Disregarding Bon Jovi as junk music has become such an automatic standard reaction that most people don’t even think about it anymore, they just take that for granted, and this has made me think, why? Is it because of unsupportive critics and journalists (nowadays, even any regular blogger like myself)? But then again, does their (or my) opinion count more than the opinion of not just fans but people who like Bon Jovi in general? I used to just stop reading when someone started trashing Bon Jovi “just ‘cause”, because I always thought that since it’s a matter of opinion, we should have to agree to disagree, everyone’s entitled to one, even if we don’t like it.
Then instead of just not reading the bad criticism I started to pay attention to the information that’s presented as back up and found so many mistakes, misinformation, and partial truths that I decided I should right a couple lines in order to balance the scales and for people to have ALL the information to form an opinion by themselves (as it should be since the journalists’ job is to inform, and the critic’s job is to provide reference, background knowledge and perspective, but some seem to have just forgotten that) and these are my two cents towards throwing a different light on what they have to say. Bon Jovi don’t need defending, people will continue to love/hate Bon Jovi regardless, I won’t change the world, but it wil give me peace of mind just to get it out of my system. I’ll try to be as reasonable as possible. Promise.
I also know that it’s not all journalists and critics are BJ detractors, so those with a clean soul, please don’t take this personally. I won’t try to undermine your job, insult you or directly contradict you, either.
I have a huge list of artists and musicians I like (The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Johnny Cash to name a few) but listening to Bon Jovi is always like coming home, because they were there to say the things I needed to hear and say myself when no one would listen. OK, probably everyone has their own band/musician that did that for them, but in my case it was Bon Jovi, I can’t change that. And I’m not saying this as an apology, mind you.
* The more obvious criticism nowadays seems to be that Bon Jovi represent “unabashed commercialism”. I assume this is not based on the fact that they are best-selling artists, because if it is, then this label should be applied also to U2, right? They sell as many albums and concert tickets, so why don’t they get the same treatment? What’s more: it takes two to tango, baby, so if anyone’s to blame for their commercial success it’s us, the fans who support them, buy their music, enjoy it, go to their concerts, etc. It insults me to my very core when it’s implied that us BJ fans are “lured” into buying every little merchandise piece, every CD, DVD out there like we were dumb sheep. But surprise! The Beatles’ fans do it, The Rolling Stones’ fans do it. Why is it “wrong” if BJ fans do it? When did commercially successful become a synonym of bad quality? Maybe they write songs with the sole purpose of being commercially successful, just give people what they want to hear, throw anything at them and they’ll take it. This is like trying to explain the color red to a blind person: if you’ve never felt how a song supposedly written with the “let’s make a best-selling-hit” recipe, let’s say Who says you can’t go home, touches you in the very moment when you’re thousands of miles from home, for months, missing your families and friends, then there’s no way I can explain this to you, but let’s try more reasonable examples:
- The Lost HighwayCD, even when it was one of the most “commercially successful” overall, it was not so amongst fans (yours truly included) because it derailed from the rocker track, and If it was successful, it was because of a whole new audience they captured. They took a risk, who’s to blame if they were lucky?.
- When they first released the WWBT single and video, Richie received so many negative comments from the fans who expected more of his guitar solo that he went back into the studio to redo it before the album came out. We already know what we are gonna get, but we expect the best.
- “They released the GH CD just before Christmas in order to milk it”. So what? I’d do the same! So they have to be stupid to be respected? Are we living in the same world? These statements are contradictory with others that say that Bon Jovi are over because their success is not as big as it was in the 80’s. This is comparing apples and oranges. Do you really think that even Michael Jackson himself could have sold 40 million copies in the digital era? Please…
Bottom line: It’s their job, we like what they do and we pay for it. It’s as simple as that.
* Then there’s the “quality” issue. That they lack instrumental expertise, lyrical depth and musical relevance. This statement seems to ignore the fact that the guys have never claimed to be something they’re not. They’re humble in that way and remain just the kids that love rock n’ roll at heart, and that’s what makes them also so engaging, that we feel we can do it too. They acknowledge their influences and keep to a classic and traditional writing/composing/playing scheme. Let’s not forget the level of production of their records, that alone sets them apart from the rest. I’m tired of the criticism based on “You give love a bad name” and “Bad medicine”, nobody seems to give them a break for that, like that was all they ever wrote…please people DO YOUR JOB before spitting out nonsense and no, Slippery when wet is NOT a song. I think there’s no denying the quality, range, volume and character of Jon’s voice, the soulful and power of Richie’s guitar playing, the genius of David’s keyboard playing and the presence of Tico’s drums, but like we say in Spanish “No hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver” (The blindest people are those who are not willing to see).
Bottom line: It’s like being in love: if you don’t like something, let it go, you don’t dump your husband or wife because they have one or two mistakes, you take them as they are, warts n’ all. So what if they are not avant-garde, original or pretentious… that’s what we like about them! So what if they are not pioneers of rock. There's depth and heart in their songs, that’s what matters.
* “Bon Jovi is for mature women”, “Bon Jovi is for teenage girls”. Other than the fact that they don’t seem to agree, seriously, these people have NO IDEA what they’re talking about. Whoever says this CLEARLY has never been to a BJ concert, where you can see people from different ages, fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, friends, couples. Yes, there is a bigger percentage of 20 to 50 year-old women in the audience than usual, but again, and specially in this case, they are not the ones to blame.
* “Bon Jovi are just glamorous pretty boys”. So apparently not only do you have to be stupid to be respected, but you also need to be ugly?
* “Bon Jovi are an 80’s hair band”. Oh, remember you also need to NOT EXIST beyond the decade you became popular to be respected. Come on! Not only were they smart enough to go into hiatus when the 80’s collapsed and the grunge era began, but they also were smart enough to return to their roots (basic, classic rock n’ roll) and come up with something completely different from what they were doing (KTF) and then top it off with one of the best albums of all time (TD). Give them a listen (it doesn’t hurt) and if you still think those albums would fit in the 80’s then you and me have nothing else to talk about, have a great life.
Bottom line: They have stood the test of time and still make #1 records, 28 years and counting…
I could go on, but this pretty much sums it up. Some will continue to defend them for the same reasons we always have, and some will continue to attack them as they always have with the support of the musical status quo of the tour that has established what’s politically correct and what differs from its vision. But please before trashing Bon Jovi keep in mind: LEAVE.THEM.ALONE.
Hey baby, whose side you on?
