Party Boy said:
Ultimately every post made is their subjective assessment. Your view of Bon Jovi is your subjective assessment. Everyone is entitled to it - am not argueing that.
Wrong. I think?
I don't know who you are addressing or what you are talking about when referring to subjective assessments. Either way, every post made isn't a subjective assessment. jick gave examples of what the members of the Bon Jovi do in their free time outside of the band. All of it involved some form artistic expression (many of those examples being actual work that can be accessed by the public). I said they were artists in the truest sense. An artist is defined as:
1. One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.
2. A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill: You are an artist in the kitchen.
3. One, such as an actor or singer, who works in the performing arts.
The members of Bon Jovi fit with in the context of the definition. How is that subjective? Of course people can make jokes at the expense of the Bon Jovi, but how is my assessment subjective? I think not.
Secondly, speaking on behalf of myself, I can confirm to you that I
have never read any media articles about Bon Jovi. Thirdly, I can also confirm even if I had, I am quite capable of making up my own mind about how I feel about a band rather than what some form of media is telling me what I should feel. Its quite astounding that you have come to the conclusion that because I think of Bon Jovi's music is as memorable as .. god.. I don't know.. something I ate last week while rushing to the dogs... I am under the spell of the media's perception of Bon Jovi.
So have you listened to every Bon Jovi record released. Listened to every song on the album (like seriously listen as some U2 fans tell people in order to "get" U2 or HTDAAB). I guess you have, in order to have made the claims that you made about unfulfilling Big Macs and claims of un-originality. I mean you claim to have not read any article about the Bon Jovi and I assume you have never watched or listened to a program/ news item on the Bon Jovi either. Ooooooookay.
I think their music in general is akin to Status Quo. Within a few cords, you know exactly who it is. There are millions of people who bought Backstreet Boy records. Good for them if they like that kind of thing. It doesn't mean however, that they are any good critically. Commercially sure.. but you know, with a good marketing team behind anything, you can sell ice to eskimos. There is a market for everything.. one glance at the items on sale on Ebay confirms that.
Let me say something that I should have said before. An artist doesn't necessarily have to be "original" in order to be defined as an artist. I've also talked about the idea of "originality" in rock music before. People overrate the idea of originality in music so much. True artistic originality in rock is rare.
Also if you can hear a few chords from the Bon Jovi and tell who they are, that must mean something. I mean if you can tell something like that so easily then they must have have done something original/ distinct on their own or you would be confusing them with Def Lepoard, right?
If people are trying to compare Bon Jovi to U2, then it cannot be done on musical grounds. In my opinion (like everything in this post is) Bon Jovi have come no where near reinventing themselves as U2 have. The only band that has done to such a scale is the Beatles (probably larger scale - less than 7 years from Love Me Do to I am the Walrus). Bon Jovi members cutting their hair is part of reinvention? Oh please.. superficial. If U2 wore black clothes for first 10 years of their career and then started wearing red shirts with orange spots, does this count as a reinvention?
Muscially.. you know, i can't find any difference between Bon Jovi from 1986 to Bon Jovi in the '90s and today. In fact, the only difference is they have got worse. Again, my opinion, which has not been based or corrupted by any media, but purely based on having to listen to them.
U2's re-invention was just as much about image as it was the music. Same with the Beatles and guys like Bowie. For a rock star, changing one's image is very important for career viability in the rock scene. Musically, Bon Jovi has added more electronic elements/ modern studio innovations into their music. Case in point. Crush. Again, are the things that they do totally original? No, but that doesn't take away their rightful claim to the title of artist.
Oh come on!
-->
-->
-->
