Bon Jovi's empty comments are nothing new. About 25 years ago Sting also commented on Mick saying something to the effect of " I won't be on stage performing when I'm forty like Jagger" Well low and behold Sting is still doing it, and while he has far more talented than Bob Jovi, I am willing to bet BJ will follow the same path.

While I can't stand the music of BJ, he does have a strong following and is well paid for it; so don't look for him to quit anytime soon, even though he has long past the stage of "nostalgia act"; he seems too ignorant and oblivious to acknowledge.

(he seems too ignorant and oblivious to acknowledge.) right on...

"Sounds like all these people are jealous of the Stones and know they will never be as big as them. Its sad when your still the best at something you love and people tell you to quit just because they know they can not compete with you. And yes the Stones are still the best live performing rock band in the world I think the reviews and the ticket sales speak for themselves."

Well said Rickster. 100% agree. Also, the last Stones albums IMO have been very good (VL, B2 or ...almost great (AB. The last Floyd albums? IMO mediocre if not worse than it. In 1994 Stones (first) and Floyd (second) were the most attractive and the most successful live acts in the world. In 1997-98 were Stones and U2, as nowadays are. Since middle 90s Pink Floyd is only history. Past. A pespectable and glorious part of the music history, of course, but ...history. The Stones are still alive, kicking and rocking. Gilmour have to accept this, with dignity, without being an envious old fart.

I think the Stones still prove that they're by far the greatest live act and that's why they attract millions of people despite these ticket prices, also despite the so high frequency of tours in the last 12 years. Their performaces have high standards of quality, and yes, of energy. Wyman admits it when he says "the Stones are still touring because Mick and Keith want to hear people saying how great they are". Yes, Bill, people say it and people have right. What's your problem??

The so boring and so conservative cliche that the Stones should be now a bunch of inactive grandfathers sounds foolish in my ears. It's a kind of facism to say "you must grow old under our rules": Stones is a huge phenomenon, not something usual or common. And this kind of facism turns to ludicrousness when some artists who WERE successful are demanding from others who ARE successful: "Don't do it, because we can't do it..."

There is some unreasonableness here. During SW/UJ tour a member of Clash (Mick Jones, if i remember correctly) said: "I love Stones but their tour is pathetic, they're too old to rock and roll". A few more artists said something like Mick Jones had said. Then the Stones were 46-47. This is approximately U2's age today but, fortunately, nobody says "don't do it, touring is a game for younger folks".
Van Morrison on tour? No problem. Roger Waters on tour, presenting The Dark Side Of The Moon (sometimes we're talking about nostalgia...)? Fine. Bill Wyman on tour? Great. Iggy Pop on tour ? It's OK. Patti Smith on tour? Fine. Bob Dylan on tour? Nothing wrong. Black Sabbath, Deep Purple or Scorpions on tour? It's OK too. Old bluesmen on tour? Wonderful. ROLLING STONES ON TOUR? "OH, THEY BECOME A PARODY OF THEMSELVES", blah, blah, blah. Why? Probably because they're the best, the greatest and the most succesfull band as live act. What a hypocricy!


Recently i saw somewhere statements of Sisters Of Mercy about the Stones: "Ôhey're great on stage and it's amazing how many people want to see them once again. A person who pays for Bil Joel should be fired, a person who pays for the Stones is OK".
I think the difference between bands like SOM and the Stones accusers it's obvious. The "prosecutors" have been great and "monsters" for a few years or for decades. So everybody of them has some reasons to feel like a competitor.
OASIS? They have been nicknamed "new Beatles" by the music industry in the middle 90s. Let's see if they 're able to fill up stadiums everywhere except England, let's count how many people are attracted by their recent tours.
BILL WYMAN? He said in 1993: "1989/90 tour was the last big Stones round". But without him the Stones played (1994- 2006) to 18 million of people so far!
BON JOVI ? Just see the Billboard tour -figures (ticket sales, attedance/capacity of the venues) of 2003, just draw comparisons between him and the Stones.

Find out some dignity, guys. If you consider envy as solution, your problem must be very serious...

Mistake. I'm apologize. My post was for another thread. "Gilmour on the Stones"...

i like bon jovi's older music alot. i still buy the new cd's though. to be fair those statements are taken out of context and bon jovi was not straight up dissing the stones. the statements had to do with questions about album sales and concert tickets being sold. jon was talking about being dissapointed the stones great new album sold so poor in america but tickets sales are always good. he said the sales of a bigger bang should be through the roof and concert tickets sell so fast now because its not the die hard fans its business people going thats why so few people know the songs there. he said if his album sales vs. ticket sales got like the stones, bon jovi cd's still sell roughly 2 million in america, he would consider it a nostalgia act and hang it up because he knows the true fans weren't at the concerts.

keefriffhard4life, even Bon Jovi means what you suppose he means, his statements are a bit foolish. First of all, if a band plays live to millions of people the claim that "the true fans aren't at the concerts" is unfounded if not rediculous. I can't imagine 4 millions of "business people" paying so mutch to see something they don't really love- can you? And what the hell "die hard fan" does definitely mean?

With reference to album sales, IMO is childish judging by what happens ONLY in the US market, even this is so huge. Just an example: a few weeks ago King's album (a raper, i guess) sold 522,000 copies in the US. According to Billboard it was the "best sales week of the year" and the "best selling album since 2005 Christmas season". How many copies this man had sold during the particular week worldwide ? He sold 525, 400. After second week he had sold 658, 000 copies in the US and only 52,000 in the rest of the planet! In other words, monster in the USA, but unknown in the rest of the planet...

Worldwide ABB, which had 1.1 million copies after it's second week, almost 2 millions when it left the global Top-50 and 2.6 millions for the time being, sold clearly better than the last Springsteen's album (during 4 weeks 851,800 copies) and than the last Pearl Jam's record (841,500 in 3 weeks). A bit better than the last Tool's album (1,367,100 in 3 weeks). Much better than the last Pink's album (1,067,500 in 7 weeks). Scales better than the last Prince record (he left w/w Top-50 having sold only 800,600 copies) and many scales better than Strokes, Massive Attack, Placebo and Flaming Lips. With reference to the other rock bands, in the last months only Red Hot Chili Peppers outsell the Stones. If someone believes that ABB sales are poor worldwide, he must be ignorant.

keefriffhard4life, if my memory is correct (2005 albums sales- Billboard's list) in Europe ABB, which was #14 best selling album during 2005, outsells Bon Jovi. With his "logic" he shouldn't tour in Europe!...

PS BTW, are you sure that Bon Jovi sold 2 million copies in US? I doubt of it a bit- maybe Georgelicks will tell us...

Who's Bon Jovi?

stickydion...well said!

go to billboard.com and look at the billboard 200 and you'll see bon jovi's new album is certified platinum or double platinum and still is in the top 40. did you see a stones concert this year? i went to the one in VA and when they played any new songs, which due to bomb scare all i got was rough justice and onnya, about 2,000 out of the 66,000 people were singing and people in my section started to sit down untilmiss you was played. most the audience were seated for all down the line and sweet virginia, thats a travesty. bon jovi knows how to market themselves well. they recorded a country style song with a female singer who i guess is popular in country and now they have a big hit. a few years ago it was making a video for "it's my life" they barely showed the band but instead showed young people doing whatever it took to get to the bon jovi concert, plus the album was produced by a current trendy producer. yes they sold out compared to the old music but at lest its bon jovi onstage not bon jovi, 3 backup singers, and a horn section. thats selling out too. the stones raw was awesome. dump the backup singers but lisa, keep bobby keys on sax and keep chuck. anyones the point is bon jovi was not trying to badmouth the stones he was bad mouthing the fans for not buying the new album that he likes. all they did was rearrange his responses and leave out some of the questions asked to him. trust me bon jovi loves the stones. i do remember him saying somewhere though he would rather see a stones unplugged type thing like a blues artist instead of big tours and guys in their 60's parncing all over the stage.

Does Tim Ries, the rest of the horns, Bernard, and Blondie really hurt the band so much keef? Come on. That same old line gets old. Although I appreciate the effort. It's good to get different opinions and it sounds like you know something about Bon Jovi. But obviously you are going to get bashed for it. Cheers!

I still don't know who Bon Jovi is.

yeah even though i own ever stones album and most solo albums and bootlegs and think the stones 1000x better songwriters and musicians than bon jovi i see the bashing coming. i was just trying to inform everyone that bon jovi didn't come out and say "yeah the stones are old and suck and retire". just normal press trying to start something. the backup people don't hurt the stones that much i just think they are overused. on certain songs (rocks off, brown sugar, sway) you need the horns and backup singing but other songs we've heard played without anyone but the stones and a keyboardist and maybe bobby keys on a few. at least they started shows with just the stones and chuck for 3 numbers, but they shouldn't play while the stones are on the b-stage either.

heres really how it was asked to jon bon jovi btw.
do you see bon jovi as popular when you are 60 as the stones have remained?
"I won't be like the Stones. No one can be like the stones."

does that mean you will retire soon seeing you are in you mid 40's?
"The minute that this is all nostalgia, that it's the fat guys, I'm out. Until then, I can't stop."

whats the worse thing you heard about the stones this year?
"You probably heard Keith (Richards) fell out of a tree a few days ago. Thats terrible. I saw them in concert this year and he was rockin out. I hope this doesn't change his playing or the stones plans to tour europe."

Could something like that ever happen to you or a bandmate?
"I can't speak for anyone else in the band but I don't envision myself being like that. I try not to do anything to possible harm myself and but the bands performance in question. But if it happens it happens. Life is life and keith wants to live each day to the fullest and you can't fault him for that."

so like i said leaving out the questions and taking only parts of his answers makes it look like he was bashing the stones. the rest of the interview talked about the concert he saw and how he was dissapointed so few people knew the newer songs. maybe if they charged $50 a ticket the real fans who knew all the songs could afford to come. then said but his band doesn't offer the most fan friendly price either.

keefriffhard4life wrote:

"go to billboard.com and look at the billboard 200 and you'll see bon jovi's new album is certified platinum or double platinum and still is in the top 40."

I see his album at #83 which is remarkable, of course, after all these months. But the album is certified platinum, not double platinum. And, don't forget, this certification doesn't mean in any case one million copies sold. Maybe yes, may be not. ABB is certified platinum too, but it sold 520,000.

Again we have an artist who tell the world what other artists should do. And again I don`t understand why they even care.

i see you're right it fell out the top 40 a few weeks ago. anyways who read the REAL interview that i put up the parts that are partlly quoted where bon jovi says nothing negative about the stones.

bon jovi is one of the most embarrassing bands ever:
the music is shit
their style in the 80s was even worse than u2s ( and that means a lot )
the shows are boring
bon jovi was a little fatty and now since ten years he is thin and thinks he might be mick one day

p.s.
the @#$%& thing richie sambora is putting into his mouth? what is that about
he should try cock maybe

I honestly don't mind some of Bon Jovi's tunes (although that "Who Says You Can't Go Home" one REEKS of new country!!), but he has to stop picking on the Stones. In my opinion, a lot of these bands like Bon Jovi and U2 will NEVER be as great as the Stones, even when the boys are long gone.

I like the fact that The Stones are still playing. I think one of the reasons is that they too have a passion for this band.

I've hated Bon Jovi ever since I was 8. I thought they were boring queer rockers, even at that age.