Some thoughts on U2 and Bon Jovi
 

I simply want to share my experience last night and see what some of you guys may think.

WARNING: This is a massive post so be prepared for a lot of reading and occasional bullshit!

My brother-in-law and I, for the last five years or so, have had a constant battle going on between U2 and Bon Jovi. The problem is that he hates Bon Jovi and I actually think U2 are a very good band. When I make the effort to show interest and watch and listen to whatever he presents to me, he will not to the same for me. For the first time ever I sat him down and he watched (These Days Sao Paulo 1995) 'These Days', which he had no interest in whatsoever. I am starting to assume that he may have a problem with the whole 'american rock band' thing. He didn't appreciate it at all. Anyway, failing to understand such a thing and quite honestly feeling a little disappointed at his reaction I was made to watch some of this dvd he 'bought' for me! I had never heard of it before but I now realise after some research that this appears to be a very iconic piece of work. It is the 'zoo TV' tour from Sydney 1993. Now in many ways I felt that it was awfully good and I can appreciate that the U2 experience certainly is a spectacle. However, I feel that (my brother-in-law) and many others must simply find that extra excitement or status for U2 because of the 'external' show they put on, in that there is so much going on outside the music, this becoming a serious distraction from the music itself. I noticed that as my brother-in-law was flicking through bits of the dvd for me to, what he wanted me to see were more production bits and pieces and bits where you couldn't see where Bono was, because there were about 40 screens and you couldn't tell which one he was doing a fly-kick in, instead of him wanting to show me a performance of a song in the set! I think musically it is fair to say that both are 'big bar-bands', however with our boys it is all about the music, just like it is with the Eagles, Dire Straits, Bryan Adams, Chris Rea etc etc. In that sense, I have no issue that Jovi do not do this kind of stuff and I really do not care for that sort of shit when I go to see a band. Bono dresses up as the devil and sings to the crowd in his dressing room looking in a mirror etc and certainly plays many characters, doing countless nobbish, but apparently appealing things, according to a fan, on stage.

Does it make Bon Jovi any less of a band because they do not do these sorts of things? I believe that Bon Jovi play better and have more to offer in their music and performance, from a musical and lyrical perspective, but i wonder are they thought less highly of than U2, partly because they do things more simply? I mean, we all know Bon Jovi's reputation lies heavily on what they got up to in the 80's and everything else, but are we missing out, not being U2 fans instead of Bon Jovi fans, from an experience point of view? (Slightly off topic, does Bono do more than Jon for charity and is it more known when Bono does something because he pushes that and Jon does not?)

Lastly, vocals. Bono appears to have a phenomenal range in his voice at this time, maybe more impressive than Jon at his best or is it simply that they are just very different singers? See the following link from the same show and share your opinions please.

(watch 1:20-40)

Sorry about the length of this monster and thank you to any who bothered to read the whole thing.

Johnny

First off, I really don't see the need to compare the two. Both write great songs but if you've ever sat through a whole U2 album you'll notice something: there's very little beyond the main hooks and the edges constant excessive use of delay. They're not musically an amazing band. Sure, Bon Jovi are no Dream Theatre but every track since SWW has been very well written well beyond the main hooks. When U2 go on stage they don't have all that much to do but for a few moments of showing off so they kinda need the excess and the headlines, I've always felt Bonos version of charity exemplifies that - while it's unquestionably an excellent cause and we can all be very greatful he's given his weight to it he doesn't actually seem to do all that much. He's just there when the charities doing the work need a face. I might be wrong there but that's how it's always appeared to me and it seems quite fitting really.

But, again, you can't really compare them. You go to a U2 show, you expect the fireworks. You go to a Bon Jovi gig you expect to be rocked hard for 2-3 hours... but to be honest I wouldn't go to a U2 "gig" and I probably wouldn't go to a Bon Jovi "show" - to me U2 don't really have the music for it and when it comes to a point Bon Jovi have to put on a really excessive show to give the crowd a good night then it's time for jon to put the mic to bed. There's plenty of examples of both bands trying the others way, mostly in the 80s for Bon Jovi 'shows' and recently for U2 'gigs' and, for me at least it just goes to prove that.

As for Jon v Bono I'd say the same thing. Why compare them? They are both very good singers, what does it matter if Bono can sing higher or Jon has better technique (and, however nasal he may go, he does)? They're both great showmen.

I'd say let your bro like U2 and get on with the Bon Jovi love, some people want to be given a show - hence the live success of so many pop acts who mime like bitches - some people want the music. It's all valid, it's all cool, so go smoke a joint and be happy :P

thanks cool response

U2 was always pushed ahead by critics and media. Bon Jovi was hardly ever pushed by critics and media, if not even backed down. Still Bon Jovi is as big as U2. And that two facts put together say a lot.

i found your post interesting, i have a best friend who is a major u2 fan so occasionally we show each other dvds and new songs in order to impress each other...i have to note that i like u2 and he likes bj, but there is a childish rivalry about this between us...:rolleyes:
u2 do major shows and most of the times they are really inspired, i ve seen many times every official dvd from u2 and they dont just concentrate on the musical aspect but use videos and side themes in order to pass messages-preach sometimes-and make a more complicated show, a visual spectacle.
the last years bj have given more and more attention in their live productions, but jon always tries to highlight the band-himself and the music because he knows thats their strength and thats why the majority is coming in their shows, he also sees the costs etc so he doesnt take any risks, u2 360 tour with bonos injury and all may be be ambitious and all but in the end they will make much less money in comparison to the number of tickets and the prices.(not that this says sth necessarily, just a thought from a financial point)
i ve seen u2 in athens and i m waiting to see bj's stadium set up as well,(i ve seen bj's arena production twice in o2 ), i have to say that the claw doesnt look so impressive live even though its a smart idea that fits their needs and status.
last i have to say that an average u2 show in my opinion beats a bj show in the eyes of a casual fan, bj are all about jon and richie if one of them doesnt deliver, especially jon, then it can suck big time, saying that i have to add that a special bj show i think cant be matced by the irish rockers, because their musicallity-their voices-the connection between jon and richie can be mindblowing, and as a rock blues lover i find more fascinating the free spirit of sambora, the impros in ktf than the inspired but limitating delay dictated sound...(although i realise that edge is a pioneer and had better ideas than sambora the last decade)
both bands are great though and maybe in the future they could coexist for a couple of songs live.

you are right.
 

He is right.

Here's my 50 cents...or tuppence worth...

I love Bon Jovi...I hate U2 but they have written some masterpieces.


Bon Jovi are not on the same level as U2 lyrically from a snobbish point of view. See, what U2 to have done is convince the world that they are a rock band when in actual fact they are a Chrisitan Rock band. The imagery they use is genius.

Bon Jovi's lyrics are also genius...because their genius is to talk to the man on the street....like Giotto did...painting the Gospel for the illiterate people. That too requires genius.

Musically Bon Jovi defecate all over U2. More craft as songwriters (granted aided hugely by Desmond "Mr Fifty Hooks per song" Child.

Individually as players again Bon Jovi reign supreme...Jon's a better singer but Bono-like him or not- has a staggeringly unique voice.

Also "Where the streets have no name" is one of the best intros to a song ever.
But bon jovi have had much better pop songs.

To summarise U2 are credible but I believe in Bon Jovi.

God bless you all

Comparing U2 & Jovi is like comparing The Beatles & The Stones. Just a matter of musical taste and style. We should enjoy and respect both bands while we still can because in 15-20 years stadium bands will no longer exist.

That's not exactly true. I have seen U2 many times in big venues/stadiums and small ones like Earls Court and I never was there for their "show". I am sure their own fans think the same way. Last time I couldn't care less about the claw although I understand it makes the whole "show" a lot more exciting especially for those who are not in the pit/inner circle.

That's all I am going to say because I totally love U2 - in a different way I love BJ, especially the last 5 years+ when BJ's latest albums didn't do too much to me.

I am not going to comment on the artistic omparison between the 2 bands, because it all comes down to individual taste in my opinion.

I will say though, that U2's management performance in terms of PR and marketing has been superior to Bon Jovi's for the past 15 years.