Should Bon Jovi be in the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame....

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
He really has. If you watch his fan club show you'll see there are people who believe he saved them from suicide or made them walk again. It's so easy to diss somebody else's band as junk but we all like different things.
 
I think as far as the genre that Bon Jovi is/was in, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, and Metallica will for sure be in. Yes I'm sure others too......They were huge in their day. I think the longevity of a band has to be looked at. Bon Jovi is still a recording/touring band whether we like them or not. I think that has to count for something. There were so many bands in the late 80's that were essentially one or two hit (album)wonders and then disappeared. Bon Jovi is still around. I can't stand them and the last song they had out that was really big a few years ago drove me insane but I just have to think they will eventually be inducted someday.

What's the criteria for a band to get in? Other than they have to have released an album 25 years ago or more.

Just because a band is eligible after 25 years of releasing an ablum is not an automatic guarantee that they will be inducted right away. So maybe when Bon Jovi gets to the 25 year mark making them eligible they won't get in right away. I'd be interested in the statistics. How many bands DO get inducted their first year of elibility?
 
Last edited:
U2Kitten said:
Just because the majority of people on this forum are prejudiced against them and their music doesn't mean the whole world feels the same way, so we'll see what happens.
Click to expand...

Just because people don?t like a band doesn?t mean they have prejudice against that particular band. I don't like Bon Jovi cause as I have said before they sound cheesy and fake to me. I don't think a band has to come up with a whole new genre or make groundbreaking records to be a great band, that's not fair. To me their songs are just? bad, very mediocre, just repetitive and empty in content specially if compared to some other bands (like the ones that influenced them). I think it's great that they have touched a lot people's lives. That alone is a reason for them to keep going but not necessarily to be inducted into the RNRHOF, which they probably will at some point of their career anyway.
 
babyman said:
richie sambora is one of the best guitarists of the world! bon jovi is a well singer, all the others are just normal musicians
Click to expand...

Now that is downright delusional!!! LOL

Are you joking or serious? you have GOT to be joking.

What has Sambora EVER done on the guitar that is even slightly innovative?? Its fine if you like the band. But he is not one of the best guitarists out there you are definately in the minority if you believe that. Jon Bon Jovi is a Bruce Springsteen copycat as pointed out previously. There is nothing original about this group at all.

I say NO on them getting in. At least not for awhile. Simply still being around shouldnt be a criteria for getting in anyway IMO. I dont think they have changed anything in music or brought forth anything new and exciting. There last album was absolute garbage. These Days was OK, but still nothing new.
 
I answered my own question......

Here's what the Hall of Fame website says about the induction process:

Leaders in the music industry joined together in 1983 to establish the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation. One of the Foundation?s many functions is to recognize the contributions of those who have had a significant impact on the evolution, development and perpetuation of rock and roll by inducting them into the Hall of Fame.


Performers
Artists become eligible for induction 25 years after the release of their first record. Criteria include the influence and significance of the artist?s contributions to the development and perpetuation of rock and roll.

The Foundation?s nominating committee, composed of rock and roll historians, selects nominees each year in the Performer category. Ballots are then sent to an international voting body of about 1,000 rock experts. Those performers who receive the highest number of votes, and more than 50 percent of the vote, are inducted. The Foundation generally inducts five to seven performers each year.
Click to expand...
 
Thank you for printing that. I go back to my initial post, then - it's about innovation: "significant impact on the evolution, development and perpetuation of rock and roll."

FWIW, I used to be a big Bon Jovi fan. I bet some of you didn't see that coming (but rather assumed I hated them all along). But as with many hair bands, I let my love for them go years back. Am I diminishing their impact on their fans? Absolutely not. Do I believe they mean alot to the people who love them? Yes! I like alot of bands who have been around quite a long time, but that alone isn't going to make me think they belong in the RNRHOF.
 
arw9797 said:
I think as far as the genre that Bon Jovi is/was in, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, and Metallica will for sure be in. Yes I'm sure others too......They were huge in their day. I think the longevity of a band has to be looked at. Bon Jovi is still a recording/touring band whether we like them or not. I think that has to count for something. There were so many bands in the late 80's that were essentially one or two hit (album)wonders and then disappeared. Bon Jovi is still around. I can't stand them and the last song they had out that was really big a few years ago drove me insane but I just have to think they will eventually be inducted someday.
Click to expand...

Well said. I agree.

I personally don't mind their songs. Not a diehard fan or anything (although I used to love them as a little kid-I definitely remember loving "Livin' On A Prayer" and stuff), but I can live with them. They seem like cool people, they hold some memories from childhood...yeah. They're okay.

Angela
 
Flying FuManchu said:
Bon Jovi has touched the lives of many people...
Click to expand...

I've heard that too! They can't touch Shawn Kemp though.

Did someone mention Locklear as a point in their inducting favor?

Using this esteemed logic, several member's... members... of Motley Crue should have a golden entourage awaiting them when their year finally comes. Vince Neil on the other hand...

The advocates of this thread and this band are right though. Those delectable anthemic yarns from the great decade need nary a worry for status. Slippery When Wet!

But you know what, I'm almost being far too cynical. I mean, after all, they did perform at the superbowl! It wasn't half-time, but screw all you critics!

LMOIRU()@#!%YU

PLEBA!
 
HelloAngel said:
I would not be surprised if they were inducted.

And, though I do not know what the criteria is for Induction, I do not believe that Bon Jovi was ever innovative, or changed music for the better in some way or fashion. Looking over previous Inductees, it seems that most of them have the respect of their musical peers, and so thusly they are offered a spot in the Hall of Fame. I have no idea if Bon Jovi has musical respect or not by their peers. Along these lines, though - if people feel the need that an "80s representative" should get in, I better see Talking Heads, Guns N Roses, Duran Duran, The Cure and Depeche Mode before any Bon Jovi-type band get in.
Click to expand...

Guns and Roses is a hair metal band, so, is a Bon Jovi-type band...

The only thing that Bon Jovi has done good is repeat a formula for so many years and make it work
 
Blue Room said:


Now that is downright delusional!!! LOL

Are you joking or serious? you have GOT to be joking.

What has Sambora EVER done on the guitar that is even slightly innovative?? Its fine if you like the band. But he is not one of the best guitarists out there you are definately in the minority if you believe that.


never liked to be in the majority! :p :) well, i don't dislike him as guitar player, he has a style of his own and he's good with solo's for his genre...ok, maybe he's not in the "best guitarists of the world" list, but in his genre he's one of the best... ;)
Click to expand...
 
well, guitarists such as Joe Satriani and Steve Vai recognise him as one of the better guitar players
and though I like to think I know a lot about music I'm not going to pretend I know more about playing the guitar than these guys
 
Bon Jovi were never Glam Rock - thats 70's . They are too young for that.

Having said that I once confessed to my best friend at the time that I had Slippery When Wet LP hidden under my bed. And she confessed the same thing!

Hang on a minute (runs out to check under bed)
 
Salome said:
well, guitarists such as Joe Satriani and Steve Vai recognise him as one of the better guitar players
and though I like to think I know a lot about music I'm not going to pretend I know more about playing the guitar than these guys
Click to expand...

if joe satriani and steve vai said this, what should we add more?:bow: :bow: :bow:
 
Innovation.... I've got two words for you...

POP METAL...

People might mention Kiss, but those guys are more bluesy IMO...

Dude, if Satriani and Vai rave about Sambora (guys who have done things with the guitar that even the guitar giants like Clapton, Hendrix, Page, etc have not the skill to do or the innovations) then that says a lot. Sambora is rated fairly highly by guitar mags.

Metal has several different genres and sounds.... to lump Bon Jovi and Metallica together is wrong and inaccurate IMO.

Bon Jovi's influence over 25 years = having a hit album every decade with at least two albums in the eighties that were HUGE.

Another sign of influence = the haters themselves.... A band can be defined by the number of loving/ loyal fans but IMO the fact that Bon Jovi are even well known to their haters says a lot... I bet some haters would recognize a Bon Jovi song immediately or already know a couple of songs. That is influence that deserves to be recognized.
 
Last edited:
beli said:
Bon Jovi were never Glam Rock - thats 70's .
Click to expand...


that's not exactly true either.
there were plenty of glam rock bands in the eighties.

anyway ... sure.
put bon jovi in the hall of fame. why not. :up:
 
OK, fair enough, but none of you have still answered or given me any specifics on WHAT he has done that is different? Satriani and Vai said they were inspired by him, OK, what about him? The other thing you have to realize is that in an interview where artists are asked about other artists MOST typically give the canned polite response. Unless they gave specifics it would appear to me that is what they were doing. But please feel fre to prove me wrong, I'am no expert on BJ. Both guitarists you mention are great guitarists on a technical level. I may get flamed for this one but I dont think they were all that innovative. Innovative to me is Hendricks or Clapton. Then later someone like Eddie Van Halen. These people changed the way the guitar was played and created their own sound. I just dont place Richie Sambora in that list. Personally, I dont hear anything very original in Samboras playing. I'am not saying he is a bad guitarist, but I dont think he has offered much if anything new.

Its obvious BJ have alot of fans, especially in Europe for some reason. Thats cool, I dont hate them even though it may look like I do based on my post. Just never been a fan. I have seen them twice in concert and thought it was OK. I was struck by how much and flagrantly Jon Bon Jovi copies people like Bruce and Bono. I will give them credit though. I have read stories about them and they seem to really care about their fans. I think that is cool and at least they are playing rock music, not teeny bopper BS.

Anyway, they will probebly get in eventually. But I dont think they deserve to anytime soon. Artists that get in immediately when they are first eligible need to be very special musicians. (IE The Beatles, Stones, U2!! LOL, etc..)

Also those of you that mentioned Kiss and G N R. Those bands probebly wont make it. G N R didnt do enough together or stay together long enough to make it. Really, and I'am no fan here, but Kiss has been around forever and they really changed how things were done on a live level. So at least they were innovative in that regard. So why do BJ deserve to make it over them? They have had just as big if not more of an impact on music. Anyway, let the debate continue.
 
Flying FuManchu said:
to lump Bon Jovi and Metallica together is wrong and inaccurate IMO.
Click to expand...

Yes, very, very wrong. Do not put them together. Never.


I don't know if "POP METAL" is actually a genre or just an expression that was invented or whatever. And the reason why a lot of people have no respect (including me) for this Pop Metal thing is because such genre just can't exist cause one thing has nothing to do with the other. Heavy metal is supposed to be aggressive and angry and Pop is... not. One is the opposite of the other. As soon as someone label a band as Pop Metal I just roll my eyes and leave. The more realistic way is to say Hard Rock, where the guitar riffs and the drums are slightly more hard and prominent but still there is a lot of melodies and in some bands a more cheesy approach to the lyrics.
 
It could happen

Blue Room said:
Its obvious BJ have alot of fans, especially in Europe for some reason.
Click to expand...

:D What do you mean "for some reason"? Are you saying us Europeans have bad taste in music? ;)

In all seriousness, I can't say I know enough Bon Jovi songs to make any judgement on them (used to have their album with "Lay your hands on me"), I'd know their 90's and onwards single songs if I heard them on the radio - I respect them for coming out of the 80's and still sticking with making music and touring, like U2, like REM, like Red hot Chili peppers, like Depeche Mode etc...you know?
They're doing their own thing, I've seen their live show on TV and I can't say they were bad or that Jon is a bad performer. Perhaps a bit of a cliche rock show, but not unbearable by any means.
 
Can you name a band that got together because of Bon Jovi?

Can you tell me how Bon Jovi perpetuates Rock N Roll?

Can you tell me what Bon Jovi brought to Rock N Roll that no one else has?

These are some of the questions that need to answered before inducting a band into the hall of fame and frankly Bon Jovi doesn't have any of this.

Yes they are a long lasting, good band that has many fans but it takes more that this.
 
(1) The Darkness... Many of Bon jovi's peers resorted to a more pop outlook in their music... case in point- Motley Crue.

(2) The music itself is ... blues based, nice guitar riffs, with rock vocals...

(3) The last question is sort of funny to answer b/c the question presupposes that rock n roll and many of the current inductees or today's practitoners are entirely original with their music which isn't the case. A lot of music is basically the artist's spin on it.

U2 is a perfect case of that. U2 isn't the first to rely on political lyrics, religious themed lyrics, delay based guitar music, minimalism, etc...

Just like Tarantino with his movies aren't entirely original in terms of ideas... they've all been done in some form and Tarantino wasn't the first to develop something such as use of flashbacks, camera angles, witty repartee... however what makes his movies unique as said by him is its his point of view....
 
As for the influence of Sambora as a guitarist...

I couldn't tell you off hand but I've read several guitar mags that pointed to Richie as being a guitar great and one can't look down/ ignore accomplished instrumentalists such as Vai and Satriani praising the guy... I'll do some research, but IMO b/c of his axeman rep, Bon Jovi still retains some form of legitimacy....

What made Clapton and Hendrix innovative and guys like Satriani and Vai not so innnovative? Hendrix I understand from readin up on him (use of wah, distortion, etc.) Clapton for his work with Cream (i.e. massive guitar wanking, improvisation, and the reintroduction of the blues to rock n'roll). Van Halen for his use fret tapping and speed which wasn't "new" but unheard of then.

Vai and Satriani actually helped bring about the acceptance of rock guitar instrumental albums while also pushing the boundaries of virtuosity i.e use of different musical scales and strange chords outside of the typical blues box/ pentatonic scale.

People get all choked up about the "sounds" that some guitarist make but these guys push get those sounds and then some in just one song (outside of using their speed). That to me is innovation.

Again I will check up on innovation/ influence of Sambora...
 
Last edited:
Flying FuManchu said:
As for the influence of Sambora as a guitarist...

I couldn't tell you off hand but I've read several guitar mags that pointed to Richie as being a guitar great and one can't look down/ ignore accomplished instrumentalists such as Vai and Satriani praising the guy...
Click to expand...

You can still be a good guitar player without having to come up with a whole new thing of your own. Slash never did anything unheard before like Hendrix for example but he is still a great guitar player. I don?t think Sambora has ever done something new or taken guitar playing to another level but he is still a good guitar player nonetheless. His band however is not that great. Simple.
 
The whole question of being innovative as being a sticking point is sort of funny to me.... Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers are an amzing band but they are not "innovative." If they are in then I don't see why Bon Jovi can't be b/c Bon Jovi was actually at the forefront of a big "movement" be it good or bad taste-wise.
 
Re: It could happen

U2girl said:


:D What do you mean "for some reason"? Are you saying us Europeans have bad taste in music? ;)

In all seriousness, I can't say I know enough Bon Jovi songs to make any judgement on them (used to have their album with "Lay your hands on me"), I'd know their 90's and onwards single songs if I heard them on the radio - I respect them for coming out of the 80's and still sticking with making music and touring, like U2, like REM, like Red hot Chili peppers, like Depeche Mode etc...you know?
They're doing their own thing, I've seen their live show on TV and I can't say they were bad or that Jon is a bad performer. Perhaps a bit of a cliche rock show, but not unbearable by any means.
Click to expand...

LOL, U2Girl, no thats no what I meant. Its interesting to me that they are very popular in Europe and not anywhere near as popular in the U.S. (Except maybe NJ) where they are from. Thats what I was referring to.

Flying, its obvious you are a big BJ fan. Thats cool, but basically U2girl has really summed up my opinion of them. They are OK, dont hate them, dont love them. They just dont really do anything for me live or album wise. They were at the start of a movement??? They became big in 1987, the pop hard rock scene you refer to was well under way at that point, they rode the wave that had already begun. Motley Crue became popular in 1983, broke huge with the first power ballad to make it in 85, well before BJ really became really well known. So how were they inspired by BJ? MC may have appreciate what they were doing when BJ did make it, but I dont see any type of influence there at all. BJ were just one of the more popular bands in that genre from that time frame. They managed to survive grunge because they have a strong fanbase. But it wasnt because they were doing anything groundbreaking. You will never convince me that Sambora is some type of guitar God who is changed the rock landscape in any way, its simply not true. He is a good guitarist, but not legendary by any means. Nothing wrong with that, I dont think Edge is a legendary guitarist either. But here is something Edge does have over Sambora. Edge has a distinctive style that wasnt really done by others. On a technical level its not anything major, but, it is original. That is the problem I have with BJ. I just dont find it very original or full of all that much substance. Its just my personal opinion. Just like you have yours.

The point is moot really. They will probebly get in eventually. Do I think they deserve to? Not really, but there are performers I cant stand that may make it in. Do I really care if they do? Not really, so why I'am I responding to this thread? Hmm, not sure, LOL boredom??
 
Yeesh... slaps own head for being off... I concede my mentioning of Motley Crue and the timeline associated with Bon Jovi and the Crue is off... they are peers and started at the same time (meaning I goofef) but you're probably right in that Bon Jovi and it's popularity came a bit after the Crue's beginnings. They may not have been that influential for the Crue but my point is that the more pop aspects of Bon Jovi (i.e. hooks and the power ballad) was grasped by many a hair band and IMO Bon Jovi was a huge influence in that. If not Motley Crue, then there was someone else of equal fame to imitate

Dr. Feelgood was a pop album though and IMO and did come after Bon Jovi's hugeness, so I think that is why I was claiming influence. Extreme, Warrant, Poison, Ozzy, Damn Yankees, White Snake were getting poppish and dominated the charts, etc.... IMO, Bon Jovi was the biggest of the bunch and IMO helped push pop metal to the forefront and I do believe its success contributed to a specific style that was done by many "metal" bands. I do not think its too hard to believe Bon Jovi didn't influence its peers...

Also Blue Room... I believe the Edge is an influential/ important guitarist of the likes of Hendrix or Clapton.
 
Flying FuManchu said:
(1) The Darkness... Many of Bon jovi's peers resorted to a more pop outlook in their music... case in point- Motley Crue.

(2) The music itself is ... blues based, nice guitar riffs, with rock vocals...

(3) The last question is sort of funny to answer b/c the question presupposes that rock n roll and many of the current inductees or today's practitoners are entirely original with their music which isn't the case. A lot of music is basically the artist's spin on it.

Click to expand...

I would say the darkness are more influenced by Queen than anyone.

I should have worded the second question a little different I meant how did they cause rock to keep moving and evolving, take a look at all the bands inducted and they all raised the bar somehow so when bands behind them came up it forced them to take a step up. Bon Jovi never did this, if Bon Jovi didn't exist music would still be where it is today.

I didn't say that every band inducted had to be completely original, every band is derivative of the bands before them, but those who put their own touch to it and then bring something else to the table get inducted. I just haven't seen Bon Jovi do that.
 
At the Hall of Fame there's a perfectly good water closet just screaming for an exhibit.

:up:

Oh wait, that's the BFI bin in the back. I tend to get the voices of inanimate objects mixed up.

Why is it whenever I talk about Bon Jovi, my focus of discussion inevitably leads to the topic of inanimate object voices?

Curious indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
The little Stranger chapter 11
Replies
0
Views
749
annj
A
A
the little stranger chapter 4
Replies
0
Views
579
annj
A
A
The little stranger Chapter 6
Replies
0
Views
554
annj
A
A
The Little stranger chapter 17
Replies
0
Views
521
annj
A
A
the little stranger chapter 2
Replies
0
Views
528
annj
A

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom