THIS is how you write a review
 

Wonderful writing. Tells you (the general public) absolutely everything you need to know.

Bon Jovi

O2 Arena, London
3 out of 5

Alexis Petridis
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 8 June 2010 21.31 BST

To what do we owe the pleasure of Bon Jovi's 12-night stand at one of Europe's largest indoor venues? It's 24 years since Slippery When Wet, yet here they are, performing to 276,000 people during their sold-out residency. Their audience is all ages, resolutely suburban, and, like Bon Jovi's career, impervious to fashion. The preponderance of parents with kids in tow confirms that what Bon Jovi deal in is cosy family entertainment, tricked out in the motley of rebellion.

"There goes the neighbourhood!" scream the T-shirts, advertising a band who pose about as much threat to the neighbourhood as a senior citizens' book group. There's no qualitative difference between 1988's Bad Medicine and last year's Love's the Only Rule: they can clearly churn out the air-punching anthems with the same practised ease that Jon Bon Jovi – his face eerily unlined at 48, his teeth shining like the Portland Bill lighthouse – works the crowd. "Sounds like church music to me, baby!" he cries when they sing along.

It's all deeply hokey, but hokey Bon Jovi is infinitely preferable to earnest Bon Jovi, of which there is a surprising amount. The frontman introduces When We Were Beautiful with a speech about "the events of late 2008", by which he presumably means the credit crunch, rather than the gripping semi-final tussle between JLS and Eoghan Quigg on The X Factor, and implores the audience to "listen to the lyrics". Listening to the lyrics makes you wonder if, the prospect of financial recovery notwithstanding, it might not be better to just pull the plug on humanity right now: "We're livin' in the shadows of the love we made."

A panicked call to NHS Direct reveals you can't actually die from exposure to their version of Hallelujah, it just feels as if you are while it's playing, not least when Jon Bon Jovi illustrates the line about Bathsheba bathing on the roof with the universally recognised hand gesture for "curvy woman". Obviously, it's now mandatory for all artists to perform this song – it can only be a matter of time before Buster Bloodvessel and Bad Manners weigh in with a novelty ska version – but Jon Bon Jovi recently averred that his is Leonard Cohen's favourite. If so, that may tell you more about the author's oft-overlooked sense of humour than it does about Bon Jovi's cover, which reinterprets the song in much the same way as Cohen's shamed former manager "reinterpreted" the Canadian bard's pension fund.

The audience don't care. Jon Bon Jovi moves among them, dispensing kisses to the ladies, high-fiving a portly man in a bandana, who becomes so excited that even the rocker looks momentarily taken aback. Then the Maglite smile returns and the show goes on.

How did that tell me everything I needed to know?

I can't understand how he gave it 3/5 when all his observations were negative.

This is not a review - it comments on nothing other than the lyrics of the songs and Jon himself. Not a single thing is said about the actual show - nothing about the production, the setlist, etc.

I really hope the title of this thread is sarcastic. C'monFeet, I know you have a negative opinion of the band right now, but that's a horrid attempt at the review. The author doesn't discuss anything about the show, outside of the lyrics to WWWB, and smashing Jon's Hallelujah. Were that an article about Jon's version, that would be understandable. Hell, the guy never even expresses if he was at the gig. It's basically a typical critical rip on Bon Jovi masquerading as a review. And again, if you feel the same way the author does feel free to agree with it, but as a review it's a ****ing joke.

No different to any other review of a BJ concert,ie: most of it written before the journalist writes most of it before he attends the show.

As a review, it really is state of the art.

A review is not a minute by minute description of what happens at a concert, particularly when the audience is a national newspaper readership, which the writer has to assume has never so much as heard of the band. A review places a piece of art in context: how has the music evolved? What does it have to tell us about the world? how does it compare to other art and artists? A review informs, and if a criticism is made, you know "why" - exactly what prejudices the writer arrives with.

A really good review can make you feel like you were at a show, or know for certain you shouldn't have been there. Depending entirely on the reader's opinion of BJ, this could do either.

Nothing is written with Malice, the worst it should do is make you shake your head a little and think "well, I love them, anyway. Inspite of that". You would have to admit you do recognise the band he's talking about. Nothing is distorted an inch.

In 400 words, he

• Makes it clear Bon Jovi's music is being reviewd on a level playing field to all other popular music
• Outlines the history and longevity of the band
• Tells the reader exactly where in society their cultural impact has been felt
• Presents both the highlights and the limitations of the show
• Doesn't slate Hallelujah for the sake of it, expands on the life of its own that the song has had, shows "why" Jovi's version doesn't work - Empty stage gestures, vs. considered, mysterious poetry.
• Describes Jon's stage personality in crystal clear terms. I got a little excited at the mention of "Sounds like church music to me, Baby" line.
• Lets you know that the review is written from the context of a Leonard Cohen Fan & that you are free to disagree if you choose
  In fact, points out that the audience did just this.
• Shows you *how* a Bon Jovi show works; what the band has to do to keep an audience of 275,000 satisfied; what the gaps are between the rhetoric and the reality

Most importantly, it's an absolute joy to read. Funny as hell. Concluded perfectly. If as a fan, you can't recognise the band described and even raise a smile at the passage on Hallelujah, your sense of humour really has failed.

Well, it ain't as good as my upcoming Bruce Springsteen gig review, I can tell you that folks.

I really don't. I think the Circle is their strongest album since These Days. I think since Lost Highway, the band have seemed to enjoy playing more than in years and that something of this passion really translates. I love how they sound live at the moment. I listen to them more.

I just recognise that they have sold their audience short a few too many times, and that this puts some distance between them and their fans (me).

I'm looking forward to the o2, but it honestly would have felt immoral for me to pay the prices they were asking. To have given the band full price for any ticket would have only been to encourage them to rip off fans further. It would, in a very small way, have made the world a worse place.

It's also just naturally in me to question why so many people enter into an abusive relationship with the band - "VIP tickets are $1300, it's disgusting. I'll take two", and to encourage people to question this (or at least help me understand why the **** they do it).

I like the band at the moment, but I agree with every word he said about Hallelujah. That cover really is the very worst aspect of Bon Jovi and does, frankly cheapen the original.

Good cover of Hallelujah


Bland cover of Hallelujah.


Honestly, people saying they like BJ's version is the kind of thing that makes me question my sanity. The difference in quality between those two performances is clear from the very first note and only gets clearer with every note that follows. It is a ****ing serious song and the man is just way, way out of his depth to even try and take it on.

When KD Lang sings the song, however, it becomes a thing of exquisite beauty.

Though now, I really do feel tempted to arrange a Ska version!

I've wondered since the start of this tour how many of these folks spending money on these $1,000+ ticket prices are actually fans of the band as opposed to wealthy people looking for a night out and willing to spend that kind of money to be as close as possible and almost flexing their muscles so to speak.

While I admittedly only know I'd say a handful of diehard fans somewhat "personally" (more than just reading what y'all post on this board), I don't think many of us would spend that kind of money on those tickets prices. Sure maybe as a one-time thing but not every show.

I understand your element of disgust over a $1300 ticket and I wouldn't support or try to give the band more of a reason to hike up ticket prices, I also try not to judge how people choose to spend their money. At the end of they day, I don't know people's salaries nor is it my business to know or judge how they choose to spend it. It just saddens me to occassionally read about those that truly don't have the money to spend on those ticket prices but buy them because they are too obsessed with the idea of being close to the band...and unfortunately, I have already read about a few of those instances.

I just hope the outrage from fans and the media picking up on it gives the band the message that the O2 was a dirty move.