David is also 60. But Vince, Axl to name a few are worse off than Jon.

But the obvious one is Steven Tyler who's voice is more natural and he def still has it.

But age is a main factor in itself.
The example I always give to people is, if your talking to someone on the phone, you can generally tell what age group they are in based on their voice. That's obviously because voices change with age. Jon at 50 is not going to sound like Jon at 33 when he sings Always. He is a trained singing who had an amazing tone in his youth. He lost that tone and struggles more.

I don't blame Jon for his voice issue, I blame him for writing these simple songs around his voice. He should go back to writing great music, belt them out in the studio, then worry about how he's going to perform them live later.

I'd rather get a great album with a so/so tour vocally, then him being able to sing simple new songs.

Very nice Lie To Me. High quality stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DGMvS-Ku40kg

Firstly, I agree with the fact that those people you named are worse off than Jon. However, please take into consideration that Jon, unlike many of his peers, is VERY clever when it comes to hiding his vocal shortcomings.

Secondly, why would anyone record and release a song knowing perfectly well they won't be able to do it justice in a live environment? So Bon Jovi write, record and release a bunch of kickass songs with very demanding, killer vocals. People like it and buy tickets to a live show whishing to hear those song live. The band perform the songs, but thousands of people are majorly disappointed because Jon cannot possibly do the songs any justice vocally. Disappointed customers aren't exactly very likely to come back and buy tickets for the next show or tour, are they? How can you blame Jon for not deliberately shooting himself in the foot?

^^If they were being brutally honest with themselves then Richie and Jon should share lead vocals 50-50, both live and in studio. He could sing the ones that Jon can't do justice to. IMO it does not diminish Jon's importance because he is still the leader of the band and has a huge role in songwriting, and he will be playing guitar and backing vocals when not singing.

I know this will never happen but for a long time now I have been thinking it would be a good arrangement.

It would be an interesting arrangement. It works for KISS, anyway. It may not be exactly 50-50 but Paul and Gene switch off on quite a few songs. But I think way too many people would be disappointed with Jon not being center-stage 100% of the time...

Actually, Jon can sing naturally. It's that the stereotypical "rock" singing isn't the be all end all that a lot of people here are pretending it is. And going with that flow, like a lot of people did, has ruined his top.
When people aren't expecting the stupidities he did in the 80s (again, for worst offenders I'll refer to the falsetto that would come screamed out at the end of many old BJ songs), they may notice he has more nuance in many ways now than he ever did before. There are songs he can't reach yes, and there are songs that he sounds like he could give a **** if he ever sang again (LOAP for one, on those kinds of stuff he tends to sound like a 'cat in heat'). But what's left is far from 'simple'.
Now about writing simple songs, that's another matter.


Yes. Yes we would. Richie is an over-singer as far as I'm concerned.

?
Do you mean he is a backing singer or that he over cooks his singing?

When We Were Beautiful Cover

I'm not the original poster but I presume he meant over-rated singer.

I presume he meant he belts out over the top (much like Sebastian Bach). That has been Richie's problem in the past, not so much in the last 13 years.