt Jon and Richie were good friends and maybe even the "brothers" they sold themselves as. All the while, there was never any doubt within the organization of who was boss.

Those relationships can and do change and that's clearly what happened here.

There should be little doubt that Jon helped Richie out of the door. Heading back to the documentary we can see Richie and David were more upset with the situation in the band than they ever hinted at before. Heck, David basically said he is only in the band for the money. The last 10 years of Bon Jovi have been largely turgid and if Richie was a dissenter then the relationship may have broken.

Of course, that's speculation and sure that's what a place like this is for. However, if we just take the facts that are out there and known, it does not really look good for Richie.

• He heavily contributed to the crap Bon Jovi has turned out this century.
• Jon was there for him through several documented episodes. Richie has never denied this to be true.
• Richie decided to leave the band in a cowardly manner. I mean, at least have the balls to call Jon up and say **** you. If that's too harsh, he decided to leave without notice.
• Richie offered a frankly terrible excuse that he needed to spend more time with his daughter.

Anything beyond those points (and maybe some I have forgotten) is just people picking a side.

Back to speculation, again, it seems obvious that Jon must have helped Richie on his way. Still, the facts we do know about suggest either way, Richie was the architect of his own downfall.

And now some wild speculation. This all occured at a time when the two went through some drastic changes. Richie stopped being content with being a cool aging rockstar and had some kind of latter-mid-life crisis, which I think is ongoing. Jon stopped being content with being a cool aging rockstar and decided to turn it all in and become a regular 55-year old guy.

Jon's change is obviously more respectable on the surface, but is just as damaging as Richie's to the look and feel of a rock band. Basically, they both went to opposite ends of the spectrum so perhaps it's no surprise the relationship broke.

Honestly, in my opinion, I doubt that they were barely even friends, late alone "brothers". Unlike, Tyler/Perry, Jagger/Richards, etc, they just hid it from the media as that's what Bon Jovi do. What we see and get told is what they want us to believe...Richie has stated that his disagreements with the way the band was being run go back as far as 7800...Jon likes yes men that agree with everything he says (like Shanks), not people that oppose his decisions...

Jon's comments since Richie's departure has just enforced that to me.

As you say, they are just completely opposite people, yes moreso now than ever, but it's always been the case...

Nah, way too many videos prove otherwise... you can't fake that...

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

:rolleyes:

No way they could fake their brotherhood. Too much hurt here. When Alec was fired, Jon just naturally moved on. When Richie left on his own bc he just couldn't find it rewarding in any way, Jon felt the blow to his ego so personally as if his own wife abandoned him. You don't do such things to your family, yet shit happens, and it never happens without a reason or overnight. So yeah, all those excuses and reasons are just a tip of an iceberg and the iceberg that sank the f****g Titanic itself. Just a big sh*tty Bermuda Triangle.

I don't think Jon is over Richie yet, fully. He even performed Sympathy in KTF, etc too after the HoF performance. Maybe it's the due to award itself, I don't know.

Yeah, talked to a friend today about that and we both agreed it's the case. Strangely enough, it's sort of relief, too.

New interview with Jon, where he outright says Richie's "habits" are why he didn't show up that day.

I really can't believe after all this time and after so much writing on the wall that some still actually think Richie quit at 3:00 on a show day because he didn't like the musical direction of the band anymore. Give me a break.

He's an addict. His addictions are the reason he didn't show up. Wake up.

That's the video that sparked all this... But YES!!! The End!!!

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

Then I wonder why it is that Jon still seems to be coming up with every word under the sun to keep from calling it what it is. Why is it, when he's asked flat out if alcohol or drugs is the "issue", he deflects instead of confirming it? It's not like it's out of any noble concern for Richie's privacy; because he crossed that line a long time ago. He's done everything BUT say it; so why all the euphemisms if it's that clear cut and Jon wouldn't put his own ass in a sling if he said it point blank?

EDIT TO ADD: I find it hard to believe that more people don't question Jon's statement that Richie quit at 3:00 on show day, period. Phil-X and Jon have both made comments that shoot holes in that story. But I agree with you that IF Richie's departure was that abrupt, there must have been some catalyst. And it's true that the catalyst could have been that Richie conveniently fell off the wagon just long enough, and at exactly the right time, to miss the show. But if people can be objective enough to think beyond Jon's transparent attempts to re-focus everyone on Richie's addictions again, they might realize that it's also true that the catalyst could have been something else entirely.

I was thinking in an interview somewhere he had alluded to it as well, I know David did in the one with he and Tico. He seemed so hurt, the way he talked. I've tried to find that old tape but know it's somewhere on a board. Seems he said "demons". I've personally never thought it was "just" about being home, never thought it was money and maybe the creative had been building but just to quit 20 shows in ?? I had and still have concern for Richie.

It was a long time with out seeing each other.
Remember the debate about had they talked - Jon says 5 years, almost sounded like no contact but on Niteline with Strahan he did say not seen him. Richie said they talked. I still say a text, communication with management, a congrats on twitter or the ALS challenge to Richie were communication but to Jon - not so much. His definition imo is more face to face.

Of course, most of the social media world apart from "us" is talking about Jon's opinion of the Kardashians/RealHousewives.

He alluded to it in nearly every interview he did after the fangurl write up Kate Whatshername did in that "respectable" British publication. But for some reason, he's avoiding saying it flat out.

No one is saying that that wasn't a part of it, but the people that think that is all that there is to it are the ones that need to wake up! :rolleyes:

Really wished Jon hadn't opened his mouth on this again just to get a dig in. The arguments got tedious years ago, there's no need for him to take a little swipe just stick with the "Didn't turn up" line and move on.

His need is to sell tickets and presale for Europe starts this week ...

Obviously it takes two to tango so at some point Jon's actions contributed to the result. However, there is a possibility that all the problems stem from Richie's addictions. A possible scenario could be Richie's increasingly destructive and addicitive behaviour around 2004-2010 resulted in Jon becoming more dictorial and colder with Richie, almost a snowball effect.

So, in the end Jon would have played his part, but the root cause could have been Richie. I don't really like this complete guesswork but it is what it is, internet forum and all. Btw, I don't neccesarily believe the above to be the case, but just wanted to suggest a way where his addictions could have been "all that there is to it".

As for my own speculation, I think the seeds were sewn in the period between These Days and Crush. Jon essentially became a solo act from that point. He seems like an honest enough guy, so I guess the rest of the band knew what was happening but become increasingly fed up with it. That situation pushed Richie one way, while his addictions (or more importantly his lack of reliability) pushed Jon another way.

The only part I can't reconcile is how Richie could be so unhappy with Bon Jovi's direction if he was so heavily involved with the songs. Crush and Bounce are hardly masterpieces and Richie was heavily involved in those (his guitar sound defines Bounce) and TLFR was deemed Richie's album, something he seem to take as a compliment. Was this a case of if you can't beat them join them?

The idea of it being Shanks and Jon and also Richie on the side might be the case but I can't see how that started any earlier than 2013. You don't co-write every single song on an album and then it's said you were a minor part in the making of the album. I think he absolutely contributed to the mediocrity. I think he was for sure under Jon's thumb and under-utilized playing wise but any solo material he released between 2001 and 2010 was pretty god damn poppy.

So why do you think Jon said, specifically, that it had been that way over the last 3 or 4 records prior to THINFS? Even if you include the new songs on the Greatest Hits as one of them, that would still go back to LH, if not all the way to HAND. Do you think it could have been that Richie was involved in the writing process, but it was primarily Jon and Shanks in the studio? That might explain the credits.

Richie's solo material between 2001 and 2010? Are you talking about the one-offs, like "One Last Good-bye", "Great Hall of Fame", "When a Blind Man Cries", etc.?

I don't know why he said that. It's baffles me to think Richie wasn't as present and available on those albums. I hear his playing in the recordings. I know what he sounds like and to a rough degree what Shanks sounds like. There's video footage of Richie recording the songs and it wouldn't make sense considering a chunk of the post 2005 material wasn't produced by Shanks. 1/3 HAND, Half of Lost Highway, What do you got, etc. If he's credited with writing the songs and is seen in the studio recording the songs....I just don't know. He raved about the time he had playing on Have a Nice Day and breaking down the isolated tracks it's him.

The Circle is where it gets iffy. A whole lot of echo-y guitars, jangly. Richie's never quite played the intro to Superman Tonight the way it was on the record so I start to have my doubts but knowing he co-wrote the songs and hearing him on others I don't know. He's certainly talked about how proud he is of making the guitars sound synthy on the production side.

Yeah I was talking about the one offs. When a blind man cries would have been pre-Crush so not so much that one. One Last Goodbye and Take Me On...even him appearing in an N'Sync movie. Nothing about those decisions tells me he was that dissatisfied about leaning into the pop sound. The production style he had on OWN 2001, the song with LL Cool J. It all felt very Hollywood, you know?

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.

I think that's as good of a summary as one can do with 2 sentences.

There's always different sides of stories in any falling out, but I prefer to focus on facts. No matter who said what what to whom, Richie made a commitment for the tour and abruptly pulled out right before one of the shows leaving the band and fans high and dry. That is a fact. Everything else is just speculation, which is not something I personally care for 5.5 years later.

Richie had every intention of returning. He was prevented from doing so.

And given how he looked at his solo shows that followed months later (compared to just 1-2 years prior) it's not hard to figure out why that was.

I think you are probably right, but that is also speculation. It also does not remove the single fact we know, Richie decided not to show up.

We can debate whether he should have been allowed back. It's Jon's business and his call. If I were in his position and Richie wanted back in, I would take him in a second. However, if Richie had never left in the first place, there would be no need for the situation to deteriorate.

I am really trying to stick to the facts as much as possible. And, again (beating a dead horse), the fact we know about is that he did not turn up. Richie has never contradicted this either.

That said...

In terms of speculation, I think there are only two possible scenarios; Jon became so overwhelming and controlling that Richie could not bear it anymore, or Richie had another substance collapse and no-showed, and it snowballed from there.

Not speculation on my part.

Aloha !

Yeah, it's no speculation. Richie thought he could just come back and Jon told him to **** off. And yes, it's both Richie's substance abuse and Jon's controlling way of ruling the band that eventually killed the band.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

Ok, great, but not really my point. Richie did not show up for the show but wanted to come back and was prevented, yes?

I think that's what you are saying. Would he have been fired if he had showed up and completed the tour? I guess not.

So, he got himself fired by essentially not showing up for work. By the way, I guess that is something most of us on this forum would also be fired for. Admittedly, that's a cold way of looking at it, but then it has been clear for some time that Jon does look at it that way.

Richie knows Jon better than any of us. He must have at least had an idea not showing up was essentially handing in his notice.

Aloha !

Cocaine, alcohol and prescription pills sure cloud your vision though. Richie thought he'd never get fired and could do as he please. It's a clash of ego's and eventually neither party won. Richie's career tanked and Jon sure knows his band sounds dire thanks to the breakup. Neither will admit it though.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

Fact. Singular. He didn't show up.

So much for focusing on facts. :roll:

I believe "to figure out why" would fall under the category of "speculation". But if you're going to "figure out why", can you at least stick to the facts for your figuring?

I don't know how many "months later" you're talking about; but the first performance after Calgary that I can find is at the Hollywood Christmas Parade (8 mos. later). The video quality doesn't allow for a good look at his face but he sounds fine. Here's the next show (9 mos. later) where the image is clearer . Still looks in control to me.
https://youtu.be/T990Stsioqk

This one's from June 2014 (14 mos. later). Objectively speaking, he may be starting to put on weight, which can be an indication that he's drinking/drugging again, but it's hard to tell. For someone who may be using, he sounds pretty darn good on a song he recorded 20+ years before.
https://youtu.be/vkF8sZ6DkAA

It was further down the road that he started looking like he may be under the influence during performances; but, iirc, that was almost a year and a half after he supposedly fell off the wagon.


And for comparison, why go all the way back to 1-2 years prior? How about 2 weeks prior:

Lubbock, TX (Mar 17, 2013):
https://youtu.be/InQzLJJAUWU

If you insist on comparing it to a solo show, here's one from Oct 2012 (6 mos. before):

https://youtu.be/toLSEptcn34

No video, but here's a photo taken 3 days before Calgary:
http://m.tmz.com/#!2013/04/03/richie...usiness-money/

Looks happy and healthy there. But, yeah, it's possible that he fell off the wagon within the 2-3 days after the picture was taken, just in time and for just long enough to miss a show, and then bounced back almost immediately. But apart from what Azza understands from his source and Jon's ever-changing history, I see nothing that would indicate, much less prove, that Richie didn't show up because of substance abuse. In 2014, Richie said that drugs had nothing to do with his departure; and in 2013, Jon stated, point-blank, that it wasn't alcohol. So if it wasn't alcohol and it wasn't drugs, what substance are we talking about?

After Richie called Jon out for the one time he tried to hint that alcohol was involved in 2013, it wasn't until the THINFS promos started that Jon & Co. again started insinuating that addictions were the reason Richie "didn't show up". "Insinuating" being the key word, because to this day - unless I missed it - Jon still hasn't actually said that it was substance abuse, nor has he confirmed it when he was asked directly if the issue was alcohol or drugs.

So, if we're gonna start "figuring out why" about things, there's only one reason, that I can figure out, why Jon is using innuendo to paint a dark picture, but avoids calling it what it is. And that's that there might be legal repercussions if he publicly says that "substance abuse" was the reason Richie didn't show up and it turns out that he can't back it up.

Which begs the question, IF it wasn't substance abuse, why is Jon going to such great lengths to convince everybody that it was?

Fair enough, you got me here.

My second post was aimed at baiting Azza into revealing more information that he's no supposedly so secretive about.