# Aerosmith - Does anyone care anymore?



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Aerosmith, specifically Tyler and Perry seem to be in the music news all the time. News of their on again off again feuds, possible new recording sessions etc. I seen a commercial the other night with Tyler on that "America's Next Contrived and Talentless Crooner" and he looks like a cartoon corpse.

I am not understanding the media interest or public interest with him or Aerosmith. My favorite band of all time is Boston, which I personally consider to have put out way better tunes than Aerosmith ever did, and they get about as much media attention as I would expect from a band of that era and the material they have put out in the last 20 years etc.

Yes, I guess Tyler and Perry are "bad boys", once maybe, many years ago. The last tour would not have been deemed a success so I have to ask, whats the deal here?


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Aerosmith, specifically Tyler and Perry seem to be in the music news all the time. News of their on again off again feuds, possible new recording sessions etc. I seen a commercial the other night with Tyler on that "America's Next Contrived and Talentless Crooner" and he looks like a cartoon corpse.
> 
> I am not understanding the media interest or public interest with him or Aerosmith. My favorite band of all time is Boston, which I personally consider to have put out way better tunes than Aerosmith ever did, and they get about as much media attention as I would expect from a band of that era and the material they have put out in the last 20 years etc.
> 
> Yes, I guess Tyler and Perry are "bad boys", once maybe, many years ago. The last tour would not have been deemed a success so I have to ask, whats the deal here?


Haha, bad boys indeed. Don't forget Joey Kramer setting his Ferrari on fire too! 

Honestly, Aerosmith as a band is pretty bad. Apart from Sweet Emotion, Janie's Got A Gun and maybe, just maybe Deuce's Are Wild, I can't stand a single thing they've put out. I never, ever understood why they were this huge band that everyone loved. I dunno, maybe I'm just wired wrong.

But yeah, having never been a fav of mine, they're definitely completely irrelevant to me now. I don't care about the Tyler-Perry feud. I don't care about the band. I don't care about the lack of band. Let's move on.


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

I view them in a similar light to the Rolling Stones in that their early work was great but through the years they've become musically less and less relevant. 
I love '70's Aerosmith, can tolerate some of the '80s stuff that isn't played to death (I like deeper cuts like "Hangman Jury"). Since then my interest in anything new from them has dwindled to near zero. 
Thing is, they musically have the capability to pull off something fantastic but like the Stones I don't see it happening. They're trading on the afterglow of their image of their heyday.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Zzzzzzzzzzzz. Zzzzzzzzzzzz. Zzzzzzzzzzzz.


----------



## puckhead (Sep 8, 2008)

Hamstrung said:


> I view them in a similar light to the Rolling Stones in that their early work was great but through the years they've become musically less and less relevant.
> I love '70's Aerosmith, can tolerate some of the '80s stuff that isn't played to death (I like deeper cuts like "Hangman Jury"). Since then my interest in anything new from them has dwindled to near zero.
> Thing is, they musically have the capability to pull off something fantastic but like the Stones I don't see it happening. They're trading on the afterglow of their image of their heyday.


that about sums it up for me, too.
anything they put out recently just make me less likely to go back and listen to Kings and Queens or something.


----------



## Morkolo (Dec 9, 2010)

I've been a big fan of them since I was a kid. Bought just about all of their cds on my measly paper route money back in the day, not everyone of them was loaded with good tracks (Done with mirrors being the worst). But back in 2001 when Just Push Play came out I bought it right away hoping to enjoy nearly every song like I have on so many of their other albums....... boy was I in for a shock. Almost completely turned me off of them from that point on, I can still listen to anything before that one but Just Push Play was unforgivable.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

I don't care about them any more. I think that they have been terrible since way back in the early '90s. Pump was there last good record IMO and their best was WAY back.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Their early stuff is pretty fantastic. Tunes like Chip Away The Stone are so great. But any of the get's overshadowed by their later stuff since they took such a different direction. Albums like Pump were just way too produced for my tastes, but I think they were good albums. And they did manage to have hits off them, which is a lot more than most bands who have been around for that long are able to do when they put out new albums. I mean, they had 3 generation of hits. 70's, 80's and 90's. They even had a #1 song in 1998, and a top 10 single in 2001. The album in 2001 reached #2 on the charts. As far as 'relevant' newer music, that beats a band like the Stones.

Some stats:
*
Aerosmith 21 * 2x Platinum
*Get Your Wings* 3x Platinum
*Toys in the Attic* 8x Platinum
*Rocks * 4x Platinum
*Draw the Line* 2x Platinum
*Rock in a Hard Place* Gold
*Done with Mirrors* Gold
*Permanent Vacation* 5x Platinum
*Pump * 7x Platinum
*Get a Grip* 7x Platinum
*Nine Lives* 2x Platinum
*Just Push Play* Platinum
*Honkin' on Bobo* Gold

Pretty impressive.


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

I kind of lost interest after Toys in the Attic. They've had a few good tunes since but Toys and Get your Wings are classics. I played them to death back in the day. I never did get around to updating the media format though, and my latest car doesn't have an 8-track player.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Robert1950 said:


> Zzzzzzzzzzzz. Zzzzzzzzzzzz. Zzzzzzzzzzzz.


Yup.
They just keep getting watered down.

I hope I never have to hear any of their ballads post 2000 again--as well as many before then.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Teah they kinda became the Rock and Roll version of what Genesis became with Phil Collins and all the smarmy tunes, but man, Rocks! and get your Wings, Permanent Vacation, Pump, Even Get a grip, all albums I could play side to side. Draw the Line and last Child are a couple of my fav tunes! But yeah.. No more, no more... Please!


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

torndownunit said:


> Their early stuff is pretty fantastic. Tunes like Chip Away The Stone are so great. But any of the get's overshadowed by their later stuff since they took such a different direction. Albums like Pump were just way too produced for my tastes, but I think they were good albums. And they did manage to have hits off them, which is a lot more than most bands who have been around for that long are able to do when they put out new albums. I mean, they had 3 generation of hits. 70's, 80's and 90's. They even had a #1 song in 1998, and a top 10 single in 2001. The album in 2001 reached #2 on the charts. As far as 'relevant' newer music, that beats a band like the Stones.
> 
> Some stats:
> *
> ...


Nonsense. The Stones had #1 hits in the 60s and 70s and top #10 hits in the 60s, 70s and 80s. This is all on the Billboard overall chart. In the Rock chart, they had top 10 hits in the 90s as well. That's _four decades_ of relevance.

Also, Aerosmith had 25 Gold records, 18 Platinum and 12 Multi-platinum for a total of 55. The Stones??? 42 Gold, 28 Platinum and 11 Multi-Platibum for a total of *81*.

And the Stones have had 9 top 10 albums since 1980, not including Live albums or Greatest Hits.

Aerosmith is hard-pressed to be AS relevant as the Stones recently, and is certainly not any MORE relevant. In fact, without their trio of Alicia Silverstone vids in the mid 90's, they would have been long-forgotten. They had their hey-day in the 70s and that was pretty much it.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

hollowbody said:


> Nonsense. The Stones had #1 hits in the 60s and 70s and top #10 hits in the 60s, 70s and 80s. This is all on the Billboard overall chart. In the Rock chart, they had top 10 hits in the 90s as well. That's _four decades_ of relevance.
> 
> Also, Aerosmith had 25 Gold records, 18 Platinum and 12 Multi-platinum for a total of 55. The Stones??? 42 Gold, 28 Platinum and 11 Multi-Platibum for a total of *81*.
> 
> ...


I just don't agree. You can't go solely on Stats. I posted them just out of interest to show what Aerosmith did in the 90's. I simply used the Stones as an example. The Stones may have sold a lot of *albums* in the 90's and 2000, but they had no real hit *singles*. Never mind a #1 hit. It's a singles world when it comes to mainstream, and I am strictly addressing the question if Aerosmith is STILL relevant. To a lot of younger people, they would be more relevant NOW than the Stones because they had more mainstream hits since the 90's. What was relevant in the 70's and 80's does not mean as much to a younger, mainstream oriented audience. Again, if we are talking current relevance, that is the audience in question.

I LOVE the Stones. Way more than Aerosmith. But I grew up in the 90's and I know what was on the radio and MuchMusic. The stones had a minor hit with Mixed Emotions (#5 in the US). Aerosmith had a slew of hits that got heavy rotation in all media.

I am only addressing the question asked in the original post. I believe Aerosmith is a lot more relevant than a lot of Classic Rock acts and that people care. Not me personally, but a lot of people who like mainstream music. It's not a question of my personal tastes, because I don't own an Aerosmith album newer than Toys In The Attic. I own most of the Stones discography. I can see beyond my own tastes and people that like Pop music are a whole other breed than I am lol.

One more quick example. Take my girlfriend who IS a pop/mainstream music fan. I can asked her what albums the Stones put out, or what singles they had in the 90's or 2000's. She has no clue. I can ask her about Aerosmith and she can name instantly name a bunch of their hits from that time period, and even one album name. SHe heard those songs all over the radio and TV. She instantly named Love In and Elevator, Living On the Edge, Janie's Got a Gun, Crying, Pink, and Crazy and she doesn't even like Aerosmith. She IS a Stones fan. So IMO, that is a small test to Aerosmith's relevance.


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

torndownunit said:


> I just don't agree. You can't go soley on Stats. The Stones may have sold a lot of albums in the 90's and 2000, but they had no hit singles. Never mind a #1 hit. It's a singles world, and I am strictly addressing the question if Aerosmith is STILL relevant. To a lot of younger people, they would be more relevant NOW than the Stones because they had more mainstream hits since the 90's. What was relevant in the 70's and 80's does not mean as much to a younger audience.


Maybe true but keep in mind they're about a decade younger than the Stones. They're just a bit higher up the rim but swirling non-the-less!


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

torndownunit said:


> I LOVE the Stones. Way more than Aerosmith. But I grew up in the 90's and I know what was on the radio and MuchMusic. The stones had a minor hit with Mixed Emotions (#5 in the US). Aerosmith had a slew of hits that got heavy rotation in all media.


Don't forget Anybody Seen my Baby? 

Sure, they were ripping off KD Lang, but the song was a hit for them and, following Aerosmith's lead with Alicia in their vids, the Stones picked up a young Angelina Jolie for the vid for this one 

I get what you're saying, but my argument is that the Stones have been successful selling records and making music in the 90's while primarily sticking to their blues/country/r'n'b background, whereas Aerosmith decided to go Bon Jovi and start making pop records. 

Speaking of an artist that knows how to market to the times, Bon Jovi is a master of this.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Again though, the question is if they are relevant. I am solely addressing that question. I am definitely not arguing artistic merit in any way or who is better. Because there are a ton of Classic Rock bands I prefer to Aerosmith, trust me lol. And I am the biggest Stones fan you could find. I am only using them as an example to compare to when it comes to mainstream/pop audiences and their tastes. On an Artistic level, I don't like any of Aerosmiths newer stuff. On an artistic level, I thought the first single from the last Stones album was a great tune. But, the Aerosmith cookie cutter ballad single will sell more to a mainstream/pop audience. So bottom line, that makes them relevant (as sad as it is).

I agree 100% about Bon Jovi. Again, a band I don't listen to practically any material by, but they are huge with mainstream/pop audiences. I remember a few years back I worked with people that were over 10 years younger than me. They were playing Bon Jovi's CURRENT album at the staff bar-be-que and singing along. It was an odd feeling lol. Out of all the bands you could have picked from that time period (when I was in highschool) that would have lasted, who would have guessed it would be them?


----------

