Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
bengoalie21ledzepp

AEROSMITH

Recommended Posts

First part lol. But i not comparing aerosmith to led zeppelin. I 'm not stupid to say aerosmith is better than led zepp. We all know zepp is better.

I know Jahfin beat me to it but again, as this is a subjective matter there's no right or wrong answer.

I would recommend to you that you branch out and listen to some new things that aren't similar to Zep, Aerosmith, or the other few artists you listed. You'll develop a much larger pallet that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I have no use for Aerosmith post-1989. Talk about your safe, formula-driven, radio friendly corporate rock. Don't even get me started on all those fucking ballads. They

are probably in the top five all-time AMERICAN rocks bands, but second only to Zeppelin?

No way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must concur with SAJ and Can'tquit they are on a par with sub par bands Styx and Boston are good choices to rate them among as equals. The are as was said earlier a formula driven radio friendly hype band with very little substance. All of these bands stuck with a safe sound taking very little chances and not risking their safe radio plays.

As mediocre as these bands are, they are least better then the police who set the 2007 standard for live tour receipts. :o

Bands that would rank above this c level class are U2, The Doors and The Who.

Zep, Floyd, The Beatles and The Stones are my top 4 without question. But it is hard even to rank them because each of these bands has a unique quality, staying power, and wide range of musical diversity that helped influence the scene around them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say I think of either Rush or The Police as "sub par" as each were highly influential in their own way and most definitely aren't guilty of producing formula-driven material aimed solely at radio airplay, especially Rush. Again, it comes down to personal opinion, there's no hard and fast rules saying one artist is any better than another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the first album;but I can't help but wonder how much better it would have been with Jack Douglas producing;like on........

Get Your Wings; which is fuckin' GREAT..As far as I'm concerned,"Train Kept A Rollin'" is an Aerosmith song.

I like the first album, too. Get Your Wings was a huge step from that. I feel that Wings is right up there with Rocks. I would go as far as saying it's flawless as Rocks. It's such a strong album that has geniune lyrics, a slick beat and some great dirty guitar playing with class. As for Draw the Line, a good album overall, but kind of messy and not much homework done on the lyrics. Listening to this album after reading Walk this Way gave me a different outlook, because you can feel what they went through while making this as you're listening to it. Ruts was okay, but all the work that came after (with the exception of Honkin')...... :burp:

At least they still have what it takes to put on a good show, I would see em performing in present day rather in '77.

0816071826.jpg

and I have my Wings. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of their 70's albums are great. First album, Get Your Wings, Toys In The Attic, Rocks are all classics. But I have to agree with Jahfin and GetTheLedOut, why bother compare different bands to each other? It's a total useless discussion. It all comes down to personal taste and opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I must concur with SAJ and Can'tquit they are on a par with sub par bands Styx and Boston are good choices to rate them among as equals. The are as was said earlier a formula driven radio friendly hype band with very little substance. All of these bands stuck with a safe sound taking very little chances and not risking their safe radio plays.

As mediocre as these bands are, they are least better then the police who set the 2007 standard for live tour receipts. :o

Bands that would rank above this c level class are U2, The Doors and The Who.

Zep, Floyd, The Beatles and The Stones are my top 4 without question. But it is hard even to rank them because each of these bands has a unique quality, staying power, and wide range of musical diversity that helped influence the scene around them.

I agree with your top 4 except you have to put the Who in with these. I believe Zeppelin and the Beatles are probably the top 2 if you had to pick. Then a two way tie for second with Stones and Who. I would rate Pink Floyd next. As great as Pink floyd were, and I respect them very much, and love their music, they didnt have as many good albums/ songs as the Stones or the Who in my opinion. Led Zepp and the Beatles are in a league of their own. But Zeppelin is the best because Page is the best musician in Rock history in my opinion. Lets give Townshend a little credit too as he plays 7 instruments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with your top 4 except you have to put the Who in with these. I believe Zeppelin and the Beatles are probably the top 2 if you had to pick. Then a two way tie for second with Stones and Who. I would rate Pink Floyd next. As great as Pink floyd were, and I respect them very much, and love their music, they didnt have as many good albums/ songs as the Stones or the Who in my opinion. Led Zepp and the Beatles are in a league of their own. But Zeppelin is the best because Page is the best musician in Rock history in my opinion. Lets give Townshend a little credit too as he plays 7 instruments.

I agree except for Zeppelin and the Beatles. I don't think you can say really who was the better group there. As musicians go I'd say that Zeppelin was beyond the Beatles except for possibly McCartney who seems to be able to play any instrument he picks up. Harrison became a very good guitarist in later years but he never was anywhere near Jimmy's league. As far as song writing goes I can't really say there because the Beatles didn't normally do songs longer than 4-5 minutes but I do know they basically wrote and recorded Rubber Soul in a month.... just like how Zeppelin recorded Presence in a very short time... but I think Rubber Soul is recognized as one of the best albums ever while Presence isn't. And for singers I mean you've got three of the best rock singers of all time there..... Plant, Lennon, and McCartney. The Beatles I think harmonized better than any other rock group. So I dunno I don't think you can really find an answer since the Beatles were breaking up as Led Zeppelin was hitting it's stride. Wouldn't it have been interesting to see what would've happened if the Beatles hadn't broken up in 1970?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right yall. AErosmith is the 2nd best band of all time. Sign if you agree then would come the Rolling stones.!

Oooops, I'm in the Comedy thread.... :blink:

Taken as a whole, I don't count Aerosmith in the top 5.

Edited by The Rover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree except for Zeppelin and the Beatles. I don't think you can say really who was the better group there. As musicians go I'd say that Zeppelin was beyond the Beatles except for possibly McCartney who seems to be able to play any instrument he picks up. Harrison became a very good guitarist in later years but he never was anywhere near Jimmy's league. As far as song writing goes I can't really say there because the Beatles didn't normally do songs longer than 4-5 minutes but I do know they basically wrote and recorded Rubber Soul in a month.... just like how Zeppelin recorded Presence in a very short time... but I think Rubber Soul is recognized as one of the best albums ever while Presence isn't. And for singers I mean you've got three of the best rock singers of all time there..... Plant, Lennon, and McCartney. The Beatles I think harmonized better than any other rock group. So I dunno I don't think you can really find an answer since the Beatles were breaking up as Led Zeppelin was hitting it's stride. Wouldn't it have been interesting to see what would've happened if the Beatles hadn't broken up in 1970?

You can certainly make a valid argument for either. But it seems like when its all said and done, these are the two left standing. The Beatles sure could kick out the top 40 hits. That wasnt the kind of band Zeppelin was/are as we all know. Yes the Beatles harmonized great with their vocals. So too did the Beach Boys and the Eagles. (Im sure the Eagle haters will chime in soon). The one thing Zeppelin had over all these bands in my opinion was there pure musical skill. The one thing the Beatles had over Zepp was their ability to reach all age groups, including the older generation of our time (me being 50). Which means, getting the Sinatra crowd to listen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can certainly make a valid argument for either. But it seems like when its all said and done, these are the two left standing. The Beatles sure could kick out the top 40 hits. That wasnt the kind of band Zeppelin was/are as we all know. Yes the Beatles harmonized great with their vocals. So too did the Beach Boys and the Eagles. (Im sure the Eagle haters will chime in soon). The one thing Zeppelin had over all these bands in my opinion was there pure musical skill. The one thing the Beatles had over Zepp was their ability to reach all age groups, including the older generation of our time (me being 50). Which means, getting the Sinatra crowd to listen.

Yeah the Beatles were a great singles band but they were doing more album oriented rock as well by the time they broke up. I left out the Beach Boys cause I think they got too "poppy" but yes they are amazing harmonizing. I forgot about the Eagles. Yes Zeppelin was far and away the group with the best musicians.... I don't think any other group really comes close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can certainly make a valid argument for either. But it seems like when its all said and done, these are the two left standing. The Beatles sure could kick out the top 40 hits. That wasnt the kind of band Zeppelin was/are as we all know. Yes the Beatles harmonized great with their vocals. So too did the Beach Boys and the Eagles. (Im sure the Eagle haters will chime in soon). The one thing Zeppelin had over all these bands in my opinion was there pure musical skill. The one thing the Beatles had over Zepp was their ability to reach all age groups, including the older generation of our time (me being 50). Which means, getting the Sinatra crowd to listen.

"John [Entwistle] and I were listening to a stereo L.P. of The Beatles in which the voices come out of one side, and the backing track comes out of the other. And when you actually hear the backing tracks of The Beatles without their voices, they're flippin' lousy." - Pete Townshend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"John [Entwistle] and I were listening to a stereo L.P. of The Beatles in which the voices come out of one side, and the backing track comes out of the other. And when you actually hear the backing tracks of The Beatles without their voices, they're flippin' lousy." - Pete Townshend

I'm guessing that quote was perhaps from earlier in the Beatles career? Circa mid sixties? Cause I think they were very, very good by Abbey Road..... but still not on Zep's level.

Oh and as a worthless and unrelated side note :lol:.... until late in their career they took no interest in stereo mixes. All they cared about was mono. Help! was the last album they didn't participate in for mixing. When they made Rubber Soul they began to mix the songs themselves...... the mono mixes. The task of stereo fell back into George Martin and Geoff Emerick. Pepper was the same way. From The White Album onward however, the Beatles (or rather whoever wrote the song) mixed both mono and stereo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i like Aerosmith but best band not in my opion they are a really good band about # 25 in my top bands which include

LED ZEPPELIN

BLACK SABBATH

LYNYRD SKYNYRD

ALLMAN BROTHERS

PINK FLOYD

CREAM

ROLLING STONES

DEEP PURPLE

J GIELS

EAGLES

TEN YEARS AFTER

ZZ TOP

FLEETWOOD MAC

VAN HALEN

EDGAR WINTER

THE WHO

WISHBONE ASH

THE KINKS

CROSBY STILLS NASH AND YOUNG

BAD COMPANY

AC/DC

ELP

YES

METALLICA

AEROSMITH

NAZERETH

UFO

URIAH HEEP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen Aerosmith 8 times in concert, and everytime they are insanely good. They are the greatest american rock and roll band. and while not all their albums are great, they have kept rock and roll going, and that is what matters. they have done so much for rock and roll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EXACTLY!!! The same guy who helped Bon Jovi write "Livin' On A Prayer" helped Aerosmith write "Dude Looks Like A Lady", "I was Made For Loving You" by Kiss and "Livin La Vida Loca" for Ricky Martin.

What a nauseating set of tunes..... :o

:o

Best one of the lot up there is Livin La Vida Loca !! I put that on my 'guilty pleasures' list...:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I adore Aerosmith, and am currently wondering how I didn't see this thread earlier. They are definitely one of my top ten bands, or more like top five. Angel is my favourite of their songs, and possibly my favourite song all together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember seeing Steve and the boys live at Monza Speedway some years ago.....what a fun 3 days that was. Steve had brought his sexy daughter along for the ride AND the rest of the family I think too!! :). Lenny Kravitz was on the same bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but some bands just seem to lose their edge when they get clean and sober.

I really want to like today's Aerosmith, but for some reason I'm still waiting for a good follow-up to 1978's Live Bootleg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but some bands just seem to lose their edge when they get clean and sober.

I really want to like today's Aerosmith, but for some reason I'm still waiting for a good follow-up to 1978's Live Bootleg.

Steve and Joe DID have some probs at getting sober at that too...! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but some bands just seem to lose their edge when they get clean and sober.

Their studio craft may have suffered but they're still a kickass live band.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Their studio craft may have suffered but they're still a kickass live band.

10-4 on that.

My Bro-in-law wants to catch the Harley 105th anniversary festival in Wisconsin at the end of August.

It looks like Aerosmith will be on the bill, so maybe I'll get a chance to see them this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...