[Captain_jovi]

Originally Posted by steel_horse75

****ing hell not the why richie left debate again...

Re a few posts ago - Bon Jovi sounded like nothing else out there in 92 - thats how they survived. As much as I love Warrant and other Glam bands they either suffered because they either tried so sound like someone they weren't or stayed the same but fans left due to grunge.

When KTF single came out no one would've that was thought was from a band that had released Bad Medicine. It was a maturer sound.

It was but the transition was very "of the times". They needed to do it, for sure, but my original point was chasing a trend is something they've always done. In 1994 Jon asked the engineer of Someday I'll Be Saturday Night to sound like Soul Asylum's Runaway Train (and when you hear the demo it's painfully obvious) but they gave that sound their own spin which I think they've done less of this past decade. It's too exact and too close.

[Supersonic]

Aloha !

Originally Posted by steel_horse75

****ing hell not the why richie left debate again...

Re a few posts ago - Bon Jovi sounded like nothing else out there in 92 - thats how they survived. As much as I love Warrant and other Glam bands they either suffered because they either tried so sound like someone they weren't or stayed the same but fans left due to grunge.

When KTF single came out no one would've that was thought was from a band that had released Bad Medicine. It was a maturer sound.

I disagree with this. Most glam bands that didn't survive grunge didn't just split up because of a lack of succes. Most split up due to either destructive behavior or differences in the band. Motley Crue? Broke up due to creative differences. Poison? Broke up during the Grunge era due to cocaine abuse. Dokken? Broke up due to creative differences. Besides, there weren't many glam bands having the major international succes Bon Jovi had in the rest of the world either. Bon Jovi had major succes in Europe, South America and Australia but they were the only one capable of scoring multiple hits spread out over several years. Motley Crue, Poison, Skid Row had never any big international hits while Bon Jovi had about 4. And then there's the touring; While Bon Jovi toured the world several times, many hair bands either didn't tour Europe or did it near the end of their existence. Motley Crue only toured Europe once. It was only logical for Bon Jovi to have a bigger fanbase who'd grow up and followed them a few years later.

Now as for them being mature; What defines maturity, really? Why's the change from New Jersey to Keep The Faith considered mature while the change from These Days to Crush isn't? Bon Jovi would've continued just fine without the big hits and the radical change of sound, they'd just not have been playing stadiums by now but would've played the same kind of venues Europe does nowadays. I've seen Bon Jovi play smaller venues, it's a lot more fun than the big stadium shows they do so I've no idea why people keep going on about how Bon Jovi would've ended would they've stuck to the rock/metal they used to make. I'd much rather have seen them play small venues and release 8 good records like New Jersey than just Keep The Faith, These Days and their second half of their career with albums no one particularly cares for. For every good album there's at least 2 shit ones in their career by now. All thanks to this "maturity".

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

[YOVANAfromPeru]

Originally Posted by steel_horse75

****ing hell not the why richie left debate again...

>_< jajajaj
We could talk hours of Bon Jovi Inc., Bon Jovi Tours Inc., Jon Bon Jovi Fan Club Inc., promoter, venue owner, Island Music Group, BANDMERCH, One Live Media (and their affiliates, contractors, officers, employees and directors).
>_< jajajaj

and remember JBJ = BJ (that's a smart kid!)

[steel_horse75]

Originally Posted by Supersonic

Aloha !







I disagree with this. Most glam bands that didn't survive grunge didn't just split up because of a lack of succes. Most split up due to either destructive behavior or differences in the band. Motley Crue? Broke up due to creative differences. Poison? Broke up during the Grunge era due to cocaine abuse. Dokken? Broke up due to creative differences. Besides, there weren't many glam bands having the major international succes Bon Jovi had in the rest of the world either. Bon Jovi had major succes in Europe, South America and Australia but they were the only one capable of scoring multiple hits spread out over several years. Motley Crue, Poison, Skid Row had never any big international hits while Bon Jovi had about 4. And then there's the touring; While Bon Jovi toured the world several times, many hair bands either didn't tour Europe or did it near the end of their existence. Motley Crue only toured Europe once. It was only logical for Bon Jovi to have a bigger fanbase who'd grow up and followed them a few years later.



Now as for them being mature; What defines maturity, really? Why's the change from New Jersey to Keep The Faith considered mature while the change from These Days to Crush isn't? Bon Jovi would've continued just fine without the big hits and the radical change of sound, they'd just not have been playing stadiums by now but would've played the same kind of venues Europe does nowadays. I've seen Bon Jovi play smaller venues, it's a lot more fun than the big stadium shows they do so I've no idea why people keep going on about how Bon Jovi would've ended would they've stuck to the rock/metal they used to make. I'd much rather have seen them play small venues and release 8 good records like New Jersey than just Keep The Faith, These Days and their second half of their career with albums no one particularly cares for. For every good album there's at least 2 shit ones in their career by now. All thanks to this "maturity".



Salaam Aleikum,

Sebastiaan

It’s an absolute crime against music how that Motley Crue album in 94 flopped. It’s a masterpiece. As Nikki said they should’ve released it under a different name.
I love early Crue but the 94 album was heavy and loud. Great album. It’s just not Crue though.

Also Subhuman Race by Skid Row was another classic.
So underrated.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[steel_horse75]

Double post






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JackieBlue]

Originally Posted by steel_horse75

****ing hell not the why richie left debate again...

Not at all. Altho there were a few posts that mentioned why Richie left I don't think there was a debate; but I may have missed it among the other random conversations about "The Decline in the Band Since _____", "Why the Band Doesn't Sound Like Bon Jovi Anymore", and "Jon's Disturbing Vocals" (none of which are ever rehashed).

The subject under discussion when you popped in was actually "Band Contracts vs. Tour Contracts and Who Signs Them". And, if you have no objection, I have one more entry about that, and then I swear I'll turn it right back over to you. That way you can continue with "How Bon Jovi Survived the Grunge Era" which I'll admit is a relief from the repetitious bitching about "Nothing Decent Since These Days". (And clearly has much more to do with the "April 20, 2008 Wells Fargo Arena Des Moines" show than any of the other randomness since this thread was resurrected.)

[JackieBlue]

Originally Posted by bjcrazycpa

Thanks Thinny. I wanted to be clear as it seems contract was being thrown around and in this case as you say it would be the tour contract that mattered in terms of fulfillment. But like you, I would have no idea on terms, who signs meaning the members individually, collectively or even if it’s done by management on their behalf...

Deb, contracts (and fine print) always interest me because I was a contract administrator in a former life; and I rarely throw the term around. My field wasn't entertainment, though, and different rules may apply here; so I'd be interested in Thinny's feedback on this, too.

I would think that any contractual agreements regarding the band would have to be strictly between the promoter (or any other entity outside the band) and Jon. As I understand it, he's the only one with the power to make legally-binding decisions, and in this case, to determine who participates in his tours.

Going by David's contract proposal, and assuming that current band contracts cover basically the same ground, by signing a band contract a member is already committed to any tours required by Bon Jovi Productions during the period covered by the contract. A separate agreement for each leg seems unnecessary unless, as you say, the promoter required it. While Jon may have to sign off on the specifics of each leg, I don't see why the band members would have to; because their participation in whatever Jon agrees to is already covered by the band agreement.

IF band contracts aren't sufficient, and the promoter requires Jon to further guarantee the participation of all members, by providing a contract signed by each of them for every leg, that would indicate that the promoter considered each member, specifically, to be essential to the fulfillment of Jon's contract. In that case, Jon would be giving up the final say in whether or not a tour could continue without one of the members. The promoter could legally cancel the rest of that leg, without penalty, since the terms of the contract were compromised by the absence of an essential component. Quite frankly, I can't see Jon giving any outside party that much control over his business.

Just my $0.02, which probably isn't even worth that!

[Thinny]

This is spot on Jackie, as far as my understanding of it goes. As the rest of the band are essentialy employess of Jon's there is no more reason for them to sign the contract than the road crew etc! Jon is the one making the agreement and as long as he fulfils his obligations the promoter will be happy.

As I said earlier, if Richie had signed a contract for the tour, it would have meant that he could have been sued by live nation for not doing the tour. Pretty sure that never happened...

Now what would be interesting is in a tour was sold as a "reunion" tour somewhere down the line...that would require Richie to sign the contract as it wouldn't be a reunion of he didn't show up....

[YOVANAfromPeru]

‪JackieBlue & Thinny (Together, Forever) = Richie Sambora: Never Say Goodbye.‬

[JackieBlue]

Thanks for your opinions, Thinny! The "reunion" scenario would be interesting. I hadn't thought of that. (But I sure hope there will be a reason to try it on for size! Sooner rather than later would be fine by me...)

Looking at David's proposal again, there's a clause that prohibits rendering services as a performing artist (among other roles) "for any person, firm, or corporation other than the Company, except as expressly provided for herein." Unless stipulated elsewhere in the contract, I'm not sure they would even be allowed to enter into a concurrent agreement with the promoter. That would actually make sense because I can see how it could set up dual-employer and/or double jeopardy situations that could be risky.

That all makes me think that the band contract would be the overriding contract, if not the only contract, band members would sign. It could be that they're written to coincide with the beginning of the write/record/tour cycle and end when the tour is over, which would, in some respects I guess, make them touring contracts. But that just further begs the question: how could there possibly be no need for a contract? Like you, I find it incredibly hard to believe that Jon didn't have a formal agreement with Richie (or the other band members, assuming the same basic conditions would apply across the board). But even as much as I question Jon's statements at times, I can't think of one possible purpose it would serve for him to say there wasn't a contract if one existed.

You know what? I'm going to shift anything else I have to say about this over to the Richie thread; because the more I think about it the more questions pop up. (And I'm reasonably sure none of them will have anything whatsoever to do with the "April 20, 2008 Wells Fargo Arena Des Moines" show!) Feel free to follow along if you are interested in what might blow through the windmills of a deranged mind!

(Fair warning, though: While I don't expect this to have much, if anything, to do with 'why Richie left', I can't promise the subject of 2013 won't rear its ugly head at some point.)

Originally Posted by YOVANAfromPeru

‪JackieBlue & Thinny (Together, Forever) = Richie Sambora: Never Say Goodbye.‬

Not sure what that means, but feel free to jump in anywhere!