| Metal Reviews https://www.metalreviews.com/phpBB/ |
|
| Aerosmith - Your opinions? https://www.metalreviews.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=19508 |
Page 2 of 2 |
| Author: | Mike [ Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I love everything they released up through and including PUMP, except for the song 'Angel'. Yes, I even like the albums without Joe/Brad and I can even find good things to say about 'Done With Mirrors'. Anything post PUMP I find to be rather uninspired. |
|
| Author: | The Annoying Frenchman [ Sat Aug 18, 2012 7:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Almost agreed on the first part but Done with Mirrors is a real downer for me. Post Pump? Get a Grip and Nine Lives still had a handful of cool songs (Living on the Edge, for example) and, even on Just Push Play I can still find reasons to rejoice (very few, granted). It all turned sour on their pseudo-blues album, Honking on Bobo, which I was expecting a lot from and was just awful. I'll still be buying their next album (and the next one after that if it's ever released). Call it faith. 
|
|
| Author: | Mike [ Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I just hope that Tyler's departure from American Idol means that he's ready to concentrate on what matters. |
|
| Author: | falconpaawnch [ Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
70's Aerosmith is great. I never liked 80's Aerosmith, but it's still listenable as far as I'm concerned. 90's Aerosmith... 
|
|
| Author: | snake [ Thu Sep 20, 2012 4:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
i never understood aerosmith. i mean dream on was good so that era aerosmith was fine i guess. but for me aside from black sabbath alot of classice rock bands just dont do it for me. when i was a kid i went thru my 70's phase. i listened to led zep and played out the first four albums of thiers but where do you go after that? do you just keep spinning those albums? same goes for aerosmith. really the only two bands from that whole time period that retain their value for me are pink floyd and black sabbath. im at the point where if led zep comes on the radio i quickly turn it off. same goes for aerosmith. idk i guess if id have grown up with these bands when they were in their prime id have more of an appreciation for what these bands play. i do appreciate what bands like led and aerosmith did for music but i cant take hearing the same songs over and over and over. really how many times can you listen to whole lotta love??? |
|
| Author: | SilkCrimsonMoon [ Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Never was or became a smith fan. Never will be. |
|
| Author: | stub [ Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
snake wrote: i never understood aerosmith. i mean dream on was good so that era aerosmith was fine i guess. but for me aside from black sabbath alot of classice rock bands just dont do it for me. when i was a kid i went thru my 70's phase. i listened to led zep and played out the first four albums of thiers but where do you go after that? do you just keep spinning those albums? same goes for aerosmith. really the only two bands from that whole time period that retain their value for me are pink floyd and black sabbath. im at the point where if led zep comes on the radio i quickly turn it off. same goes for aerosmith.
idk i guess if id have grown up with these bands when they were in their prime id have more of an appreciation for what these bands play. i do appreciate what bands like led and aerosmith did for music but i cant take hearing the same songs over and over and over. really how many times can you listen to whole lotta love??? Many more times than i can listen to Enter Sandman or Master of Puppets. Led Zep/Aerosmith own Metallica's ass big time. 
|
|
| Author: | Mike [ Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
falconpaawnch wrote: 90's Aerosmith...
There it is! That's how I feel about it. |
|
| Author: | Adveser [ Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
snake wrote: i never understood aerosmith. i mean dream on was good so that era aerosmith was fine i guess. but for me aside from black sabbath alot of classice rock bands just dont do it for me. when i was a kid i went thru my 70's phase. i listened to led zep and played out the first four albums of thiers but where do you go after that? do you just keep spinning those albums? same goes for aerosmith. really the only two bands from that whole time period that retain their value for me are pink floyd and black sabbath. im at the point where if led zep comes on the radio i quickly turn it off. same goes for aerosmith.
idk i guess if id have grown up with these bands when they were in their prime id have more of an appreciation for what these bands play. i do appreciate what bands like led and aerosmith did for music but i cant take hearing the same songs over and over and over. really how many times can you listen to whole lotta love??? I totally agree Snake. Sorry about how my comments might have been perceived in that troll thread. I tend to make one idea someone has and write a couple paragraphs that are not related to their post. My difficulty using the correct articles, such as "you" when I mean "(some)one" rubs people the wrong way and adds to the confusion. I really don't like how some people will talk about all these old ass bands that have been eclipsed in both musicianship and songwriting and pretend that the newer bands just ripped off everything they did. It really needs to be said. Anytime anyone listens to a record to the point that they have memorized the songs several times over and in a wide array of emotional states that can be drawn upon when re-listening to those songs, you are going to be convinced it is great one way or another. People get a new record, especially in a time of disposable musical abundance, do not devote nearly the time they have put into a newer record and expect the same emotional resonance. People really expect an album to live up to the proportions they have imposed on their favorite albums through sheer reputation and repetition in an attempt to comply with the perceived opinion of such work that nothing can live up to it. The old bands are not better, they have just been heard far more times per person and a lot more people have been convinced by Rolling Stone, et. al, that they are indisposable masterpieces that only a moron would criticize. Personally I trust my own judgement and have enough faith in my own musical knowledge that if I disagree with a heavily favored album, I know I am right and refuse to argue with fanboys that don't realize that they have been mildly brainwashed into a sort of gospel of canonized rock n roll that applauds and marginalizes the same shit year after year. The only stuff that lives up to it's sales and reputation that was uber-popular and well regarded by many for me is Boston. I have never been that interested in pre-dio sabbath and am just now starting to listen to Deep Purple. Aerosmith are one of those bands where if you owned the LP's and played them enough, or someone else projected their opinion heavily enough, you would like those records a lot. Not to say there are not a great number of people that truly appreciate it, but in my experience people usually have flimsy reasons they liked the record other than they did not disagree with an overblown assessment of the material initially and grew to accept these opinions as their own. |
|
| Author: | snake [ Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
adveser. no hard feelings buddy. none at all. id like to add to what you said. ive been thinking a long time about this. if someone listens to a album enough times will they like it due to the fact that they have learned the album inside and out. i often wonder about this because for myself personally i have to listen to something quite a few times for it to sink in. the first listen i know i may like whatever album it is. like ill know it has potential. and on repeated listens it will sink in more. if someone listens to something enough times will that album become more listenable just because you've come to know the music? you know whats coming and you know the words. idk if this makes sense. the reason i wonder about this is because when i started getting into black metal i had to listen to a album ALOT to... i guess try and make myself like it??? i mean how many people can say they loved black metal the first time they heard it? it took some dedication and hard work for me to develope a appreciation for black metal. during this period i started to ask myself: if you listen to a album 25 times and learn every note and every word does this change your initial opinion. im really not wording this right. idk some times i get philisophical. anyway over the years ive come to love extreme music of all kinds. |
|
| Author: | Adveser [ Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I know just what you mean Snake. Sometimes a bass line will go totally unnoticed because you wanna hear the guitar riffs and the singing the first few times. Then when you see how it fits in there you see how it makes the whole song better. Once you know the lyrics and the groove of a song is when you can really feel it like it's got it's own language. A song really does have to have some immediacy for me however. There's gotta be a reason to go back to see if maybe this melody or that line or riff or whatever didn't communicate well and how it fits in there. Once you know the song, you see that it all works or not. It's gotta have something that is interesting the first time and it's true that all "classic" records have that and it makes people listen over and over. I absolutely hate the nature of someone writing songs on accident. You all know what I mean, the people that claim to know no theory because they just rip off other people's chords and pick the same notes for leads. No matter how inventive, this kind of approach just doesn't do it for me. When a band can't put together a good record anymore, it makes it seem like they didn't understand how they wrote material previously. Why is that bands that are notable for their muscianship rarely have this problem? Back to Aerosmith, I think it's very telling that their songwriting is greatly enhanced by a master of a producer, but they have always relied heavily on media exposure and have always catered to album sales. They can write their own music, but they have no soul for it anymore and are happy to be a vehicle for pop songwriters and heavy handed producers calling the shots. Their philosophy the last 30 years has been so backwards from what rock n roll is that it's hard to take their music seriously before that. |
|
| Author: | Wivian [ Tue Oct 09, 2012 9:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
70's Aerosmith 
80's Aerosmith - not as good, but still cool 
90's Aerosmith , agreed
After that, didn't really bother. |
|
| Author: | Thrashtildeth [ Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Wivian wrote: 70's Aerosmith
80's Aerosmith - not as good, but still cool 90's Aerosmith , agreedAfter that, didn't really bother. Exactly this. |
|
| Author: | cry of the banshee [ Tue Jun 09, 2020 7:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
MetalStorm wrote: If anything Stones are way overrated themselves. Mick Jagger sucks on the vox and Keith Richards well I say Joe Perry is a much better guitarist then him. Mick Taylor was their best guitarist. Impeccable feel and wove in and out with Richard's simple riffs flawlessly. I love the Stones, but they shoulda quit around 75. |
|
| Page 2 of 2 | All times are UTC + 1 hour |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|