New Studio Album - Forever

Jon co-produces the albums. It's up to both of them. End of the day Shanks is who he is hired but both of their names are on there.

So bascailly you are saying no one should discuss anything unless we all have something positive to say!? Gotcha...

Do you really expect people not to discuss and give their opinions on clips of new songs?

And you really expecty people to watch the documentary and not discuss Jon/Richie/Shanks/Jon's voice. I mean, come on....

You have to realize that Shanks is hired by Jon to produce the albums. Therefore, Jon gets the final say..always! If Shanks says it's not good enough but Jon disagrees, guess what Jon wins. Because he pays the salaries.

Yes, and this is the main principle-agent problem with older bands I suppose. It's not just Jovi's producer that is hired by the band (or band leader), but basically every band strong/popular enough not to be dictated a producer from record company.

Not to repeat myself, I think having an outsider (employee ofc) produce it gives more objective and professional tone to making a record. Quality of producing is then secondary topic.

But just to add, your last point is too extreme, cause Bob Rock was also paid by Jon, and band was obviously frustrated with some of the workflow. But producer did have final say, cause he was paid to have final say. This is my preference. But I agree, it is obviously not Jon's preference, because if it was, Shanks would be a band member, and producer would be some big shot who is not afraid of Jon, and Jon would not fire him but endure the process for the quality and legacy sake. One can dream though

You think Jon would rather have Shanks as his guitar player full time than his producer? Honestly, why?

You misread me (or I was not clear enough). I said:

it is obviously not Jon's preference, because if it was ... (and here I put that counterfactual, which I said would be my preference)

Does it make sense?

I'm still not clear on what you're saying. You're not saying Jon but your prefrence would be Shanks as a band member and someone else producing? I think I got it now?

In short, yes.

In long, endure me haha
I'm saying that I agree with others that scenario with no Shanks is not realistic. Also, scenario where Jon gives more control to outsider producer is not realistic, otherwise he would already have done it. But I can wish for that still.

If I need to endure Shanks around Jovi, I would rather one of two options. Either as band member only, or as a producer only (thus, leaving the creative process and songwriting to band and others, and dealing only with the band when it comes to studio, like traditional way). But those possibilities have sailed long ago, so I'm just venting I guess.

That's why I said, if it was by my preference, then Jon would hire an outsider who he would perhaps hate later, but would be prudent enough to endure one album cycle with him in relative charge and perhaps we get material that stands the test of time. Cause my main argument I guess the whole time is that I am very against an insider producing the album. Cause then it's basically Jon having his way with his pal and good friend, and everybody is too comfortable and homey.

On that, everybody is saying to me, but it must be like that because Shanks is hired by Jon. But, it doesn't have to be like that. It is like that, it doesn't have to be. It's different. Otherwise any other band in the world who hires a producer would always get their way and nobody would be forced or pushed a little beyond their immediate will in studio. Being an employee is not the same as being the best pal with the frontman. Dynamics are different.

That's why I say, if Shanks needs to be around because Jon wants him, I'd much rather he is in a band only, co-writing, etc.

Discussing it is fine, but there is something to be said about making the same points ad nauseum.

If you are an 80"s rock fan and that's all you listen to Bon Jovi for, the band is no longer for you. The only thing that the band will give you now is disappointment.

If you are expecting ballads like Always, this band is no longer for you. It will only leave you with disappointment. If you are expecting/wanting Jon to change producers, the band is probably not for you anymore. It will only leave you with disappointment.

I just can't imagine hanging around somewhere and discussing a band that no longer brings you any enjoyment.

A majority of posters just seem to dislike a vast majority of what the band releases, or even what kind of person Jon is nowadays.

Isn't it tiring? Why not just say the band is not for me anymore and move on? Honest question.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

Well I can only say in my name. I was away for a decade. Then, Jon's change due to vocal struggles, then new material, and most importantly, hope that voice will be back somehow, leaned me back in.

Perhaps some accumulated frustrations about certain aspects of modern decline are going out. Perhaps too much. I can acknowledge it's tiring for you to read some of these discussions. But then again, forum would be quite dead without much of it, you can always ignore it.

Since the beginning, I remember most diehard fans would regularly be also most critical. Perhaps it's also a cultural thing. I am always more vocal and critical about things close to my heart or preferences.

But to be clear, I get your point, my perspective also is to try and be more forgiving to the band in these last years, after 40+ years of existence. I am grateful if they go on tour once again, and I will go no matter the voice.

At the same time, I think its' reasonable to discuss counterfactuals or controversial aspects, especially as this seems the time of retrospection for the band and fanbase.

But to say band is no longer for somebody, well I do find i can live without modern Jovi output very much. But I also enjoy hope and anticipation, even one potentially good song (Living Proof) brings me joy. As does discussion about missed opportunities and unfulfilled potential with some of the others, why not