Replacement Band for Rock 'n' Roller Coaster

[Dads 2 Boys]

While I've had an ongoing fundamental disagreement with CaptainKidd on this thread, to say Bon Jovi is not iconic is wrong. To say their music is ehhh and Jon's voice as ehhh is somewhat fair but to span 30+ years being successful is undisputable. Kiss' music is ehhh and Paul and Gene's voices are ehhhh (worse than Bon Jovi's imo)..... but they both are iconic in their own right. Using Pandora's "similarity" thing is useless however. I have a RUSH channel on mine and they have had Fleetwood Mac on that channel....do you really think there are ANY similarity there? I don't think so. I also have a Will Smith channel and the Bee Gee's were on that....what the hell do those 2 have in common. Oh yeah, GnR has had VERY little impact in the music industry......c'mon dude?

Flynnibus, Zepplin being influential is definitely something that Bon Jovi does not have but I personally hate Plants' voice. I love RUSH and they are as influential as Zepplin (arguably more so) but many people dislike Geddy Lee's voice. It's all subjective based on the listener as shown by Kidd's biased opinion of Bon Jovi's voice just as I'm sure you are biased towards Plants'. I think Geddy Lee's voice is amazing (see "The Garden" off of Clockwork Angels) but I can guarantee you many people think it's awful.

 

[flynnibus]

I know you can't seem to grasp this concept - You are not everyone.

That's right - the countless thread tangents about Bon Jovi have all been big JBV love fests.. my god how did I miss that?

 

[yeti]

Eduard Khil, Tay Zonday, or PSY. No contest.

 

[captainkidd]

Just to be fair, the example I used with Hallelujah is to show that Jon DOES have a voice and does have range. As I said earlier in this thread, personally, I enjoy the way he sounded in the early to mid 90's as to how he sounds now. But much like GnR, the popularity isn't coming from either front man's vocal chords. It's coming from the songs themselves. Both bands have written, regardless of what Flynn believes, timeless songs.

I took my brother in law who is 20 years older than I am to see Bon Jovi some years back. He dislikes them, but has respect for Tico Torres and Richie Sambora. My BIL, is probably the most stubborn, pig-headed person I have ever met. And while he said Bon Jovi couldn't compare to his beloved Jethro Tull, as he said "Well, they've gotta be doing something right, because there's 80,000 people here tonight.

I've never said Bon Jovi is the best band in the world. They're my personal favorite, but everybody has a right to their own opinion. And no way would I try and change someone's opinion about music. You could tie me down and Clockwork Orange me with U2 and I'd still think nothing more of them. However, I'm not going to dispute their popularity and significance. And if people are going to do that with Bon Jovi, they're simply in denial, or really don't have a clue as to what they're talking about.

 

[captainkidd]

That's right - the countless thread tangents about Bon Jovi have all been big JBV love fests.. my god how did I miss that?

Where do you come up with this stuff?

The point (obviously missed by you), is that if you read through some of the other posts (which you obviously haven't), not everyone on this thread agrees with you. Not everyone on all the threads you post on agree with you. Same goes for me, but I accept it and try to be civil. You try and "prove" opinions.

 

[flynnibus]

While I've had an ongoing fundamental disagreement with CaptainKidd on this thread, to say Bon Jovi is not iconic is wrong. To say their music is ehhh and Jon's voice as ehhh is somewhat fair but to span 30+ years being successful is undisputable

Yes, but longevity means what really? That's the point about record sales - it means you sell tickets and records. What does that mean besides you have a fan base?

You mention Rush. Rush is a great example of a band with a loyal following, but realistically has been basically dead outside it's own fan base since Moving Pictures. I consider myself a fan. I've seen them live three times. But I also know they virtually don't exist in the mainstream's eyes. I was shocked when they were in that recent VW commercial.

Kiss' music is ehhh and Paul and Gene's voices are ehhhh (worse than Bon Jovi's imo)..... but they both are iconic in their own right

KISS's position of power comes from their timing.. their style.. what they did to the concert experience. Their work is already done.. their prominence today really comes more from their celebrity aspects.. not musical. Arena rock of the 80s would not have been the same without bands like KISS.

Using Pandora's "similarity" thing is useless however. I have a RUSH channel on mine and they have had Fleetwood Mac on that channel....do you really think there are ANY similarity there? I don't think so. I also have a Will Smith channel and the Bee Gee's were on that....what the hell do those 2 have in common

Look at it in musical elements and components - not commercial, etc. The output of Music Genome is not a subjective comparison, but a conclusion drawn from sub-elements tagged independently.

Oh yeah, GnR has had VERY little impact in the music industry......c'mon dude?

I'm not sure where you are going with this one..

Flynnibus, Zepplin being influential is definitely something that Bon Jovi does not have but I personally hate Plants' voice. I love RUSH and they are as influential as Zepplin (arguably more so) but many people dislike Geddy Lee's voice. It's all subjective based on the listener as shown by Kidd's biased opinion of Bon Jovi's voice just as I'm sure you are biased towards Plants'. I think Geddy Lee's voice is amazing (see "The Garden" off of Clockwork Angels) but I can guarantee you many people think it's awful.

Who do you believe has been shaped and influenced by Rush? What impression or fingerprint do you see from Rush in other bands?

I have no bias towads Plant - I didn't bring Zep into this discussion. But there are plenty of authors and industry people that see Zep as one of the most influential rock bands ever.. nevermind one of the most successful.

While not everyone may like Geddy's voice - at least the Rush sound is distinctive.. and I love me some Peart.

 

[Mike K]

It's really tough for me to think of that attraction without Aerosmith's presence and music. They just give the ride a wonderful energy. If I had to choose any replacement band to be considered that could give that high energy with their tunes as well as please the masses, I actually think Bon Jovi would be a nice fit. If Freddy Mercury were still with us, I'd definitely recommend Queen in a heartbeat.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

If Aerosmith are to be relaced, it will be buy who ever is popular with 12 year old princesses at the time. Got to cater to your target demographic

 

[real mad hatter]

Yes, but longevity means what really? That's the point about record sales - it means you sell tickets and records. What does that mean besides you have a fan base?

You mention Rush. Rush is a great example of a band with a loyal following, but realistically has been basically dead outside it's own fan base since Moving Pictures. I consider myself a fan. I've seen them live three times. But I also know they virtually don't exist in the mainstream's eyes. I was shocked when they were in that recent VW commercial.



KISS's position of power comes from their timing.. their style.. what they did to the concert experience. Their work is already done.. their prominence today really comes more from their celebrity aspects.. not musical. Arena rock of the 80s would not have been the same without bands like KISS.



Look at it in musical elements and components - not commercial, etc. The output of Music Genome is not a subjective comparison, but a conclusion drawn from sub-elements tagged independently.



I'm not sure where you are going with this one..



Who do you believe has been shaped and influenced by Rush? What impression or fingerprint do you see from Rush in other bands?

I have no bias towads Plant - I didn't bring Zep into this discussion. But there are plenty of authors and industry people that see Zep as one of the most influential rock bands ever.. nevermind one of the most successful.

While not everyone may like Geddy's voice - at least the Rush sound is distinctive.. and I love me some Peart.

. Quote from Gene Simmons " Kiss " Who are Rush ? There Rush.

 

[captainkidd]

OK, I'm gonna take another shot at this. Flynn, my apologies for my shortness last night. I had a horrible day with Fantasy Football, and was in a rush to get to Dexter.

You ask about longevity and what does it mean. I don't think I have to tell you the music business is as fickle as it gets. Tastes and trends change by the day. Longevity, in my opinion, is the ability to continue your career at the same level you did in your prime. Many bands from the 70's and 80's are still around, but they're playing clubs or 1,000 seat theaters. Few are still releasing new music that sells well and playing (and selling out) 60,000 stadiums all over the world. That's what longevity is about to me.

You brought up about how people outside the bubble identify Bon Jovi with their 80's songs. Well, yeah. I'm not disagreeing with that. But that's true of any band, or really, any thing. Outside of their fan base, of course they are indentified with where they initially found their success. Here's a weird analogy for you: Walt Disney World.

Outside of the Disney fan bubble, if you mention Walt Disney World to the average Joe who either never goes or hasn't been in some time, the first things that will come to mind are Mickey Mouse and Space Mountain. Because they have not heard of Expedition Everest, does that make it less of an attraction than Space Mountain? I don't think so. Now, if you ask Disney fanatics, you'll find many split. Some will prefer Space Mountain, some will prefer Everest. Same goes with a bands catalog of music among their most ardent fans.

Where as you don't seem to put much stock in sales and concert attendance, I put little stock into what critics say. Rolling Stone put JBJ on the cover twice and both times wrote scathing articles about him. They've never been, and never will be, a critics darling. Since that time, Jon has refused to do any photo shoots or interviews with Rolling Stone. His attitude is, he'd rather please the fans and the people that are coming to see his band.

I never said Bon Jovi was the greatest band in the world. That is subjective, and up to the individual listener to decide. There's no point in debating the merits of opinion. And where as sales and success aren't everything, they can't be ignored when the topic of longevity and relevance come up. As Jon has said many times, he doesn't quite know what the answer to the band's success is. If he did, he'd bottle it up and sell it. He just does what he does, sits down with Richie, writes the songs, records and produces it, releases it and sees what happens. Sometimes they miss the mark a bit (Bounce), and sometimes they hit a home run (Have A Nice Day). One constant is that anywhere in the world at any time, this band can play (and fill) any stadium they choose. Only a select number of artists have been able to say that, and far fewer can say it after 30 years.

 

[Dads 2 Boys]

Yes, but longevity means what really? That's the point about record sales - it means you sell tickets and records. What does that mean besides you have a fan base?

You mention Rush. Rush is a great example of a band with a loyal following, but realistically has been basically dead outside it's own fan base since Moving Pictures. I consider myself a fan. I've seen them live three times. But I also know they virtually don't exist in the mainstream's eyes. I was shocked when they were in that recent VW commercial.

You are incredibly wrong about RUSH being dead. They are actually more popular (in the mainstream) now than ever before which is way beyond my comprehension. They were never in the mainstream...ever. There was never any "disappearing act" because they were never there. The documentary done about them last year brought them to the forefront somehow.

Longevity does have some merit....doesn't mean everything mind you but it says a lot about the band or player in sports. That's why there are virtually no legends or influential bands without longevity.



KISS's position of power comes from their timing.. their style.. what they did to the concert experience. Their work is already done.. their prominence today really comes more from their celebrity aspects.. not musical. Arena rock of the 80s would not have been the same without bands like KISS.

Not arguing this at all.


Look at it in musical elements and components - not commercial, etc. The output of Music Genome is not a subjective comparison, but a conclusion drawn from sub-elements tagged independently.

Doesn't mean it's not wrong.....cannot use this at all. While it's not subjective, the database has to be input from somewhere. Again, see my two examples. Much of it is accurate but also much of it isn't. While Bon Jovi was/is arena rock, they have actually progressed to a much more musically influenced band that has stood the test of time whereas 95% of the bands on their Pandora channel have not.


I'm not sure where you are going with this one..

Someone mentioned them as having an impact......not sure if it was you.

Who do you believe has been shaped and influenced by Rush? What impression or fingerprint do you see from Rush in other bands?

I have no bias towads Plant - I didn't bring Zep into this discussion. But there are plenty of authors and industry people that see Zep as one of the most influential rock bands ever.. nevermind one of the most successful.

While not everyone may like Geddy's voice - at least the Rush sound is distinctive.. and I love me some Peart.

I messed up quoting this....my bad. Above in bold is my responses and then below.

I know Zepplin was one of the influences as was Cream and King Crimson, etc... IMHO, I think RUSH has influenced a generation like never before. Shoot, Alex Lifeson still looks to Jimmy Page as an icon (which he is and doesn't get the credit he deserves) although if Bonham was around he would be looking up to Neil...lol Musicianship has taken on a whole new meaning and progressive music is finally getting the props it deserves (which is funny coming from me b/c I don't like most progressive music....lol).

 

[Dads 2 Boys]

OK, I'm gonna take another shot at this. Flynn, my apologies for my shortness last night. I had a horrible day with Fantasy Football, and was in a rush to get to Dexter.

You ask about longevity and what does it mean. I don't think I have to tell you the music business is as fickle as it gets. Tastes and trends change by the day. Longevity, in my opinion, is the ability to continue your career at the same level you did in your prime. Many bands from the 70's and 80's are still around, but they're playing clubs or 1,000 seat theaters. Few are still releasing new music that sells well and playing (and selling out) 60,000 stadiums all over the world. That's what longevity is about to me.

You brought up about how people outside the bubble identify Bon Jovi with their 80's songs. Well, yeah. I'm not disagreeing with that. But that's true of any band, or really, any thing. Outside of their fan base, of course they are indentified with where they initially found their success. Here's a weird analogy for you: Walt Disney World.

Outside of the Disney fan bubble, if you mention Walt Disney World to the average Joe who either never goes or hasn't been in some time, the first things that will come to mind are Mickey Mouse and Space Mountain. Because they have not heard of Expedition Everest, does that make it less of an attraction than Space Mountain? I don't think so. Now, if you ask Disney fanatics, you'll find many split. Some will prefer Space Mountain, some will prefer Everest. Same goes with a bands catalog of music among their most ardent fans.

Where as you don't seem to put much stock in sales and concert attendance, I put little stock into what critics say. Rolling Stone put JBJ on the cover twice and both times wrote scathing articles about him. They've never been, and never will be, a critics darling. Since that time, Jon has refused to do any photo shoots or interviews with Rolling Stone. His attitude is, he'd rather please the fans and the people that are coming to see his band.

I never said Bon Jovi was the greatest band in the world. That is subjective, and up to the individual listener to decide. There's no point in debating the merits of opinion. And where as sales and success aren't everything, they can't be ignored when the topic of longevity and relevance come up. As Jon has said many times, he doesn't quite know what the answer to the band's success is. If he did, he'd bottle it up and sell it. He just does what he does, sits down with Richie, writes the songs, records and produces it, releases it and sees what happens. Sometimes they miss the mark a bit (Bounce), and sometimes they hit a home run (Have A Nice Day). One constant is that anywhere in the world at any time, this band can play (and fill) any stadium they choose. Only a select number of artists have been able to say that, and far fewer can say it after 30 years.[/quote]

Yes....especially the last 2 paragraphs. Ironically that we're in the same discussion b/c JBJ made that choice after he and Tico Torres had a chance encounter with RUSH back in the late 90's. There are no two bands whose fanbase is as loyal.....period.

 

[flynnibus]

You are incredibly wrong about RUSH being dead. They are actually more popular (in the mainstream) now than ever before which is way beyond my comprehension. They were never in the mainstream...ever. There was never any "disappearing act" because they were never there. The documentary done about them last year brought them to the forefront somehow.

I didn't say they were dead - I said dead to Mainstream - and this discussion has been about relevance. I haven't been excited about any tracks off the studio albums since Roll the Bones.

Longevity does have some merit....doesn't mean everything mind you but it says a lot about the band or player in sports. That's why there are virtually no legends or influential bands without longevity.

The Doors?
Janis Joplin?
and lets not forget.. The Beatles only had records for 7 years.

What I think is far more rare is bands putting out new music that is on par or matches their breakout hits over a long period. People can tour and play for decades.. but only a few manage to attract NEW fans with new music and stay significant in the music scene. To me, that is one aspect that makes the Stones so insane.

Someone mentioned them as having an impact......not sure if it was you.

I think they have - beyond the typical Axel Rose antics.. GnR's sound and Axel as the frontman allowed them to pull away from the pack in the LA Rock genre and eventually bury the rest of the pack. The rest were killed off - and I think GnR had a part in that by shaping people's expectations. I think their tie-in with Terminator 2 really helped them too. Lead to a great video, lots of airplay, etc. Getting onboard with a lead song in a blockbuster movie certainly doesn't hurt one's visibility

 

[Dads 2 Boys]

I didn't say they were dead - I said dead to Mainstream - and this discussion has been about relevance. I haven't been excited about any tracks off the studio albums since Roll the Bones.


Your opinion.....period. Also, the relevance discussion left a long time ago. If that's your arguement however RUSH is more musically relevant now that any band on the planet. Boat loads of new ROCK bands credit RUSH for their existence and getting them into music and current musicians say it all the time that Geddy, Neil & Alex make them strive to be better musicians (see Metallica among the many).


The Doors?
Janis Joplin?
and lets not forget.. The Beatles only had records for 7 years.

What I think is far more rare is bands putting out new music that is on par or matches their breakout hits over a long period. People can tour and play for decades.. but only a few manage to attract NEW fans with new music and stay significant in the music scene. To me, that is one aspect that makes the Stones so insane.


That's why I said virtually...perhaps VERY few would have been better. However with that being said I disagree with Joplin who hasn't influenced anyone in over 30 years and I have to disagree with the Doors' influence.

This other part of your statement is "stoopid"......hear me out (see what I did there). The music that a band puts out very well could be better than their "hit record" but it's ALL subjective based on the listener. I.E. I think some of the new RUSH music is amazing and my 3 favorite songs are all from Roll the Bones forward whereas you don't agree. Their new cd "Clockwork Angels" as a whole is my favorite cd EVER. Am I wrong or are you? Neither is the answer!


I think they have - beyond the typical Axel Rose antics.. GnR's sound and Axel as the frontman allowed them to pull away from the pack in the LA Rock genre and eventually bury the rest of the pack. The rest were killed off - and I think GnR had a part in that by shaping people's expectations. I think their tie-in with Terminator 2 really helped them too. Lead to a great video, lots of airplay, etc. Getting onboard with a lead song in a blockbuster movie certainly doesn't hurt one's visibility

They were the best of a regional genre......hardly involves impact. They haven't been relevant or impactful (your arguement) in over 15 years.

 

[flynnibus]

Your opinion.....period. Also, the relevance discussion left a long time ago. If that's your arguement however RUSH is more musically relevant now that any band on the planet

Of course it's opinion - but it's not opinion without basis. It's a conclusion drawn from observations of real world. Where is Rush getting airtime? Where is Rush getting promotion? Rush is happy to cater to their niche and fan base and are successful at sustaining their career as musicians and performers.

If that's your arguement however RUSH is more musically relevant now that any band on the planet. Boat loads of new ROCK bands credit RUSH for their existence and getting them into music and current musicians say it all the time that Geddy, Neil & Alex make them strive to be better musicians (see Metallica among the many).

If we get back to the topic on hand.. putting a band in a present day attraction that will last for decades. Do we think Rush's influence on other musicians is significant enough to make the connection to every day guests? Would Rush's sound resonate as familiar with the guests of today and tomorrow? Is Rush's influence on the sound of today and tomorrow that guests would be exposed to that noticeable? I don't think so.

Where I'm going with this is.. the type of influence you are talking about.. isn't the type that carries over to the fans. If you want to follow the Metallica thread... Bob Rock was huge in Metallica's work.. and he's been a huge producer across many bands. His input has been very influential and he is still very active in the music scene. But that type of importance really doesn't carry over to the fans. The producer is 'the man behind the curtain'. And the type of idolizing being discussed here doesn't necessarily carry over to resonating with the mainstream.

That's why I said virtually...perhaps VERY few would have been better. However with that being said I disagree with Joplin who hasn't influenced anyone in over 30 years and I have to disagree with the Doors' influence.

Well places like the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame would disagree with you. Considering they created an exhibit specifically about the Doors titled 'Break on Through:The Lasting Legacy of The Doors'. And for Janis.. there are plenty of female rock singers who would probably disagree with you. Her impact was made.. obviously she's not around to be creating new impacts, but her sound and performance altered Rock as we know it now. As with several acts of the 60s... their creative still shapes music today because of the foundations they set.
There are people who define the scene.. and there are people who are simply successful in it. The latter doesn't infer the former. That's where I think Bon Jovi falls in the long run. Successful, but what's their lasting impact? What paths have been changed by Bon Jovi's output that will alter music for generations to come?

This other part of your statement is "stoopid"......hear me out (see what I did there). The music that a band puts out very well could be better than their "hit record" but it's ALL subjective based on the listener

Sure it's a personal thing - but we can also look at the 'personal' over a very large sample and get a consensus or see a pattern. We can look at where people actually put their money... etc. It's entirely possible to draw solid conclusions and make factual claims about subjects that are inheriently subjective to start. You can state which album is the most successful, while the preference for the music is purely subjective. You can look at the frequency of play or positioning of something and infer the risk associated with it through chosing it.

It's not an 'all or nothing' thing. There are factual and supportable opinions in subjects that are at the core, subjective. Be it art, music, film, etc. Being influenced is a personal emotion... but we can draw factual statements about influence from people making statements about their personal feelings.

There is a difference between opinions with support vs just straight up individual opinions.

I.E. I think some of the new RUSH music is amazing and my 3 favorite songs are all from Roll the Bones forward whereas you don't agree. Their new cd "Clockwork Angels" as a whole is my favorite cd EVER. Am I wrong or are you? Neither is the answer!

Favorites is not really something worth debating - but you can look at things like sales, published commentary, placement, quotations, etc. An individual's personal tastes do not have to agree with the larger sampling - but it doesn't make the larger sampling invalid either.

 

[captainkidd]

"There are people who define the scene.. and there are people who are simply successful in it. The latter doesn't infer the former. That's where I think Bon Jovi falls in the long run. Successful, but what's their lasting impact? What paths have been changed by Bon Jovi's output that will alter music for generations to come?"

The thing is, if you look at The Beatles then look at today's music, do you honestly see any connection via influence? I sure don't. Does that mean they haven't influenced artists? Absolutely not. Many artists cite Bon Jovi as an influence. All American Rejects, Daughtry, Pink, Kid Rock, Bowling For Soup. That's to say nothing of the countless bands in the late 80's and early 90's that copied them.

I don't care much for what authors have to say, but if you read quick snippets about Bon Jovi, most will say they defined their genre of music. Some even say, they created it. The whole "lite-metal" genre. Warrant, Winger, Cinderella, Tesla, White Lion, Europe, Danger Danger, Damn Yankees, Mr. Big, Extreme, Nelson, Britny Fox, Slaughter, Firehouse. Then you had the bands that were around before Bon Jovi but soon started to copy them when they got big - KISS, Motley Crue, Van Halen, Def Leppard.

 

[flynnibus]

OK, I'm gonna take another shot at this. Flynn, my apologies for my shortness last night. I had a horrible day with Fantasy Football, and was in a rush to get to Dexter.

That's cool - as long as we can stay on the discussion and not fall into personal traps I'm good.

You ask about longevity and what does it mean. I don't think I have to tell you the music business is as fickle as it gets. Tastes and trends change by the day.

True - and most bands can not adapt and why their production and ability to attract new fans is typically capped. But I think longevity from a creative and commercial acceptance point of view is DIFFERENT from longevity in one's ability to still sell tickets, etc.

The latter can be sustained even when the style is out of favor because of the 'past connections' the customer has with the style. A band like Styx.. who isn't really even Styx anymore.. can still sell tickets 30+ years later not because they've adapted to the current trends, but because people are paying for what they enjoyed in the past. Many acts are able to make a career purely out of nostalgia.

Longevity, in my opinion, is the ability to continue your career at the same level you did in your prime. Many bands from the 70's and 80's are still around, but they're playing clubs or 1,000 seat theaters. Few are still releasing new music that sells well and playing (and selling out) 60,000 stadiums all over the world. That's what longevity is about to me.

We aren't far off..I see it like this...

1. bands that sold a ton in their day.. but really only have residual sales now and are essentially 'dead'
2. bands that sold a ton in their day.. have no real creative output now.. but are still able to perform and sell based on their 'past hits'
3. bands that sold a ton in their day.. continue to put out new material.. but the volume of their popularity is still from their 'past hits'
4. bands that sold a ton in their day.. continue to put out new material that is commercially successful
5. bands that sold a ton in their day.. have moved creatively with the times.. and maintain a society presence with their new creative output that has been successful commercial as well

A band like Poison.. would be Cat #2
A band like Creed.. would be Cat #1
Neil Young.. or Dave Matthews would be more like #3/#4
I would put Bon Jovi in #4
I would put someone like Madonna or U2 or The Stones in #5 (those are a bit dated... but span the decades and that was more my point..)

You might argue Bon Jovi is more like #5 due to their commercial success. I question if they are actually reaching new fans with new music - or just milking the same cow so to speak. I'd argue they seem to be lacking that presence outside their own fan base which makes me question if they are really expanding or reaching new people.

Separate from Longevity as an act.. there are the discussions about importance, impact, relevance, etc.

I mean.. recent acts like LMAFO or Black Eyed Peas are going to have cultural significance for a long time coming due to the impression they made on people in this short time window. But 20 years from now will we look back on their existence as a shift in music? Or just a popular act in their time...

You brought up about how people outside the bubble identify Bon Jovi with their 80's songs. Well, yeah. I'm not disagreeing with that. But that's true of any band, or really, any thing. Outside of their fan base, of course they are indentified with where they initially found their success. Here's a weird analogy for you: Walt Disney World.

But there is a difference between people that simply relive that past.. and people that were able to expand their reach beyond that initial breakout. I point to The Who vs The Stones. The Who really are one slice in time.. where The Stones have 3-4 different slices in time. Paul McCartney wasn't the same poppy image he was in 1962, etc.

You ask someone about McCartney... are they going to relate to more 'I wanna hold your hand' or more 'Ebony and Ivory' or 'Live and Let Die'?

I think the concept is generically referred to as 'growing' or 'expanding their sound'. While many bands do it, far fewer make hits with those varied sounds. U2 is semi-recent example.. they were able to find success with their newer more electronic/dance sound.. in addition to their classic sound.

I'm not really convinced Bon Jovi has grown like that or necessarily found *new* success/audiences with their more current sound. There has to be some obviously to sustain those numbers - but based on my anecdotal exposure I have a hard time seeing it.

Where as you don't seem to put much stock in sales and concert attendance, I put little stock into what critics say

I don't discount sales/tickets - what I have said is, they don't tell a complete picture. You can't differentiate between repeat customers and new customers with simple sales volumes. You need more data to correlate such concepts. That's why I go beyond just the record sales.. you need other points of reference. Some acts just have insane loyalty and can float any boat purely on that existing fan base (until it ages out and dies ).

I mean, in an earlier post you were talking about Bon Jovi being a top touring act. Sure, but look at what else makes a top touring act (in 2008 from one of your earlier posts)
- The Police
- Neil Diamond
- Spice Girls
- Trans-Siberian Orchestra
etc

Were they selling tickets based on recent success, or their past successes? This is why pure revenues are 'incomplete' data points when talking about a band's reach, their newer works, etc. Not 'wrong' - but 'incomplete'

Sometimes they miss the mark a bit (Bounce), and sometimes they hit a home run (Have A Nice Day). One constant is that anywhere in the world at any time, this band can play (and fill) any stadium they choose. Only a select number of artists have been able to say that, and far fewer can say it after 30 years.

Is that why they named the upcoming tour 'Because we can'? heheh Kind of tongue in cheek?

In an fun tangent.. check out this blog post from FL about Bon Jovi fans commenting on a JBV concert review
http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/countygrind/2012/07/jon_bon_jovis_fans_losing__comment_section.php

It's just a funny read through and through.

 

[captainkidd]

I suck at quoting, and I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying. It all makes perfect sense. I just see things differently. Back in 2000, I went to the Kiss 108 Concert in Boston. That's the big top 40 station in New England and every summer they have a concert with all the current popular artists. Well, that year, Bon Jovi was in the lineup. This was right after It's My Life had come out. I expected to be at this show all day and see kids who had no idea who Bon Jovi was. After about 10 hours, Bon Jovi was the 2nd to last act to come on. Before they came out, the entire crowd (most, about 15-19) were chanting for them. And when they came out, not even close, biggest crowd reaction of the day. After their set, we left. Last act to perform was Christina Aguilera, who at the time was the "it" girl. The place holds 20,000 people. It was in the paper the next day, that after Bon Jovi was done, there were maybe 5,000 people left. That's when it really hit me, "Wow, the younger people DO know who they are." That stood out to me.

As for those bands you mentioned, it's all nostalgia. I'm not sure if any of those artists released any new music to go along with their reunion tours. Though Bon Jovi will always be recognized as the band that did Livin' On A Prayer, their music has evolved so far beyond that. I'm not saying everybody likes it. Hell, even I can't stand some of the new stuff. But it has evolved. It's nothing deep or political or experimental, but that's what's so cool about it. They've managed to stay themselves without becoming stale. Many bands that I love have tried, and just couldn't do it. Def Leppard, Motley Crue, Whitesnake, Poison. I loved all that stuff. And those bands have released new material along the way, but no one buys it. They simply haven't been able to evolve. There will always be the hardcore fans that will buy everything Bon Jovi releases, but to remain as successful as they have, you've got to be bringing new fans in. As you said, you're bound to lose some fans along the way. It's like in business. It's OK to lose a customer, but you've got to pick up a new one to replace the loss.

 

[NormC]

Then you had the bands that were around before Bon Jovi but soon started to copy them when they got big - KISS, Motley Crue, Van Halen, Def Leppard.

LOL

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

LOL

Nuttier than a ton of squirrel keech