Should Bon Jovi be in the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame.... - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-12-2004, 03:56 AM   #61
New Yorker
 
shaun vox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: LA.cal ROCKnRoll city!
Posts: 3,192
Local Time: 01:19 AM
note BJ is short for bon jovi hehahahheeh get it BJ.

put GNR in the HOF and then well talk.
__________________

__________________
shaun vox is offline  
Old 04-12-2004, 07:13 AM   #62
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 08:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
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.
Why does that even matter? Has every band that ever got inducted been scrutinized by that list? What have a lot of inductees brought that 'no one else has', a lot of them can't be judged by that.

They perpetuate rock by continuing to sell records and sell out arenas.

Bands that got together? Who knows. Maybe some have and haven't mentioned them, maybe a lot did but never made it big. I don't think it should be required for membership that you can prove somebody heard someone's record and said, yeah, I wanna be just like him! I'm sure everybody has had that happen at some point whether or not we know it.

And I am SO tired of the elitist attitude of some of the people here that only THEIR bands 'matter' and bands they don't like all 'suck.'

There are bands in the Hall that I like and that I don't care for. But SOMEBODY cared for them, and it's not all about me. So good for them and their fans.
__________________

__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 04-12-2004, 08:27 AM   #63
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 12:19 PM
I was thinking this as well, about the criteria. Nothing against you BVS as you I am sure didn't make the criteria, nor take criticism of it personally. But really the whole thing is a bit of bs if you ask me, which no one did...

At first I was going to disagree with the bits about the attitude in here, but really I dont think any of us can. We all do it I think in some way whether its arguing about a poll or a genre or a particular group, we all seem to sometimes forget that we aren't right or wrong and pretty much all of it comes back to opinion in some way.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 04-12-2004, 09:47 AM   #64
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 08:19 PM
Yes, I agree about it all being opinion. That's why I said there are bands in the Hall that I don't personally like, but let them be there for them and their fans we all like different stuff. Who cares.

But what I mean by elitist attitude is the old thing that here on this particular forum there is a list of bands that are bragged on and protected by some and you aren't allowed to bash them, but these same people will bash other people's bands and disregard them as 'junk' and 'shitty' and 'suck' because they don't like them, but Heaven forbid you call their band junk. (Like the Everclear incident) Okay old story, old wounds, but that's what I meant by elitist attitude and I still think it exists here. I don't think there is anything any more subjective and open to personal opinion than music. If we all liked the same things some bands would be out of business. So don't deny a band's right to the Hall of Fame because you don't personally like them or they don't meet your list of criteria. I'm sure the Hall guys have some way of doing that and it will be up to them and not us anyway.
__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 04-12-2004, 10:01 AM   #65
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,426
Local Time: 08:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Pinball Wizard
I've heard that too! They can't touch Shawn Kemp though.
I cannot let this thread go by without a four thumb salute to one of the greatest yet least understood comments this board has ever seen. Congrats on your continued wisdom of all things witty. The folks from Best Week Ever will be calling in no time, of this i am sure.


As for Mr. Bon Jovi... obviously his work on Ally McBeal makes him immediately deserving of a place in the RRHOF...

... or not.

Do I like their music? Nothing beats Living on a Prayer on a nice drunken night... all their other songs? Blah... I know this... they're # 3 on the Dirty Jerz list of all time greatest musicians, right behind The Chairman and The Boss. And on that note... someone said that anyone who plays their own instruments and writes their own music should be taken more seriously than someone who doesn't... so does that mean we should take Bon Jovi more seriously than Frank Sinatra? Hmmm...

I shall conclude my ramblings now with this... if Aerosmith and Jackson Browne are in, then what the hell. Bring the hair.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 04-12-2004, 11:35 AM   #66
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 07:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten


Why does that even matter? Has every band that ever got inducted been scrutinized by that list? What have a lot of inductees brought that 'no one else has', a lot of them can't be judged by that.

They perpetuate rock by continuing to sell records and sell out arenas.

Bands that got together? Who knows. Maybe some have and haven't mentioned them, maybe a lot did but never made it big. I don't think it should be required for membership that you can prove somebody heard someone's record and said, yeah, I wanna be just like him! I'm sure everybody has had that happen at some point whether or not we know it.

And I am SO tired of the elitist attitude of some of the people here that only THEIR bands 'matter' and bands they don't like all 'suck.'

There are bands in the Hall that I like and that I don't care for. But SOMEBODY cared for them, and it's not all about me. So good for them and their fans.
Look I didn't say that if a band doesn't make it into the hall of fame they suck. A lot of my fave bands will not make it into the hall of fame and I'm fine with that.

Those questions are very similar to the questions asked by the hall of fame.

To me it takes more than selling albums and tours to perpetuate Rock and Roll.

I'm just stating my opinion if I were to be on the board.

I like some of their songs, in fact I owned Slippery when Wet on Vinyl, but I still think they are saccarine and that rock music would still be in the same place if they never existed.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-12-2004, 02:19 PM   #67
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,149
Local Time: 08:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Look I didn't say that if a band doesn't make it into the hall of fame they suck. A lot of my fave bands will not make it into the hall of fame and I'm fine with that.

Those questions are very similar to the questions asked by the hall of fame.

To me it takes more than selling albums and tours to perpetuate Rock and Roll.

I'm just stating my opinion if I were to be on the board.

I like some of their songs, in fact I owned Slippery when Wet on Vinyl, but I still think they are saccarine and that rock music would still be in the same place if they never existed.
But how do you "pepetuate" rock n roll, pray tell?

I'm serious.... I've given examples through popularity and the maintenace of specific rock n roll aspects in their music (i.e the use guitar riffs, blues aspects, and Sambora's supposed contribution to guitar as attributed to guitar mags). What else can be done? Or do you mean perpetuate "YOUR" style of rock n' roll?

Again, I love Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers and they were the first band I really got into but they are in the hall and I don't see how they perpetuated rock n'roll anymore then Bon Jovi.

Two side notes...

The Darkness are probably closely more aligned to Queen but there can't be any doubt that Bon Jovi wasn't something of an influence in terms of style and even a little sound (considering Bon Jovi is also "blues based")..

Also IMO Jon Bon Jovi is one of the greatest of rock star actors around... He was able to succeed in a genre where many rock stars have failed i.e. Bowie, Bono, Jagger, etc... So that has to count for something even if it was Ally McBeal
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 04-12-2004, 02:45 PM   #68
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 07:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Flying FuManchu


But how do you "pepetuate" rock n roll, pray tell?

I'm serious.... I've given examples through popularity and the maintenace of specific rock n roll aspects in their music (i.e the use guitar riffs, blues aspects, and Sambora's supposed contribution to guitar as attributed to guitar mags). What else can be done? Or do you mean perpetuate "YOUR" style of rock n' roll?

Again, I love Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers and they were the first band I really got into but they are in the hall and I don't see how they perpetuated rock n'roll anymore then Bon Jovi.


You are right Bon Jovi were popular, they had good guitar riffs, they were blues based they had all that. And so did Rock n Roll before them. If we were to use that criteria for perpetuating Rock n Roll then rock would become stagnant and eventually exitinct. Tom Petty can still be heard on radio stations across the US, and not just one or two songs. They embraced and made some of the most ground breaking videos of their time. Lyrically they were one of the best story tellers. After Tom Petty people had to raise the bar, people are still trying to tell stories like that. They didn't ride any genre's or any ones coat tails.

Bon Jovi continue rock and roll but they don't cause it to continue and that I believe is the difference.

I can't believe I got sucked so deep into this debate...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-12-2004, 05:56 PM   #69
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 08:19 PM
I don't mean for this to be a debate about Petty vs. Bon Jovi because I love Tom Petty and respect him, his music, his videos and his career. He totally belongs in the HOF. But I do agree that he really hasn't done anything to 'advance' rock. But a lot of bands haven't and I don't see why that is such a big thing. If you are a good act with good songs and people like you and remember you, you have advanced rock.

I now must address the comment about riding a genre's coattails. In fairness to Bon Jovi (don't know about anyone else but I can't type Bon without the o, it happens every time!) he did come in before the 'hair metal' craze hit full blast. His hit in, I think 83, with Runaway. They were rock, but just because you play hard rock and have long hair and tight pants and have girls in your videos it doesn't make you a cheap hair metal band. That is quintessential rock and roll and there's nothing wrong with that. True he hit it big with Slippery When Wet, right band, right time, right place. The actual hair metal craze didn't break until late 86-early 87 with acts like Poison and Ratt but was not full blown until 88 and lasted until about 91. This from a person who lived it, watching MTV in the 80's first hand.
__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 04-12-2004, 06:43 PM   #70
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Blue Room's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: MICHIGAN, GO BLUE!
Posts: 7,612
Local Time: 08:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten
I don't mean for this to be a debate about Petty vs. Bon Jovi because I love Tom Petty and respect him, his music, his videos and his career. He totally belongs in the HOF. But I do agree that he really hasn't done anything to 'advance' rock. But a lot of bands haven't and I don't see why that is such a big thing. If you are a good act with good songs and people like you and remember you, you have advanced rock.

I now must address the comment about riding a genre's coattails. In fairness to Bon Jovi (don't know about anyone else but I can't type Bon without the o, it happens every time!) he did come in before the 'hair metal' craze hit full blast. His hit in, I think 83, with Runaway. They were rock, but just because you play hard rock and have long hair and tight pants and have girls in your videos it doesn't make you a cheap hair metal band. That is quintessential rock and roll and there's nothing wrong with that. True he hit it big with Slippery When Wet, right band, right time, right place. The actual hair metal craze didn't break until late 86-early 87 with acts like Poison and Ratt but was not full blown until 88 and lasted until about 91. This from a person who lived it, watching MTV in the 80's first hand.
Cant believe I got sucked back into this again. But you are incorrect about a few things as far as your dates and timing. As someone else who lived the same era I can say that the metal craze actually began with Quiet Riot, Motley Crue, Van Halen, and even Ratt (even though you incorrectly stated they started after BJ) around 1982 to 1983. BJ's first album came out in 1984 and it was no breakthrough or big hit. The artists I mentioned already had hit big with the same type of material. In fact all of these acts I mention started before Bon Jovi were even a band. So I dont think your statement is accurate. BJ did ride the wave of a movement that was started by the artists I mention. You could argue they may have been better at it (I would disagree), or maybe even enhanced it or made it more poppy. But there is no way they started it. Their breakthrough album SWW hit 3 to 4 years after this type of music became enormously popular and it was already very popular before BJ even released their first album. I think they may have been a little more successful at it because of their packaging. Girls were really into Jon then and at the beginning that was their primary fan base. The initial attention they received was because of their frontmans looks, not the musical content.

We could go back and forth, but I knew your dates werent right and I was the one that brought up that they road the wave. I still stand by that, because it is just flat out true. Again, nothing wrong with that. But BJ havent done anything that is very original. I just dont think they are that great. Some of you think they are, and thats fine. But there are people that hate U2 also and I disagree with them obviously and you probebly would also. Its all so subjective, but I have to respond when people are quoting facts to prove their point that are just inaccurate.
__________________
Blue Room is offline  
Old 04-12-2004, 07:20 PM   #71
Blue Crack Addict
 
beli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In a frock in Western Australia
Posts: 15,464
Local Time: 09:19 AM
I liked Bon Jovi the best when he got his haircut
__________________
beli is offline  
Old 04-12-2004, 07:44 PM   #72
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
TheBrazilianFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Porto Alegre, Brasil
Posts: 8,580
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Blue Room


Cant believe I got sucked back into this again. But you are incorrect about a few things as far as your dates and timing. As someone else who lived the same era I can say that the metal craze actually began with Quiet Riot, Motley Crue, Van Halen, and even Ratt (even though you incorrectly stated they started after BJ) around 1982 to 1983. BJ's first album came out in 1984 and it was no breakthrough or big hit. The artists I mentioned already had hit big with the same type of material. In fact all of these acts I mention started before Bon Jovi were even a band. So I dont think your statement is accurate. BJ did ride the wave of a movement that was started by the artists I mention. You could argue they may have been better at it (I would disagree), or maybe even enhanced it or made it more poppy. But there is no way they started it. Their breakthrough album SWW hit 3 to 4 years after this type of music became enormously popular and it was already very popular before BJ even released their first album. I think they may have been a little more successful at it because of their packaging. Girls were really into Jon then and at the beginning that was their primary fan base. The initial attention they received was because of their frontmans looks, not the musical content.

We could go back and forth, but I knew your dates werent right and I was the one that brought up that they road the wave. I still stand by that, because it is just flat out true. Again, nothing wrong with that. But BJ havent done anything that is very original. I just dont think they are that great. Some of you think they are, and thats fine. But there are people that hate U2 also and I disagree with them obviously and you probebly would also. Its all so subjective, but I have to respond when people are quoting facts to prove their point that are just inaccurate.
You're right!

Bon Jovi:
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p...=B2gjuear04xg7

Hair Metal:
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p...2380&sql=C2693
__________________
TheBrazilianFly is offline  
Old 04-12-2004, 07:52 PM   #73
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 08:19 PM
No, Blue Room, I still say "hair metal" was brought in in the later 80's by Poison type bands. At least the hair metal that is maligned today. The earlier 80's band were metal, and they had hair, but they were not hair metal as the cliche' goes today. They were only trying to bring back what real rock and roll was about after a new wave and synth type bands movement like Human League and Flock of Seagulls. Rock and roll has always been there in its classic form. That's why I said in my post, can't you be rock and roll and have long hair and tight pants without being called hair metal? Motley Crue was around earlier but at the time they were just weird and psuedo-demonic (in a funny not a sinister or serious way) Even today, there are bands with long hair and tight pants who play hard rock or metal but that doesn't make them hair metal.That label has become too broad and inaccurate.

Quiet Riot were loud rock but NOT hair metal in the stereotypical sense, and Van Halen was NEVER hair metal they started in the 70's and were always what they were, pure rock and roll.

As an 80's MTV fanatic here are the bands I consider hair metal:

Poison
Warrant
Ratt
Cinderella
Britney Fox
Motley Crue (later)
Bon Jovi (for a time)
Nelson
White Lion
Great White
Whitesnake
Europe
Faster Pussycat
Kingdom Come

Even Slaughter and Tesla not really hair metal and resents the label. Skid Row is boarderline to me, they are more badass where the hair metal bands were more theatrics. I also think that is something that is missing today, the songs went so much better with the videos. They aren't as good alone. When I listen to them I can still remember the videos and see them in my head.

Def Leppard = NOT hair metal. They were also just regular rock and roll, struggling to keep true to the rock tradition as teens in England getting beaten up by punks who hated them for it. But they survived and thrived. Yes, so they had long hair and jeans and girls in their videos but that was more copying the older metal bands of the 60's-70's than the hair metal thing. They were HUGE in '83 with Pyromania. Then they dropped from view for awhile due to Rick Allen's wreck and the loss of his arm. They stuck with their friend and wouldn't get a new drummer until he came back with his special machine. By THEN, hair metal had taken over, and their videos may have seemed to fit in with that era, but Def Leppard are an original and one of my favorite 80's bands.
__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 04-12-2004, 08:06 PM   #74
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 08:19 PM
One more thing about Def Leppard, I think the demise of their career was more due to the fact that they shunned not only 'hair metal' but their roots and what they did best and ran from it when they saw it was going out and tried to become something they weren't. They tried Grunge with Slang, then whatever their later 90's record was supposed to be. They returned to their true selves and sound with their last album but it was too late to capture what was lost. Now, they can never dig themselves out because too many people blind and deafen themselves to them by labeling them as hair metal. Well, Joe, Rick, Rick, Phil and whoever they're using to try to replace the late Steve Clark I still like you and remember you fondly
__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 04-12-2004, 10:00 PM   #75
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 12:19 PM
I heard Living On A Prayer this morning on the radio and thought of this thread.

I also need to confess that I have fallen asleep at a concert once before, and that concert was Bon Jovi.


/non useful contribution
__________________

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com