Aloha !

I don't think it has much to do with that. The examples you mention both have different reasons as to why they're still going. Joe Perry once left and only came back to Aerosmith when both Aerosmith's and Joe Perry's career had completely dried up after years and years of drug abuse. Their only option was to sober up as anything else had failed. And as for the Stones; They were offered a large amount of cash to do a proper "We've set aside our differences and cleaned up our act" tour in the late eighties. Once they realized the amounts of money they could make just by touring and releasing the odd record priorities shifted.

Another thing that separates Jon from Mick Jagger is an artistic vision and artistic integrity though. Mick Jagger understands he needs Keith to get that thing going. He understands the dynamics between them are the way they are and work for the Stones, whether he likes that aspect or not. He's capable of seeing the bigger picture and really always has. Both when it comes to incorporating other music styles in the Stones sound and the live performances. Unlike Jon, Mick's got standards and is very protective of what he feels the Stones should be like. If it's not Stones-like, it doesn't get released under the Stones name, hence the several solo projects done by Mick Jagger.

I think Jon's very much convinced he doesn't need Richie anymore because either he or Richie (or a combination of both) made Richie irrelevant to the big picture a long time ago. Jon sold out 20 years ago and every bit of artistic integrity has been long gone. A real artist wouldn't tour with that voice he's got left nowadays. So if the venues are still packed and the millions keep coming in why bother making sure you've got to split the loot again with someone who you think didn't contribute enough anyway?

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

You're taking it too literal. I never said that the situations were the same, but that the relationships are similar. ie. They don't get along. There is often tension between the most creative people in any band. The examples that I used one just one of many singer/guitarists that I could have mentioned. But 90% of those have managed to put aside their difference for the art of making money....which I believe Jon and Richie did more many years. Until one of them couldn't do it anymore....

There's a story from a band that i know that toured with Jovi in the 90s. They were chilling out in the green room backstage. Richie comes in and there is a magazine on the table with Jon on the cover. Richie turns it over so that the cover can't be seen and says something along the lines of "had enough of that guy constantly looking over my shoulder" or something to that effect. That there tells you how far back the issues go.

But I do agree with you about the artistic vision and that Jon feels he doesn't need Richie anymore. Tyler's solo album made him realise that he does still need Perry to be in the big league. If that had taken off I think that would have been it for Aerosmith. The difference is that Jon can still go out there and use the band name without Richie. Neither Jagger or Tyler can do that without their guitar players...therefore they still need each other.

The Stones and Aerosmith have always been very upfront about the fact that they have struggled to get along as well, where as Bon Jovi have always tried to maintain that band of brothers image, and have always kept any personal conflicts very close to their chests.

The worst thing happening to the band was Blaze Of Glory being a hit-single and -album.

It certainly didn't help. I think at that point Jon still kinda missed being in the band, but also wanted the complete control of being a solo artist. He kinda got that with the band from that point, but Richie was the only one that was there to challenge his decisions and push him creatively. That's why the relationship with Shanks doesn't work and never has. He does what Jon wants, end of. There's little scope for doing anything outside of the box that they have created. And I think that's why Richie got more and more frustrated.

I think this has zero to do with them getting along or not (whether it's Jon/Richie, Steven/Joe, Mick/Keith, etc.) and everything to do with leverage. If there's something that this decade proved is that Richie is not relevant to Bon Jovi as a drawing power. Which means there's no incentive for Jon to put up with Richie's stuff, unlike members of other bands that are being mentioned.

Jovi are still doing decent numbers, but not compared to what they were doing even 10 years ago (at least in UK/Europe). While that decline would probably have happened to a lesser extent whether Richie was in the band or not, a "Reunion" tour would be a big deal if marketed as such - people love the nostalgia of a reunion. So there is still milage in that and Jon knows it. You're right though, it's not as relevent to numbers as Aerosmith or The Stones, but as I said, that's because Jon can still tour using the "Bon Jovi" name where as Mick/Keith, Steve/Joe can't. Without each other they are playing clubs/theatres. Jon knew what he was doing when he named the band after himself....