I think there's a misunderstanding as we're not talking about the same thing. It's hard to get your point across in few paragraphs. I'll start with conclusions. My point is there's a significant Shanks' culpability in both how modern Jovi sound and in production quality of modern Jovi albums. Your conclusion is there isn't Shanks culpability (correct me if I got that wrong).

If you attack my conclusion through relativization and say that it doesn't matter that Shanks personally is involved, cause Jon would just take another yes man instead and all would be the same or very similar, I would say that is a fair point. It is probably wishful thinking that anything would be different. Reasons why Shanks is here are the same in why Jon will not let him go, and why another producer would behave very similarly. But it's a discussion board and we can share counterfactuals and/or hope that somebody (perhaps by Jon's mistake) get hired and forces the band to do their absolute best (and then gets fired, why not). I mean, we are here to share.

All of this doesn't change the fact that Shanks oversaw worst and least successful records in Jovi catalogue. As he is here (and not some other yesman), I choose to criticize him (and Jon for that part) and not just resign to "it is what it is". I do not put all the blame on him, in fact all the blame is on Jon, but after the fact its' Jon's decision, I concentrate on Shanks and his role. But I respect that you do not, it is just a stance, not a factual disagreement.

Now, with the part about producing a music record, we are not talking about same things, you are not wrong, but please let me clarify. With usual caveats that every producer and every record are somewhat different, there are general guidelines in making a record. These start with songwriters, their pen, instrument and notebook. In our case, Jon with a guitar and bottle of wine late nights in his mansion and/or Jon, Shanks (and Richie) in same safe space going for it. This part I cannot have any problems with.

Second part is introducing the band to your idea (it can be scratch idea as one riff, or one riff and a verse, or complete song structure on acoustic guitar, whatever, it depends from band to band and from song to song; there are bands that just jam and something comes out of it, I would argue Jovi was never that band, though less important for the argument). BUT, this part is very important in how Shanks dealt and influenced the Jovi sound by enabling more comfortable and easy ways to do it. (and when I say Shanks, it can be whatever yesman since Crush, but this is exactly my point).

I will explain, but let me digress. Great records are made when bands and artists are pushed to the limit. When they are young, the sheer energy and talent needs to be guided by producer and then magic happens. When older, it can be even harder to get it out, due to energy and inspiration rather depleted. In any case, magic does not happen with "recording" of the record, but in the way there is a unique blend of band member's talents and visions in assembling the record. In Jovi's case those were Jon and Richie's way of writing and using harmonies, with in my opinion, key influence of producers in band's heyday.

Regarding recording (last phase), sometimes it can take hundreds and thousands of seperate takes in studio, but also not a rule, there are songs and bands that proud themselves of doing it in live studio setting, with minor subtle mistakes naturally creeping in the record themselves. Both are valid ways. To record drums alone is how it was done since 60's at least. To use samples or plugins, it is very common and again, valid choice, nothing wrong with that even for a rock band IMO. Same for any kind of overdubs. I emphasize, RECORDING the record is not the point of my argument. Recording is done one way or the other, but obviously with a band that knows material, normally doing first tracking with a click, and only then doing candidates for final takes. There's nothing here that Shanks does bad or relatively different than state of the art of music industry.

My main problem with modern Jovi is the way how the band gets introduced in the process. And I'm not naive in thinking that in 1988 Tico or Alec wereinstrumental in doing harmonics of bridge for several songs, I'm not stretching the argument to extremes, it was always mostly Jon and Richie doing the demo and then to other guys. But here comes the crucial job of a good, overall producer. He would try and emphasize the magic of a band working together, sometimes going more to details, sometimes backing off. But he would use the band. Most extreme example is Bob Rock producing KTF, and making the whole band go crazy for several months.

If you believe that Shanks does that no differently, okay believe. I cannot force this as there is no way it's coming from him and the band, we have no objective source whatsoever and yes, in the very end, this would be a speculation, but I'm not talking out of my a**. It is evident that with Shanks, more than ever, he takes Jon's (and Jon's and his) demoed takes on acoustic guitar and puts a programmed simple drum track on it. Then they proceed to finish it by adding or subtracking time for solo, changing chords for bridge, deciding on one more or less verse, etc. When song is kind of ready, he takes Jon in the studio and brings vocals onto programmed tracks of drums, keys, bass, all because they are programmed, its' all bland, middle of the road, cause you desperately need musicians to give it life. Afterwards, he ofc introduces the band. And then, modern Jovi does not get it done like in the past, precisely because they are comfortable and not pushed.

Main problem is exactly this timing. The process of arranging and finishing songs can take (and does take) months, and if you only introduce the band in the very late stage of it, you are making duds of songs, elevator music always with the same rythmic and chord patterns. And even more painful, it is bi-directional: it influences the way they write songs in the first place.