Replacement Band for Rock 'n' Roller Coaster

[captainkidd]

Nuttier than a ton of squirrel keech

Not at all.

I'm not saying these bands stayed the course, but they certainly experimented.

-KISS went to the big hair, spandex, and ballads.
-Motley Crue toned things down with Dr. Feelgood. In their defense, same with KISS, they had the same manager as Bon Jovi, and obviously he was trying to cash in on what was popular.
-Van Halen probably isn't a good example, but they did start writing ballads after 1986, and not before. On a side note, for buffs of this type of stuff, there's an interesting read on how Van Halen grew to become ed with Bon Jovi. Believe it or not, in 1995, Van Halen opened for Bon Jovi in Europe. Not co-headlined, actually opened.
-Def Leppard was the most prime example. They went with overly sappy ballads. After Bon Jovi "unplugged" at the VMA's, DL started to mess around with acoustic material. A bigger case of DL trying to follow Bon Jovi was actually in the mid to late 90's. Jon cut his hair, Joe cut his hair. Bon Jovi went to more of a dark sound, Def Leppard went to more of a dark sound.

Of course, in the same vein, Bon Jovi followed all of these bands to begin with. I don't see it as surprising or a big deal that bands follow a certain trend. If you want to stay relevant and popular, you need to adapt to the times.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Yes it was down to JBJ and nowt to do with the impact of Seattle, change in band membership and producers being used. I suggest you watch Metal Evolution, it gives straight answers to some of the points you raise
Bon Jovi were a great band, but somewhere at the end of the 90s they descended into a cabaret act. IMHO of course.
Samboras new album is decent but a bit too country in places.

 

[agahn1m]

Rush would be amazing needless to say, but a band that would really fit this "genre" would have to be red hot chili peppers...

i mean.. they even had RHCP in space mountain... how awesome would that be?! of course it would have to be some of their newtracks lolol anything before blood sugar sex magik would not be "Disney" lolol

 

[captainkidd]

Yes it was down to JBJ and nowt to do with the impact of Seattle, change in band membership and producers being used. I suggest you watch Metal Evolution, it gives straight answers to some of the points you raise
Bon Jovi were a great band, but somewhere at the end of the 90s they descended into a cabaret act. IMHO of course.
Samboras new album is decent but a bit too country in places.

I've seen Metal Evolution.
Though I prefer their earlier music, many fans prefer everything post 1992. For some reason, Europe and Asia are huge on everything from Keep The Faith on and don't care for most of what came before. Always found the different taste in their music among fans from other countries interesting.
I've never been big on Richie's solo stuff. He's a great guitar player, but the bluesy-country thing just isn't my cup of tea.

 

[wdwfan4ver]

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'

While Trans-Siberian Orchestra still makes albums, their tours for the most part are from most older albums.

I am saying that based on the Concerts I went to. They had 2 concerts in the city I live in either in 2010. What I can tell you is the first concert in 2010 was for the Album Beethoven's last Night. That Album came out where I live in 2000, but 2010 was the first time they did the whole album live or anything from that album live. The other time I saw TSO that year, they did the album Christmas Eve and Other Stories.That Album came out in 1996. They play music from that album on their Christmas Tours before this year despite the amount of Christmas Albums they have after that.

TSO does play music from their latest albums, at their concerts, but,they are not the focus of the concert at all.

TSO concerts are like plays or stories based on the fact the do narration for each song before they play. It is like they are telling a story with each song.

After they are done with a telling story through songs, they play songs from their latest album or from different albums. The catch is they only played a few songs from a new album. I am saying that because of their 2009 concert. They only played a couple songs from New Castle.

People see TSO during the holidays for their Christmas music despite what Christmas album they play live.

People went to TSO for the Spring 2010 tour because it was the first time Beethoven's last Night was done live in concert despite the fact the album came out in 2000.

 

[flynnibus]

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

Try looking at what music was like in the 50s and prior.. vs what has been since. That shift was due to acts like Elvis, the Beatles, and the bands of the sixties. The angst, the lyrical freedom, the challenging of authority, the guitar sound, etc.. all monumental shifts.

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.

you are seriously stretching.. like.. fantastic four stretching. You're basically trying to cite Bon Jovi as the genesis for the LA Rock scene and glam rock.. which all predates Bon Jovi or their breakout. The genre came and went.. regardless of Bon Jovi. The grunge movement is largely attested to the move away from the LA/Glam Rock image. Bon Jovi certainly was a central act in this sound - but it was way bigger than people simply trying to chase Bon Jovi's path.

Its when you goto extremes like this that people start to shake their head..

 

[njDizFan]

I don't think this is an arguement about popularity but more of taste. I haven't read one band mentioned in this thread that I would consider influential during the decade of the 80's. Bon Jovi was a pop artist who may or may not have influenced pop artists of the current generation. But in my opinion rock music is about influencing the underground subset of our culture. It's about change and anger and mistrust and passion. Rock music is counterculture and the occasional band can sometimes crossover to popular culture but very rarely. but they inspire the generations in front of them.

Certainly JBJ, Aerosmith may be strong touring acts with large record sales but their shelf life as influential acts are minimal in my regard. The best rock bands rarely if ever can continue to be relevent with new music for more than 10 years. Their musical angst dwindles when they become older and less inspired. Singer songerwriter acts like Dylan/Springsteen/Young can continue a long career because they are story tellers more so than true rock musicians. Very few bands can transcend time and not sound dated. The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin(Classic Rock). Madonna and Prince (pop). Metallica, GnR, AC/DC(metal)

My list would be bands like The Replacements, Black Flag, The Clash, Talking Heads, Husker Du even REM, Beastie Boys, Pixies. Of course none of these bands are replacements for RnRC but just chiming on on my opinion.

 

[captainkidd]

Try looking at what music was like in the 50s and prior.. vs what has been since. That shift was due to acts like Elvis, the Beatles, and the bands of the sixties. The angst, the lyrical freedom, the challenging of authority, the guitar sound, etc.. all monumental shifts.



you are seriously stretching.. like.. fantastic four stretching. You're basically trying to cite Bon Jovi as the genesis for the LA Rock scene and glam rock.. which all predates Bon Jovi or their breakout. The genre came and went.. regardless of Bon Jovi. The grunge movement is largely attested to the move away from the LA/Glam Rock image. Bon Jovi certainly was a central act in this sound - but it was way bigger than people simply trying to chase Bon Jovi's path.

Its when you goto extremes like this that people start to shake their head..

Re-read my post. I'm not saying anything about glam rock being influenced by Bon Jovi. Glam was born on the streets of LA in the last 70's. Bon Jovi is from New Jersey and didn't release their 1st album until 1984. Bon Jovi was never a glam band, and in my opinion, were NOT a part of the glam scene. My point was, those bands tried going down the same path Bon Jovi found success with in the late 80's, after glam had pretty much run it's course. Look at some KISS videos from 1988-1991 or some Def Leppard videos from 1993-1997.

And with all due respect, how do you who's "shaking their head", and how do you know they're not shaking it at you? You need to stop thinking in the "we" and start thinking in the "I". Just because you feel a certain way, doesn't everyone else does as well. Same goes for me. Same goes for anyone else on this, or any other message board.

 

[captainkidd]

I don't think this is an arguement about popularity but more of taste. I haven't read one band mentioned in this thread that I would consider influential during the decade of the 80's. Bon Jovi was a pop artist who may or may not have influenced pop artists of the current generation. But in my opinion rock music is about influencing the underground subset of our culture. It's about change and anger and mistrust and passion. Rock music is counterculture and the occasional band can sometimes crossover to popular culture but very rarely. but they inspire the generations in front of them.

Certainly JBJ, Aerosmith may be strong touring acts with large record sales but their shelf life as influential acts are minimal in my regard. The best rock bands rarely if ever can continue to be relevent with new music for more than 10 years. Their musical angst dwindles when they become older and less inspired. Singer songerwriter acts like Dylan/Springsteen/Young can continue a long career because they are story tellers more so than true rock musicians. Very few bands can transcend time and not sound dated. The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin(Classic Rock). Madonna and Prince (pop). Metallica, GnR, AC/DC(metal)

My list would be bands like The Replacements, Black Flag, The Clash, Talking Heads, Husker Du even REM, Beastie Boys, Pixies. Of course none of these bands are replacements for RnRC but just chiming on on my opinion.

AC/DC, God love them, have not transcended anything.

I just don't get where people can say a band like Aerosmith that has been around for 40 years and still sells record and tours to sold out arenas, doesn't have a long shelf life.

 

[njDizFan]

AC/DC, God love them, have not transcended anything.

I just don't get where people can say a band like Aerosmith that has been around for 40 years and still sells record and tours to sold out arenas, doesn't have a long shelf life.

I may have had a quick trigger figure on AC/DC...

But in my opinion Aerosmith like JBJ are popular..extremely, but whatever edge they had(if ever) has been reduced to bland milquetoast pop charactures of themselves. Seriously would the Steven Perry of the 70's really be happy with the music he was spewing out in the 90's...doubtful.

 

[flynnibus]

I don't think this is an arguement about popularity but more of taste. I haven't read one band mentioned in this thread that I would consider influential during the decade of the 80's. Bon Jovi was a pop artist who may or may not have influenced pop artists of the current generation. But in my opinion rock music is about influencing the underground subset of our culture. It's about change and anger and mistrust and passion. Rock music is counterculture and the occasional band can sometimes crossover to popular culture but very rarely. but they inspire the generations in front of them.

While rock has been frequently associated with rebellion and youth anst.. I think that has more to do with rock's breakout in the 60s... and what the music represented vs the society constraints at the time. I think it was more about rock's start vs the grain the music has stayed true to. Rock was associated with counter-culture in the 60s. But as the country moved past the social unrest, and youth stopped rebelling so strongly, music went back to typical teen/young adult stuff. I don't think the arena rock of the 80s singing about girls mostly is any less rock n roll than CSN singing about the Kent State Shooting.

My list would be bands like The Replacements, Black Flag, The Clash, Talking Heads, Husker Du even REM, Beastie Boys, Pixies. Of course none of these bands are replacements for RnRC but just chiming on on my opinion.

Well that explains a bit I was gonna say not all rock needs to be punk/underground stuff.. and you bring out the Black Flag I think your post shows the diversity in the sound and creative in the larger genre of 'rock'. It sways from love songs, to songs about addiction, songs about loss, to songs about simple teen life, and everything inbetween.

 

[flynnibus]

Re-read my post. I'm not saying anything about glam rock being influenced by Bon Jovi. Glam was born on the streets of LA in the last 70's. Bon Jovi is from New Jersey and didn't release their 1st album until 1984. Bon Jovi was never a glam band, and in my opinion, were NOT a part of the glam scene. My point was, those bands tried going down the same path Bon Jovi found success with in the late 80's, after glam had pretty much run it's course

I said that because many of the bands you listed.. were born of the LARock/Glam Rock vein. Warrant, Winger, Cinderella, White Lion, etc were all far more children of Sunset's image. In the beginning, power ballads were not in the mix for that scene, but it came with the success of songs like 'Home Sweet Home' and others. Later acts were more pop than rock, but carried much of the hair band image along with them. I don't associate that with chasing Bon Jovi - but rather the chase of Pop and MTV airtime which could make or break bands in that era.

 

[Dads 2 Boys]

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 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.



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?



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.



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.

Wow....it is definitely impossible for you to admit someone else's opinion could be more valid that yours (and I hate agreeing with Captain Kidd on anything).

DO NOT however even bring up the RnR Hall of Fame as something to legitimatize anything that has to do with music. It makes your arguement useless. RUSH, Kiss, Bon Jovi, Yes, Genesis (among many other worth acts) are not in and bands like Blondie have been inducted. Save that arguement.

With that being said, RUSH would not be a good choice for RnR except for RUSH fans. In regards to music though, they are behind only The Rolling Stones and The Beatles for most consecutive gold albums. That's impressive for a band with virtually zero radio play.

 

[captainkidd]

LOL - Why do you hate agreeing with me??? I got no beef with you.

 

[flynnibus]

Wow....it is definitely impossible for you to admit someone else's opinion could be more valid that yours (and I hate agreeing with Captain Kidd on anything).

It's a discussion. Quantifying something turns you off? Fine I'll respond how you want...

Ok

 

[NormC]

Not at all.

I'm not saying these bands stayed the course, but they certainly experimented.

-KISS went to the big hair, spandex, and ballads.
-Motley Crue toned things down with Dr. Feelgood. In their defense, same with KISS, they had the same manager as Bon Jovi, and obviously he was trying to cash in on what was popular.
-Van Halen probably isn't a good example, but they did start writing ballads after 1986, and not before. On a side note, for buffs of this type of stuff, there's an interesting read on how Van Halen grew to become ed with Bon Jovi. Believe it or not, in 1995, Van Halen opened for Bon Jovi in Europe. Not co-headlined, actually opened.
-Def Leppard was the most prime example. They went with overly sappy ballads. After Bon Jovi "unplugged" at the VMA's, DL started to mess around with acoustic material. A bigger case of DL trying to follow Bon Jovi was actually in the mid to late 90's. Jon cut his hair, Joe cut his hair. Bon Jovi went to more of a dark sound, Def Leppard went to more of a dark sound.

Of course, in the same vein, Bon Jovi followed all of these bands to begin with. I don't see it as surprising or a big deal that bands follow a certain trend. If you want to stay relevant and popular, you need to adapt to the times.

I would say that those bands adjusted their sound into what sold records not that they were influenced by Bon Jovi or copied them. As you said they were cashing in on the trend of the time. Bon Jovi was not setting those trends. They were also cashing in on them.

 

[real mad hatter]

Just watched last night The Rolling Stones in London live on tv.OMG. They sounded awful,sorry Mick,but the good ole days are gone,even with the extra musicians on stage,didn't add to their sound quality.And the prices for the tickets were outrageous

 

[captainkidd]

I would say that those bands adjusted their sound into what sold records not that they were influenced by Bon Jovi or copied them. As you said they were cashing in on the trend of the time. Bon Jovi was not setting those trends. They were also cashing in on them.

Yes and no. Like I said, by no means did Bon Jovi create the 80's glam scene. They created, unintentionally, the pretty boy rock anthem, which was cashed in by Slaughter, Firehouse, Europe, Warrant, etc.

 

[NormC]

Yes and no. Like I said, by no means did Bon Jovi create the 80's glam scene. They created, unintentionally, the pretty boy rock anthem, which was cashed in by Slaughter, Firehouse, Europe, Warrant, etc.

I say no.

 

[captainkidd]

I say no.

Hey, I'm not saying I like the idea that they were considered pretty boys, but it's true. Metal (which Bon Jovi never was) was always ugly. Then after Slippery When Wet, the music scene was bombarded with Mark Slaughter, the Nelson brothers, Kip Winger, Joey Tempest, Jani Lane, Tom Kiefer.