U2 and Bon Jovi: Separated at birth?

[mmmBono]

The above statement is deeply, deeply ignorant. I think it proves exactly how much you know about music. Anyone who continues to argue with you from this point on really shouldn't even bother.

That being said, I strongly encourage everyone to let this thread die.

Fully agreed on this one.
Enough already.
It's obvious where your heart is. Buried deep somewhere up Blow Jovi's ass. And that's okay. You're a fan. I'm not.
But how about leave it at that? The comparisons that you have made throughout don't hold any "water" in my book.
You're obviously not a Pearl Jam fan. And that's okay. They took on ticketmaster with only the fans' best interests in mind....it was not a stunt by any stretch of the imagination. I wouldn't call dragging your ass to battle in the courts for the good of the fans a stunt. I'm proud of PJ's efforts to keep ticket prices low. And they are still keeping to their word on this said issue.
And to make that statement about PJ and Radiohead....just goes to show that you are lost in the black hole that is called Bon Jovi.
PJ's entire catalogue AFTER Ten grew by leaps and bounds in the creativity department. As did Radiohead's music after Creep. These are 2 bands with unlimited growth.....big big ideas in their head. Vedder's least favourite album is TEN, by the way.LOL!
Again...you place a very large importance on commercial aspects of music....and that seems to be the deciding factor for you on what makes a band great.
For me it doesn't. I don't choose the flavour of the day. My ears know what they want to hear. And it ain't Bon Jovi.
Peace.
Autumn

 

[jick]

Also, BJ's last album did tank, at least here in the US, it was a live album I believe. ATYCLB & The Best of 80-90 each outsold Crush I'm pretty sure. POP outsold what ever album BJ had out at the same time I think. Also, Popmart was the most successful, or 2nd most successful tour, of 1997.

Let me just rant here, although it is off-topic. I just find it sad that all the great bands don't think about releasing a live album during their live peak. Sure U2's best live moments were in the 90's but it was mainly because they were massive shows with lots of eye candy.

Van Halen released their Right Here, Right Now Live album in the early 90's - way past their live heydey from the early 80's. Bon Jovi released their first live album only recently and it featured performances taken from their 90's concerts. The Psychedelic Furs just released a live album last year, way past their 80's peak. Men At Work released a live album only in the 90's - not when they were at the top of their game in the 1980's.

Why do bands only realize to release live albums after their live performance energetic peak years? Even U2 have never released a live album since Under A Blood Red Sky. Sure that may have been their energetic peak, but they were quite raw back then. A live double album with a full Joshua Tree or Lovetown Show would be the best. Instead we got R&H which was only half a live album.

I don't think there are any exceptions, but I would love to know if there are. It seems all bands release live albums too late. Sure the Police released a live double album but that was in the 1990's - way past their demise when everyone had forgotten them. What I think would be cool is to watch a band release a live album during their live peak years.

And even as great a band as Bon Jovi is, they are no exception, falling to the mistake of releasing a live album too late and featuring performances when they weren't exactly at their live peak. Sure it's still all great but wouldn't it have been better to get the same songs as they were performed in the earlier Bon Jovi tours from the late 80's? As for U2, while Hasta La Vista Baby is great, it would have been better if their fanclub lvie album would feature performances from the mid-to-late 80's.

Oh well, sorry for the off-topic rant. I'll post about the Bon Jovi-U2 topic shortly.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

 

[jick]

U2 have done cover songs as b-sides or in concert, but other than "Ground..." I think all of their a-side, album songs were written entirely by them.

Right off the bat, Love Rescue Me comes to mind as not entirely written by U2. I think Bob Dylan had some contribution to the song lyrically or musically, and backing vocals too.

Also, 40 was lifted straight off the Bible, so it was originally written by King David.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

 

[jick]

Ground Beneath Her Feet (great song BTW) doesn't sound commercial to me in the way that I don't feel the song possesses any obvious pop hooks, its more of an atmosphere piece, much the same as With Or Without You sounded different to anything else around when it came out.

2nd point: U2 had to get their foot in the door for a record deal. They did that....The odds of the band they beat to second place becomming an even bigger band than U2 are very slim. It wasn't exactly an honourable thing that they did, but they have never let other people write songs for them on albums or singles. You are clutching at straws.

Just because it doesn't sound commercial to you doesn't mean it is commercial. A lot of these rap-metal songs hardly have any hooks and have incomprehensible lyrics, yet they are considered mainstream and commercial. Commercial simply means that the radio stations and MTV decides to play it. No matter how badly structured or how alternative the song is, if it's played it commercial. So just because radio stations and MTV people prefer to play Bon Jovi songs makes them commercial. U2's problem is that they never released a video of The Ground Beneath Her Feet, so it never made it to MTV. On the flip side, Passengers released a video of Miss Sarajevo and it actually charted here in the MTV Asia Top 20 back then. So it's not the song structure per se that makes a song commercial, but it is its acceptance by the commercial broadcast channels of radio and TV.

"Not exactly an honourable thing to do" is the understatement of the year. It was a bad thing to do. It was a thoughtless thing to do. it was sinful, and lacked any moral ethical value whatsoever. At least U2 have straightened up their act since then, but its just plain evil to do that. Any band who sings song specifically written for them is better off then another band who sings other songs and claiming it is theirs.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

 

[jick]

The above statement is deeply, deeply ignorant. I think it proves exactly how much you know about music. Anyone who continues to argue with you from this point on really shouldn't even bother.

That being said, I strongly encourage everyone to let this thread die.

My Bad! I didn't mean that Pearl Jam went downhill after TEN. I just realized they also released Daughter from the VS album after TEN and this was a monster hit too. But Radiohead was all downhill after Creep, they never dented the charts anymore and betrayed their fans by going "weirdo" and "arty" with them.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

 

[jick]

Re: All You need Is Love and Peace On Earth

Jick ...baby.... it 's alright that u love BonJovi, U2 & stuff , that's great ....really .....but what are u tryin to start here ???? a war .... on U2 forum main part ( EYIW ) to start a topic called " Bon Jovi is great etc etc " .. it's like a red sheet for a U2 bull , baby ...

There is no war here. If you look through the entire thread, there is no flaming or name calling, just agreements and disagreements. The original intention of my post was to point out some similarities between Bon Jovi and U2 ...but after many more replies, I just realized that there are even more similarities which I didn't discover before.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

 

[jick]

Fully agreed on this one.
Enough already.
It's obvious where your heart is. Buried deep somewhere up Blow Jovi's ass. And that's okay. You're a fan. I'm not.
But how about leave it at that? The comparisons that you have made throughout don't hold any "water" in my book.
You're obviously not a Pearl Jam fan. And that's okay. They took on ticketmaster with only the fans' best interests in mind....it was not a stunt by any stretch of the imagination. I wouldn't call dragging your ass to battle in the courts for the good of the fans a stunt. I'm proud of PJ's efforts to keep ticket prices low. And they are still keeping to their word on this said issue.
And to make that statement about PJ and Radiohead....just goes to show that you are lost in the black hole that is called Bon Jovi.
PJ's entire catalogue AFTER Ten grew by leaps and bounds in the creativity department. As did Radiohead's music after Creep. These are 2 bands with unlimited growth.....big big ideas in their head. Vedder's least favourite album is TEN, by the way.LOL!
Again...you place a very large importance on commercial aspects of music....and that seems to be the deciding factor for you on what makes a band great.
For me it doesn't. I don't choose the flavour of the day. My ears know what they want to hear. And it ain't Bon Jovi.
Peace.
Autumn

If my heart is buried deep inside Bon Jovi's ass, then maybe my heart is buried even deeper up to the intestines of U2! I am a much bigger U2 fan than I am a Jovi fan.

Pearl Jam could have kept their fight with ticketmaster private but they blew it up and spread it to all media channels. Obviously a lame marketing stunt, telling the public "hey watch our gigs, our tickets are cheaper or at least we try!"

But hey I am a Pearl Jam fan. I love their Yellow Leadbetter song which is by no means commercial since it was never even released in an album. I saw them once here in the Philippines - very reasonable ticket prices and watching Vedder open the concert with his growling voice in Release was spine-tingling.

The commercial aspect is important because it is what makes a band successful. Artsy stuff can't be measured, but commercial success can. Commercial success proves that they are making enough money to make a living and feed their families and that is what really matters, expecially to people like Bono and Jon BonJovi who are still together with their high school sweethearts and have kids....oh wait... did I just uncover another parallelism between Bono and Jon? Wow! The similarities keep coming!!!!

Separated at birth!

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

 

[Hallelujah Here She Comes]

"Not exactly an honourable thing to do" is the understatement of the year. It was a bad thing to do. It was a thoughtless thing to do. it was sinful, and lacked any moral ethical value whatsoever. At least U2 have straightened up their act since then, but its just plain evil to do that. Any band who sings song specifically written for them is better off then another band who sings other songs and claiming it is theirs.

Just plain evil? You've got to be kidding me. Murder is evil. They fooled some guy into letting them play on his show (where they performed THEIR OWN songs). Bad, maybe. Thoughtless, most definitely. I'd personally go with desperate. But evil? Maybe if they'd made this into a habit. But it's hardly fair to characterize them as a "band who sings other songs and claiming it is theirs" when they did it once, to one person. Yeah, they've really cleaned up their act since then, seeing as they never did it before or since.

I've tried to stay out of this thread, just cause I find it to be so freaking absurd. I mean, why is this even an issue? You're basing a comparison on the fact that both bands have sold a lot of records and have had outlasted most of their contemporaries. Yeah...so? Bon Jovi is still a good band that writes catchy rock/pop tunes and performs them well. And U2 is still the best band on the planet with a back-catalog of some of the best songs and albums in rock and roll. And there's still no comparison.

 

[Hallelujah Here She Comes]

If my heart is buried deep inside Bon Jovi's ass, then maybe my heart is buried even deeper up to the intestines of U2! I am a much bigger U2 fan than I am a Jovi fan.

Pearl Jam could have kept their fight with ticketmaster private but they blew it up and spread it to all media channels. Obviously a lame marketing stunt, telling the public "hey watch our gigs, our tickets are cheaper or at least we try!"

But hey I am a Pearl Jam fan. I love their Yellow Leadbetter song which is by no means commercial since it was never even released in an album. I saw them once here in the Philippines - very reasonable ticket prices and watching Vedder open the concert with his growling voice in Release was spine-tingling.

The commercial aspect is important because it is what makes a band successful. Artsy stuff can't be measured, but commercial success can. Commercial success proves that they are making enough money to make a living and feed their families and that is what really matters, expecially to people like Bono and Jon BonJovi who are still together with their high school sweethearts and have kids....oh wait... did I just uncover another parallelism between Bono and Jon? Wow! The similarities keep coming!!!!

Separated at birth!

You keep basing your comparisons on the most trivial information. We've established that they're both successful rock bands that make a lot of money. Ok. So now you're big revalation is that both lead singers married their high school sweetheart? Wow, I mean that's almost an amazing enough coincidence to make me overlook the fact that it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MUSIC.

And what do you mean you can't measure "artsy stuff"? So you never make any judgements as to the relative quality of different bands' music? Of course such things aren't definitive, but that doesn't make them unworthy of discussion and that certainly doesn't make commercial success as an important point of comparison as you keep making it out to be.

 

[Hawkmoon1021]

Commercial success proves that they are making enough money to make a living and feed their families and that is what really matters, expecially to people like Bono and Jon BonJovi who are still together with their high school sweethearts and have kids....oh wait... did I just uncover another parallelism between Bono and Jon? Wow! The similarities keep coming!!!!

Separated at birth!

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

Yes, they are 2 peas in a pod.

I don't like BJ & I don't see anthing parallel musically between them & U2, but if you do, it's all good. Enjoy.

 

[Tip Top Prince]

A pox on me, for even clicking this thread.

 

[jick]

You're basing a comparison on the fact that both bands have sold a lot of records and have had outlasted most of their contemporaries. Yeah...so? Bon Jovi is still a good band that writes catchy rock/pop tunes and performs them well. And U2 is still the best band on the planet with a back-catalog of some of the best songs and albums in rock and roll. And there's still no comparison.

You nailed it in the head. Both bands have outlasted their contemporaries. I find it funny when people refer to REM and Radiohead as U2's contemporaries. They hardly are close.

And yes, U2 is the best band in the planet, but that can't stop one from comparing them to other bands. Bon Jovi is sort of a "mini-U2" or U2-on-a-smaller scale. Bon Jovi's commercial success still defies logic, but U2's defies it even more. It is puzzling how a band 20 years into their careers can still come up with an album that sells 2 million US and 8 million worldwide (Bon Jovi's Crush), but if that is puzzling, then U2's must even be more puzzling at 4 million US and 12 million worldwide. So yes, Bon Jovi isn't exactly like U2 -- just a mini-U2 ....but no other band, not the Rolling Stones today, Radiohead, REM, Depeche Mode, or whoever else can lay claim of being a mini-U2.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

 

[jick]

You keep basing your comparisons on the most trivial information. We've established that they're both successful rock bands that make a lot of money.

And what do you mean you can't measure "artsy stuff"? So you never make any judgements as to the relative quality of different bands' music?

Being successful and making money at this late a stage in their career is not trivial information used for comparison.

To your second point, one person's art can be another person's trash and both opinions can be valid and logical. But when it comes to album sales, radio airplay, MTV airplay, concert attendance ...these are things that are absolute and that there are no two ways to argue. Just look at the POP album, it has left so many U2 fans confused, and many just singing praises for it. Both sides make their points and both sides make sense, but none of them can argue or deny POP's 1.3 million US sales because it is an abosolute number.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

 

[jick]

Yes, they are 2 peas in a pod.

I don't like BJ & I don't see anthing parallel musically between them & U2, but if you do, it's all good. Enjoy.

I tend to agree with you. Hardly anything parallel in their music. While U2 prefers to write about lemons, God, and politics ...Bon Jovi prefers to write about relationships, the working class, and narratives. But sometimes there are rare instances just like solar eclipses ..where both bands write on the same wavelength. Bon Jovi's 1993 effort "Keep The Faith" and U2's 1997 effort "POP" seem to compliment each other in both themes and musicality. But generally, there is nothing similar in their music and to my mind U2's music is far more superior. But the similarities I pointed out have more to do with longevity and commercial success, where both bands are defiant of father time.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

 

[jick]

A pox on me, for even clicking this thread.

What is a pox?

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

 

[Hallelujah Here She Comes]

Being successful and making money at this late a stage in their career is not trivial information used for comparison.

It isn't necessarily. But in this case it is because you've failed to show why a comparison based on it is meaningful.

 

[jick]

Let's end this now ..

I think this thread has dragged on long enough and the most recent pages of this thread have just been the same few people (me included) engaging in this circuitous arguments which just tend to beat the point established to death. I think it is high time this thread be closed. The point has already been established - the parallelisms between Bon Jovi and U2. Please let this thread die. If a moderator is reading this, perhaps it's time to lock the thread. Or just please not reply to this anymore. The point has been proven - no use in beating a dead horse.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

 

[Johnny Swallow]

DON'T DIE THREAD, WE LUV YUO!!!1!!

It can't end now, we haven't even started on how stupid they are for using a voice box constantly.

*RING RING* Sambora it's for you, 1975 called. Peter Frampton wants his voice box back.

Honestly, I'd much rather endure 20 years of Creed than Bon Jovi. Nickleback even.

 

[ishkash]

Re: Let's end this now ..

I think this thread has dragged on long enough and the most recent pages of this thread have just been the same few people (me included) engaging in this circuitous arguments which just tend to beat the point established to death.

If we remove the thread part, thats the best autobiography ever.

 

[walkon11]

Hillarious

DON'T DIE THREAD, WE LUV YUO!!!1!!

It can't end now, we haven't even started on how stupid they are for using a voice box constantly.

*RING RING* Sambora it's for you, 1975 called. Peter Frampton wants his voice box back.

Honestly, I'd much rather endure 20 years of Creed than Bon Jovi. Nickleback even.

LMAO...hillarious...rightly said.

 

[mmmBono]

20 years of Creed and Nickelback?
Just shoot me now! LMFAO!
You've got to be kidding!
How about sending them all off to an island where they can all choke each other to death with their pyrotechnics and voice boxes!And they can compare which of their *ahem* socks are bigger....
LOL @ the Peter Frampton voice box thang...oh you have no IDEA how hard I'm laughing!

 

[Whats The Story?]

One of the things that pisses me off is those ridiculous layered backing vocals they uses, like there is 20 Jon Bon Jovis backing him up, it sounds terribly cheesy. For an example of this effect, see "Livin' On A Prayer"

 

[U2girl]

Hmm when a thread goes to 12 pages i gotta look



I dunno - i don't know BJ's music enough to make a comparison. I used to have New Jersey (i think that's what it was called - the one with Lay your hands on me, Bad medicine etc...?), i heard a few songs over the years: Keep the faith, Sleep when i'm dead, Bed of roses, Always, Hey God, Crush, Everyday...i'm kind of indifferent.
Some of it i liked, some of it i didn't like but somehow it was the kind of "i like it but i'm not going to buy it i just hear it now and then"-kind of thing. I guess if U2 is know for their spiritual and political influenced songs BJ is known for ballads and love songs. To each his/her own.

I saw bits of BJ's live performances too and they're ok, maybe a bit cliche in that area, nothing really spectacular.