The enigma that is Bobby Bandiera.

I agree that there's a long history of egos and struggles. Richie admitted ages ago to being jealous of Jon's "it" factor and has said that in other bands he had been a lead singer (implying, I think, that he would perhaps like to have the opportunity to record an occasional lead vocal, like Brian May or Joe Perry has done). Jon has said things that made me think that on occasion he was envious of the attention Richie received. But I agree that it seems everyone accepted, from the beginning, that Jon would be the face of the band and they were okay with that - as long as they operated as a band (see "valued their input").

I don't think Jon had to insure that no one aired dirty laundry, because they all seem to be committed to that. Richie's first statement after Calgary was basically "...A band's like a family and family business stays in the family." I believe it was Jon who first hinted at band trouble ("... or you say I hate my brother and I'm leaving the band.") All the band members seemed to share the same work ethic, too, so there was no need for Jon to keep everybody at the top of their game.

I think you're right that it probably didn't happen overnight. Bobby's "Jon and Richie weren't seeing eye to eye anymore and one thing led to another and Richie's not around anymore" leads me to believe that it's been a progression, which I suspected from the beginning.

IMO, asking Jon to explain why he wanted to change a lineup that had worked well for 20+ years is hardly throwing a tantrum. And if the role play is close, Richie did listen to Jon's reasons. But perhaps you're right about him being an ego-centric twat. I mean, really, what self-respecting musician wouldn't be swayed by such strong reasons as "well, because we do... y'know... for a fuller sound."

You seem to assume that Richie was the only one who was upset by the addition of Bobby and that everyone else thought it was a good idea. I'd find that surprising since most of the fans don't even think it was a good idea! And they don't have a 20-year investment in building the band like the guys had at the time, plus it doesn't affect fans' income. We don't know how any of the band felt about it.

We do know that Bobby indicated that Jon knew "they" weren't going to be happy about it. (Richie would be "he" not "they".) Bobby may have singled Richie out simply because he was the one most affected by it, since the guitar is his instrument.

We've already agreed that at times CEOs have to make unpopular decisions and since the band doesn't air dirty laundry, we don't know if the others agreed or if, like Richie, they just had to accept an executive decision based on what Jon thought was best for the band.

So we don't know it was 4:1. Any CEO knows to give the impression of gaining buy-in (or risk mutiny), but it's pretty clear from Dave's comments in the WWWB video that it's Jon's call, whether they like it or not. Richie said that when he told Jon it was too soon to tour, Jon said, "Join or leave." Even Jon says the band is not a democracy.

I don't mean to imply that I think every decision is an arbitrary one or that Jon never consults with the band because I don't think that's the case, either. But I do get the impression that the band has less input these days than they did in the beginning. Although, to be fair, we also don't know if that's Jon's choice or the band's or a mix.

Did you mean to suggest that you think Richie "sulked" for nearly 10 years and through 4 tours, only to decide to up and walk away partway through a fifth one, over this one isolated incident? Because he wouldn't man-up and see past his ego, and realize that bringing Bobby in was a team decision? Even if it was a team decision (which IMO seems highly doubtful, quite honestly), if that were the case, I think he would have walked off during HAND, not 10 years later. If it played a part in Richie's walk-off, I think it was just one piece of the puzzle, not the catalyst.

It may have been where the changes you've alluded to in other posts started: the lack of passion in the music, the integrity of the brotherhood, the band dynamic, the enthusiasm for new projects, taking risks, etc. Just one of the many changes (such as the songwriting, lack of band input, etc,) that have turned Bon Jovi from a band into what sometimes seems to be Jon's corporation. I honestly don't think that's what any of them (maybe including Jon) signed up for in 1983.

RE: Your ETA2
I'm a little confused. I assume that by "if he had spoken out BEFORE making a mess" you are referring to the BWC tour. I realize that happened during your off-Bon Jovi period and you said you were kept only somewhat interested by the Richie drama. So you may have missed the interview where Richie said that he did speak up before the tour started and was given the option to "join or leave." Jon kinda confirmed that, btw, at least the speaking up part, at the first Runaway event after the tour when he said that "they all told me it was too soon".

I'm interested in when you think Richie behaved like a spoiled brat or blamed Jon, his ego, or his management for something everyone else agreed to. If you're referring to him walking off mid-tour, and not this incident with Bobby, please enlighten me about what you think was the 'something everyone else agreed to' that caused him to walk away? Inquiring minds want to know.

I’m just playing devil’s advocate here, Jackie, not taking sides. My apologies if it wasn’t clear enough.

In that radio interview it’s not difficult to deduce that the reason Richie left is dissatisfaction with Jon’s management over the years, probably going back to when he decided to change the lineup. Both ideas are sort of linked in the interview, whether it’s intentional or not (I think it is *wink*wink*). That’s why I’m imagining that scenario and trying to see things from all sides (Jon, Richie, the band). Again, as hinted in the interview IMO, it seems that Richie has been holding a grudge because things didn’t go his way, and I was wondering, if that’s what really happened, is it fair to the band to bow to his demands AFTER all has been discussed and approved? Sure, it could have gone like this:

Jon: “We need a new guitarist for… I don’t know… more guitars, we are a rock&roll band, right?
Richie: “No way, I’m the…” (Jon interrupts)
Jon: “Dave, Tico, remember your contracts are up next month, it’d be a shame if we can’t work something out...”
Dave & Tico (looking at each other nervously): “A new guitarist, sweet, somebody else to keep us company in the back. Great idea, man. You da best!” (both high five Jon)
Jon: “Deal”
Richie: “You didn’t even ask Hugh, what if …” (Jon interrupts again)
Jon: “Who? Richie don’t make me waste my time, each second this corporation, i.e. ME, is not doing anything useful, we are wasting millions of $, gotta keep the money flowing. Bye”

But, in all seriousness, I think having that discussion was not a bad thing. According to the interview, the timeline suggests Bobby was considered for the Bounce tour (an album with heavier guitars and other added stuff that Dave had to trigger with his keyboards). They all supposedly participated in the making/recording of Bounce, so they knew it had that *fuller* sound that needed more instruments live. Next album again had a more complicated instrument arrangement (they did a pre-show of HAND and had to change direction in some songs, so we could argue if it was something the band wanted, or something the record company made them do) so it wasn’t probably just Jon bringing his friend and forcing him upon the band for no other reason than being a friend and a guitar player; he felt that it was needed due to the band’s new sound live and it took 2 tours for the others to agree, hardly a dictatorial decision in my book since it was done to benefit the band’s live performance (we are speculating here based in what Bobby said and the type of albums/tours they did, OF COURSE). As I said in my previous post, I can imagine why this would upset Richie, but at the same time, Bobby was not someone designed to REPLACE him (although the fact that he does some solos -quite badly, even a guitar aficionado like me can see- is hard to justify), he’s supposed to have a specific role. But while we are pointing fingers at Bobby, let’s not forget that Jon brought a new songwriting partner that he found while in a hiatus from the band, and has been slowly replacing Richie. So, obviously it’s more than Richie throwing a tantrum over Bobby joining the band and waiting for the right moment to get back at Jon. It’s all those things piling up over the years and wearing him down. That’s not speculation, I think it’s pretty obvious.

On the other hand, the fact that the other 3 members of the band have backed up Jon after Richie bailed is very telling and answers the rest of your post (I knew you were going to reference Dave in the documentary because I thought the same since the Richiegate started ). Of course, it can be that they are in the band for the money (a totally legitimate reason, they deliver every night so power to them if that’s why they do it), but they way things have turned up, the way things were said in 2013 and had been said after the fact… I think it’s more than clearly hinted that it was Richie against Jon, while the band supported Jon. For the right reasons? I don’t know, not taking sides because I don’t have the facts. I’m a good judge of character, I rarely get someone wrong, so I know what I believe could have happened and it makes sense to me. But I’m not treating it as hard fact at all, I totally keep an open mind on this.

Hope that clarified some things. I think it’s an interesting discussion, did Bobby really trigger Richies discontent or is he merely a convenient scapegoat? (Poor Bobby, he's almost as evil as Jon lol)

I saw this after I sent my reply. When I said "before the mess" I meant over the years, even if he did before the tour started, it would have been already too late IMO. I find it hard to believe Richie needs the money so badly, so he either wanted to do the album and tour or didn't want to. Could have Jon said one thing in the beginning and change his mind later? ("chilax Richie, just come over a couple days to record some stuff and you won't have to see my face until the end of the break which I.. damn... we were in a break.. I totally forgot") Yeah, coulda... but to me neither of these two things make much sense:

• That Richie would be so adamant about not going back to recording/touring but going anyway for... what reasons? loyalty? then he would have waited until the tour ended; money? doesn't need, he has ended up doing what he wanted in the first place and I'm sure he lost some bucks along the way... we could discuss this all day long really (and I'm aware of the monster thread about Richie leaving the tour, I think everything has been covered by now)
• Jon screwing Richie if they really reached a compromise before recording WAN, or starting the tour or whatever. What would he accomplish? Who wins the pissing match? While I don't put it past them, it's an EXTREMELY STUPID BUSINESS DECISION, so again if it happened like this, it's hard to believe it being so black and white. Too many things at stake...

Regarding all things said: I don't know who said what, I've lost track of all the interviews and essentially half truths thrown around. I don't care, I don't believe most them. I remember being completely unaware of BJ during 2013 (having only heard the WAN singles and being absolutely uninterested) when Richie left. Without any previous pre-conception, I knew it was a more serious problem, probably definitive, than it was said since minute one, all because of what Jon said and how he said it. I don't even remember the words, but I remember the gut feeling. I mean when he essentially said they loved Richie, they weren't figting, he was going throw some personal stuff yada yada yada (the initial *saving face* speech). So in the end it really doesn't matter because we have tiny partial truths. It may seem that Bobby's words in the interview may stir the pot again, but my gut feeling (totally empirical way of proving things, of course) tells me that all sides have told their story the way they wanted and are at peace with what they did. Ya know, all that story behind the scenes that we'll never be privy to

Your last question, I think I already gave you the answer in the post above. It's in the case scenario I was talking. Don't have any clue if this happened in real life. But I'm sure both have behaved like spoiled brats at one point of their professional relationship. They both seem the type, albeit for different reasons

"...because we have tiny partial truths."

Bingo! That's what has troubled me since the beginning. It's never been that I believe Richie was right to do what he did, or that I think Jon is a lying evil bastard who forced him into an intolerable position. As you said, with only 'tiny partial truths' to go on, there's no way for anyone to know that. But using that same logic, I just can't help wondering how people can be so sure that Richie was wrong to do what he did, either.


Everyone knows the undeniable truth that all we have to go on are 'tiny partial truths', yet that hasn't altered their determination, in the slightest, to go right on ahead and judge a man's character on the basis of those 'tiny partial truths' and to make up their minds - irrevocably, it seems - on the basis of those same 'tiny partial truths' that there was no justification for what he did. So, therefore, it can only follow that he has no respect for the fans, he treated them like shit, he's a spoiled brat who needs to learn his lesson, he shouldn't be allowed back in the band, he can't be relied upon, he trashed the band (when, in reality, he has said nothing - with the one exception of the 'real thing' comment - that he hasn't said countless times, almost verbatim, over the years), he was disloyal to Jon and the band, he shit on the band's legacy, he's nothing but a liability, he's only in it for the money, he never stood for his principles, he was part of the problem and never tried to do anything about it...ad infinitum as nauseum.

While knowing, and sometimes even acknowledging, that we only have these 'tiny partial truths' they nevertheless leap happily from them to draw such adamant conclusions and claim, even while doing so, to be open-minded and neutral.

Just blows my mind. But as you said, "... in the end it really doesn't matter because we have tiny partial truths." And I guess that's all some people think they need.

The bigger question for me, I guess, is why I even care. People are going to believe what they want to believe and it's no skin off my nose regardless of what that turns out to be.

But he did. And that can't be denied, full truth or not. He left - for whatever reasons - but didn't even feel the need in one single interview (and there have been plenty) to apologize to the/his fans for not being there.

I just can't stand the man standing there, bragging on about how great he is, while being drunk again (and denying it while everyone with a clear mind can see it) and having the biggest mid-life crisis I've seen in a long time. Other people have way less money, possibilities and opportunities than he does and don't behave that way.

THNX for the transcription!!
sad to read about richies departure...read different opinions that imo both have many valid points.some thoughts

-richie has midlife crisis and looks and acts immature, the guy avoids to even mention the band, which in a way seems promising to me, because it still hurts me and maybe one day tries to make right from his part.

~jon looks far more mature and responsible but i m sure he had a big role in richies departure, these guys have been through so many together so jon probably made some big mistakes and forced richie out.(the fact that paul korzilius called jon and told him guess what...to me is a clear indication there was at least some fight etc)

-david and tico backing up jon shows many things imo, they wouldnt clearly pick sides if one of them was nt 90% right, to be honest though i d expect them to take an initiative and work sth out (richie who left has the biggest responsibility, jon the least cause he suffered the most having to recover all the shitstorm, maybe david and tico along with hugh could try to get them in a room, in the end i think jon will approach richie)

-sth on a sidenote, obviously momey is the main glue and their relathionships have suffered through the years, i remember in an interview richie was asked if any of the band/jon visited him while on rehab and noone had gone...a bit distant for brothers...

-richies copying mechanism seems to be distance from the problem or the situation that causes him anxiety/discomfort, thats how i explain his behaviour towards bj.

~jon i truly believe is a nice guy overall but is the only that gave a punch below the waist undermining richies contribution in the band...i realise it not fair to stay in one comment but this was really sad and sth that deeply insulted the band, richie and jon himself.richie should apologise for the way he left but jon also should apologise for dicrediting his"brother"

Here's an old interview done just before Bobby and Jeff Kazee joined Bon Jovi for a tour. Just to sorta put things in perspective. Feel free to click on the links below the article for more interviews.

http://www.chorusandverse.com/content.php?id=20050830A

Did I miss something here or doesn't that sound a little harsh for a supposed friend of Jon to say about him/them?

You missed something. You gotta know Southside to understand his language.

Actually, he did apologize - several times that I can recall - but pissed-off fans chose to disregard the apologies or to write them off as insincere or lame, half-assed attempts to get back into the fans' good graces.

And why were they pissed off? Because he had disappointed them by walking away and in the tiny partial truths we had available they could find no good reason for his behavior.

And why did they believe he was insincere? Because they had already made up their minds - based on what again? (psst....tiny partial truths) - that he was a useless waste of space who had disappointed them for no f'n reason whatsoever so he couldn't be believed anyway.

That's certainly your prerogative. But here's a thought.

In adolescence, it's "boys will be boys". In the 20s and 30s, it's "sowing wild oats". In the 40s and 50s, it's "a mid-life" crisis, and after that, "a second childhood."

Regardless of what you call it, Richie Sambora has been a bragging, drinking, horndog trying to 'find himself' since before you were born. And for the majority of that time he's also had more money, possibilities, and opportunities than most people will have in a lifetime.

So, what is it that changed: Richie or your perspective of him?

My guess is that it's your perspective. Which is based on (say it with me, now...) those tiny partial truths that we've had available to us.

As I said, people are going to believe what they want to believe. To which I'll now add, they also see what they choose to see in a given situation, which is usually heavily influenced by their expectations going in.