i wonder if he learned that at b-school, alienate some of fans paying huge dollars to see the original band intact.

I live in Austin. I can go downtown tonight and every other night of the week and hear amazing music at a dozen different bars (every single night) being performed by broke musicians that can barely pay their rent. Meanwhile, Britney Spears is a multimillionaire.

Where do they get so much money to pay 2mil/month "salaries"?

Where? If we leave out concerts and royalties.

So again - I suspect 2 mil is not just salary but royalties + salary. Maybe "salary" is just 100K and 1.9mil is royalties?

Correct! When you leave decisions to dipshits in the name of fairness, democracy and consensus, you end up with one suspiciously effeminate band member dressed like a fucking kitten.

right on, austin is pretty much the only city in tx i would ever think of returning to visit, i lived there 6 years, hey, i even lifeguarded at barton creek! saved a kid's life there. fun times......... and 6th street, pfft. i don't remember much but i did see some crazy shows, green day at antone's FUCKZzzz1

but britney spears is an entertainer, her entire life was that, she was a mouseketeer, a child television starthe music business knew about her and she was in.


starving musicians don't really shed light on this. just because someone has talent or plays amazing, does not guarantee that they get to be bon jovi status. it should, it's hard enough to track down fresh new music these days.

gene simmons was not the mastermind behind kiss live at budakahn, the event which catapulted kiss to instant worldwide rockstar status. like bon jovi, his business decisions came later but had no impact on the fundamental product- the music. money sure.


http://www.everythingkiss.com/Play/P...s_mego-new.jpg

Gene Simmons is the single driving force behind the brand, the enduring success of the brand and the merchandising (and a pioneer in that area). Always has been. That's not a disputable fact.

thus, the picture of the kiss dolls.

On my phone - didn't see the pic :)

i just really think there is a gestalt in a band. the sum is greater than the parts. sure, gene simmons made the guys a lot of money. but he's only a member of the band. man, paul stanley put a big imprint of his style on kiss, ace frehley, if he could not shred like he did, then what? would gene spitting blood be enough?

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.