BJ NY not socially relevant !!!!!!!!
 

Bon Jovi in New York -- Big hair! Tight jeans! 2 December 2005
Madison Square Garden review by Reuters.com
Source: Reuters


NEW YORK (Hollywood Reporter) - New Jersey's population dipped considerably Monday night, as 20,000 screaming fans packed Madison Square Garden in New York to jump, sing and dance along to the anthemic bombast and power balladry of Bon Jovi at the first of two sold-out nights.

As his bandmates took the stage in front of an enormous video screen, singer Jon Bon Jovi appeared on a small stage near the soundboard clutching an acoustic guitar, opening with "Last Man Standing" from the new album, "Have a Nice Day" (Island).

Rushing through the crowd flanked by security, the vocalist returned to the main stage to belt out the opening lines from "You Give Love a Bad Name." From then on, it was anthems, ballads and hit after hit. Bon Jovi, guitarist Richie Sambora, keyboardist Dave Bryan, bassist Hugh McDonald and drummer Tico Torres were in excellent form all evening.

It hardly seems like 20 years since Bon Jovi first conquered the pop charts. Somewhere in a mansion in Jersey, locked away for eternity, there's a collective portrait of the group withering away in decrepitude. Lyrically, the band hasn't matured beyond defiant teen angst, pathos and sexual frustration, but Bon Jovi's songs are epic. Never in the history of the Garden has "Whoa-oh!" been shouted so often and with such rapturous enthusiasm. The band might not be as socially relevant as Springsteen or U2, but its songs are so deliriously contagious that even the most self-conscious, socially awkward middle-aged white man could not keep still.

---

Read the rest of the review by following the link below...


Related URL: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsAr...archived=False

Got the above from the DC site.... there are more reviews there.

That last sentence made me annoyed, the band might not be as socially relevant as Bruce or U2 :rolleyes: who the hell says some journo who doesnt know what they aer talking about.....

I cant even be bothered to read the rest of the rubbish review now .

Dawn

but they are not as socially relevant as Springsteen or U2, that's the point, they never were nor do they need to be.

To some extent I agree with that statement though. Bon Jovi aren't known for writing songs that have a lot of social relevance. Not like that is a bad thing to me though. When I go to a Bon Jovi concert I know that it will be 2 hours of fun. I appreciate that Bono is so active in helping poor starving countries...but to some degree it was a bit of a downer to hear about during U2's concert. It didn't bother me to hear him talk about those issues...I fell right in signing petitions and donating to the One organization. He uses his fame to bring attention to things that a lot of people just aren't aware of, and that's a good thing. Sometimes though, it's nice to be able to go to a show for a few hours and forget about reality.

I read the review and considered it pretty positive. When has Bon Jovi ever tried to be that socially relevant anyway? That's not them.

The comparisons are made by journalists who seem to have a need tocompare musical acts, something I never understood. BJ's music has never been about social issues in the way that Bruce or U2's is, it's always been more personal. They don't write songs about "big issues" but I'd still rather go see them play 10 times a tour and I'm content to see both U2 and bruce once a tour. Why??? BJ is more fun, period.

have u ever seen Springsteen live? Don't tell me he's not fun. The Boss kicks ASS...everybody's ass!

You get the feeling that they've really started to try too hard to become a 'socially relevant' band on the past two studio efforts. All the 9/11 stuff on Bounce and the election business on Have A Nice Day doesn't really rub with me. Maybe it's because I'm not American and I can't relate too well to such issues. Back in the day they could write songs about the struggles of the working-class and young lust (just look at Livin' On A Prayer and Bad Medicine), and they were awesome. It was obviously something they were close to at the time, but now that they are 40/50 year old men and absolutly loaded, they don't have these issues. They're writing about social issues of today and it just seems too emotionally detached.

As for U2... I can't stand their recently 'socially relevant' songs either. Where The Streets Have No Name compared to Love And Peace Or Else.

I read the rest of the review and here's the last 2 lines:

"The band closed with "Wanted Dead or Alive" and waved goodbye. The applause was well-earned: frivolous, well-coifed and still able to fit into tight jeans after all these years, Bon Jovi still knows how to rock."

Bon Jovi has never wanted to be the socially-revelant band that causes controversy, they just want to be a great live rock band, so I think they would take those last 7 words as a compliment.

I have always felt that Jovi has been socially relevent. Here are some of the reasons why : always supporting the democrats and their go vote speeches. Their support at lots of functions ... aids, natural diseasters , hurricanes , remember the recent Oprah show , Live 8,war related topics .... what about Bounce, based on 9/11 . If I think about it over the years there is a lot more they have always been active in givIng charity to, recent housing project in their latest video. Then there was the support for Jons local health clinic..... the list is endless, surely this therefore makes them socially relevent ?

Dawn

Bon Jovi have never been and hopefully never will be socially relevant. They're way too cheesy for that. And it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Ice