Fiddy band member deadbeats.

:pimp

Much like Jon Bon. He made them all millionaires.

this is pretty cool, epi re-created the very guitar ace played at budakan, that's saying something about ace's contribution to kiss being who they are/were.

http://images.epiphone.com.s3.amazon...N_011811A1.jpg

Dyna_mo,

Apple felt Steve Jobs was a liability and they forced him out. Took them very little time to nearly go bankrupt and beg for him to come back. Apple ultimately continued to change the world with the products they made under Jobs, Jobs leadership and Jobs vision. Of course a lot of people played important roles in the company - that doesn't make a company successful. And those "important people" as Bon Jovi would not hesitate to demonstrate are not essential to success and are replaceable.

A great example - didn't Ace become a heroin addict and have to be let go? Also, his solo effort was so horrible it was depressing. If your logic held true, his solo efforts would have been successful. As it was, he was a dipshit that needed to be fired. Paul Stanly didnt do much better on his own either.

are you in agreement that it's a wize business decision to fire a key employee (responsible for bringing in a reasonable % of customers) for asking for a raise?

No. I understand the importance of leadership and vision and the rarity of a man having the ability to make it happen. It was proven what happens when you drive that away

So then losing Richie should leave minimum impact. :winkwink:

Metallica has been through multiple bassists.

Van Halen has been through multiple singers, and back again.

I've seen Metallica maybe six times, I would see them another six times no problem, don't care who the bassist is. Van Halen fans would have a similar story?

solo effort has nothing to do with the gestalt of a band or how significant the contribution of that member was to the overall success. heroin use has little to do with any of it, ginger baker was a junkie for decades and was kicked out of some (all?) of the most prolific bands of the late 60s/early 70s, yet he is considered the best drummer ever.

y'all seem to think the one band member who can come up with merchandising and make all the guys millionaires is more important than the guy who wrote and played an epic solo that the japanese so freaked out over, the world went ballistic.

i'm not saying he's not and the other's should very well be grateful, but, he's being put in a postion to do that came after the band played their music.

You are taking about art. We are taking about the overall success of certain bands as a business. They are not the same thing and being an incredibly successful business does not equate to phenomenal music or visa-versa.

It is Jon Bon Jovis business. It's his to hire and fire as he pleases. That's all.

KISS is a very mediocre rock band that was marketed exceptionally well. Additionally, it was Simmons who wanted the makeup, costumes and look and it was basically him and Stanley that started the group I believe. It is a brand, not a band. Non Jovi is a brand, not a band. Metallica is a brand, not a band. That is why they make so much money. It doesn't matter who plays drums or bass.

well, i think you are taking a snippet of comment, i am trying the say the sum of the band is greater than the parts.

sure *some* bands can get replacements, but a replacement for the original band member back when they were creating the original magical song/album? no.

and sure hagar replaced roth, and well done too, but what if eddie left the band and the band replaced eddie with hager? same magic? doubtful right? that's what i'm saying, there's a certain i don't know what that makes up a band breaking through. richie sambora was a part of that for me, and i'd be upset i'd be missing him if i plunked down cash to go see them only to find out he was fired for asking for a raise.

i would see it differently if sambora was the one who bailed on the fans after not getting the raise, i would think he is the dickhead in that scenario.

My point with Ace Was that he wanted to be lying in a motel 6 shooting smack and banging crack addicts and he was not missed. If he was critical to the success of the band, he would have been missed.

More important based on who's standards? A business? Absolutely. An artist? Probably not, they are all sitting in the corner bitching because nobody appreciates them.

How many amazing artists are out there that nobody has ever heard of? Do they even matter? Richie Sambora would most likely be just another washed out musician clinging to his youth had it not been for a great marketing/business plan behind him.

Really not sure how you can deny that. Again, there are countless amazing no-name artists out there without a dime in their pocket and nobody knows their name.

The best product in the world doesn't matter if nobody knows it exists?

You are basically arguing that McDonalds is successful because they make the best hamburgers on the planet and if bob isn't standing there cooking them, nothing is the same, therefore bob deserves much of the credit.

It was Eddie's band. He was the driving force. It was his damn name on the album cover. He was the one with the unique twist.

Replace the singer, nobody will care. Replace the drummer, nobody will care. Replace the bassist, nobody will care.

i don't see any business decisions bon jovi made to get that slippery when wet lp to sell millions. that's what i am saying. he sung on that, not even sure if he wrote any music for it though. nevertheless, my point is there has to be a real true, instrinsic product at the core or all the money and merchandising in the world won't make any of the band members rich.

the music had to have come before the dolls and halloween costumes. and that band member was just a member of something larger than life at that time.

Additionally, almost EVERY band that has seen success and that continued playing for any period of time had changes in band members. Unless you're a music fanatic or critic or writer or musician, you'd struggle to name almost any of the replacements.

that plan was not bon jovi's at that time. it was the record label's.

It's him. His face to female fans. If he looked like Lyle Lovett we wouldn't be having this discussion.

it doesn't matter for the sake of this argument if it was eddie's band, could sammy hagar have replaced eddie van halen at guitar? no.

i am only looking at bon jovi here. but several iconic bands that have the original members would have a difficult time, u2, rolling stones, etc.

hah, i don't even know where to begin re: how silly this analogy is. i mean rly. it's almost insulting.

People still care about these guys. Amazing. Didn't realize they were still around.

tbh, i haven't rly taken this into consideration, but yeah, mtv was exploding then too, sure i can see that contributing. but for east coast rock, it's them and springsteen at the top. that's not just because dude has a purdy face right? it's because their music.

Again - Rolling Stones, I only know mick jagger
U2 - bono

It would change nothing to the average person interested in U2 to know the bass player changed

You can't have Bon Jovi without Jon
You can have Bon Jovi with 3 new band members
He can still perform the same songs, sound the same, create new songs and sell out stadiums. Ritchie Sambora? He could not.

Hey idiot

When you don't know what you're talking about it's best to stfu. He was a VP at labatt concerts and also now works with live nation. So no he is not a roadie. He has met and dealt with many artists, there is a difference between being hard working and successful then being a cunt which I'm sure you can relate with the latter.

To be fair, didn't he marry Julia Roberts?

Wait, that's actually kind of the opposite of fair.

Pink Floyd does very well without Waters.

Waters does alright on his own.

Sambora without Bon Jovi, I don't see it.

You really can't call anyone an idiot expecting its intended effect, and have that scarf on. If you had only had a beard, you'd be gay Taliban.

:2 cents:

Roger Waters has been selling out every show while touring for The Wall.

On the flip side, Pink Floyd sells out every show they play without Roger Waters.

As long as your one of the pillars, or the pillar of the band / brand, the show will go on.

i completely disagree with this on rs and u2. but tbh, i am not one of the big fans of east coast rock and you very well may be right that bon jovi could continue their legacy tour without original members.

nevertheless, my op stands, it's a dickhead move to 1. fire someone for asking for a raise and 2) to bail on whatever % of your customers you've sold tickets to marketed as the original band.

It's also a dickhead move to ask for a raise during the tour. Don't you think? Sounds more like extortion and firing in that case sounds pretty good to me.

Do you honestly believe the conversation went "hey, i'd like more money".... "too bad, you're fired". Or do you think demands were made, leverage was used, ultimatums were made, probably attorneys/labels were involved, heated words were exchanged, legal threats were made and a very difficult business decision was made that no one wanted to have to make - just as much for legal reasons as for business and financial reasons?

You cant seriously be this naive about business....

again, my point is water's original contribution to the band,
pink floyd could not have replaced waters and made dark side of the moon.

and if fans are made aware of who pink floyd is made up of, and they buy tickets to see that ensemble, sure, i have no problem, but to have a battle of the egos and an original band member fired mid-tour 35 years later is not mba level business thinking.

settle down. the very first words i put in this thread were "we are all guessing" i didn't mean that for you to guess some wild ass shit about how i thought the convo went.

you went back and added this? wow. enjoy your thread.

No, i didn't. I read what L-Pink wrote and added "leverage was used".

So...........hmmm........... :)

You are guessing when you say its a dickhead move to fire someone "for asking for more money" referring to the bon jovi situation. Thats offering conclusion that assumes quite a bit. Not speculation. ;)

I think we should all quietly walk away from this before someone points out we are fighting over Jon Bon Jovie ………….

I saw this a little while back. It is a very good movie and it makes it pretty clear that in this band Jon pretty much runs everything and the rest of the guys show up and do their job.

What we don't know in this situation is how much Sambora asked for or how the negotiations went down.

I doubt he went to him and said, "I think I deserve more money." Only to have John respond with ,"You're fired!"

The documentary eludes to the fact that Bon Jovi and Sambora have had a rough relationship over the years. They fight, but eventually make up because they are both smart enough to know that they are better off with them both on that stage. I will not be surprised to see this worked out and him back soon.

Lmao!!! Thread over!!!!

I'm just defending his hair.

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/...+Jovi+0988.jpg

All of this has been ironed out decades ago what their % was. Asking for more is an insult. Richie probably copped an attitude & Bon jovi fired him. Rightfully so.
Ds

for all we know a variation of that is exactly how it went down. we're talking out our asses about rock star egos and millions of dollars.
and that's not naivete. for all we know this was a drunken email exchange between a couple washed up rockers, in the end who gives a shit, it's not worth making comments about it personal.

all this rock star shit usually boils down to pussy anyway, prolly has nothing to do with money or old deals.

All bands are corporations. Each band member is an employee of the group that work for the corporation that is "Bon Jovi, inc". It's the same setup as the usual boy bands. With a little capital, good eyes and ears, you could hire someone to be a part of "The Tony286's", and promote that company, er, brand, just like you would any solo model of any solo model website. They get the recognition and star-power while you reap most of the $$$.

The music industry is filled with stories about bands/singers who had hit songs, sold out big world tours and were still broke because of the way the contracts were and how the companies were formed. They end up with very little and others behind the scenes get most of the money.

There is a famous story about a singer who goes into a record label (this was in the 1950's) and he tells the label president that he wants more money. His song is getting played heavily on the radio and selling like crazy in stores and he has only gotten a few hundred dollars. The label head hands him the keys to a brand new Cadillac that he drove to work that day and tells him that the car is his. The singer is very happy. This is more than he had hoped for.

After the singer leaves the room another guy who was there tells the label president how generous that was of him. The label president laughed and told him the car was a rental so the guy will get a few days of happiness from it before trouble finds him.

They're not getting rid of Bob are they? I'll have to start eating at Burger King :(

I am personal friends with Phil and Lindy (who are expecting the birth of their SON any day now ....), and Phil has been told to keep his day-planner open, and to put Phil and the Drills 'on ice' until further notice ....

Sambora sounds pretty fired to me ... and it's been a long time coming - like 6-7 years coming!! :winkwink:

No hits, there would of been not much of a business to manage. :2 cents: