I remember when 'Aftermath' came out how Richie talked it up in interviews, said it was the most artistically-fulfilling thing he's ever done. On the "Kelly and Michael" TV show, the hosts asked him what musicians he liked performing with the most, and he said, 'These guys right here' (his solo band).

On its face, you could read Richie's latest Tweet as simply a re-statement of fact: It's not new information that he thinks 'Aftermath' is his best work as an artist. He's said that before.

As for Bon Jovi, Richie also seemed defensive in that Rumor Fix interview from a week or so ago, when asked if he was still a member of the band. He said, 'Who has writing credits on 14 albums? If I'm out of the band, it's news to me!' The fact that he mentioned the writing credits specifically in his response makes me think that this might be part of his contention with Jon (which ties in with what I was trying to get at by posting the Lou Gramm article earlier. Take out Lou Gramm, and you could theoretically have Richie (as co-songwriter) talking about Jon (as lead songwriter). We all know that Bon Jovi is run on Jon's vision. We all know Richie had fewer writing credits on 'WAN' than on any album previous. Why would it be such a stretch to think a similar creative conflict exists between Jon and Richie?

You could read both Richie's 'writing credits on 14 albums' and 'Aftermath' Tweet in the same light: As attempting to assert his place as a writer on his own terms. Surely, it's more fulfilling to write for yourself ('Aftermath') than for someone else (Bon Jovi) but Richie's contribution has been vital to the success of Bon Jovi and it's a relationship that has had its rewards: Jon and Richie are in the Songwriters Hall of Fame as a /team/. Yet, it seems 'WAN' was mostly written without input from Richie.

Richie's heart is still with 'Aftermath', obviously. If nothing else, the Tweet makes that apparent, regardless of any context regarding a supposed 'slam'.

EDIT--just something else that occurred to me: I agree that it seems as though Richie's personality has changed recently: It seems goofy, fun-loving, content-as-second-banana-and-foil-to-Jon-Richie' has been replaced by 'Assertive-perplexing-passive-aggressive-I'm-going-to-do-my-own-thing" Richie'. Whether for right or wrong (and we may never know this, either)--we do tend to make 'characters' out of our celebrities, because we do not know them personally. Chances are Richie might well be a mix of all of these things, but his 'dark side' seems more pronounced right now, and more visible to the public.

I remember a fan who said that, in an unedited version of 'WWWB' they had seen, Jon had joked with a reporter that they'd better have a plan for interviewing Richie, because if he didn't like a line of questioning, he'd walk away (the reporter decided to interview Richie on a yacht to ensure he'd stay put). At the time I heard this, it surprised me, because it didn't square with what I thought was Richie's more accessible, open and fun-loving personae. It made him appear juvenile, petulant, unwilling to be challenged, a bit of a diva.

Jon's hissy-fits onstage also point to a darker side to his personality, born out of his perfectionistic tendencies.

In short, I think that Richie's personality probably hasn't truly /changed/, but that, for whatever reason, it's been pushed to one extreme atm, and it's just one part of his character that we fans hadn't seen. Maybe he was in the same 'headspace' during the "New Jersey" fallout.