Aerosmith Dead

[tommymac]

Originally Posted by Rider

Who really cares? It's not like they are relevant in the music industry today.

They just do their guest appearances play a couple of hits and ask for a boatload of money for showing up.

Tom

[z06boy]

Originally Posted by neebelung

Eh, it kinda sucks. I figured it was due to his injuries a couple months ago, that maybe he'd decided he was just gettin too old for that stuff, but who knows....

My thinking as well.

[marko138]

Originally Posted by Rider

Who really cares? It's not like they are relevant in the music industry today.

I dont know that they ever were, really. I mean Joe Perry is a bad ass guitar player, but over all the band was never great.

[Avatard]

Hmm. Couple of comments about their relevance today. Interesting (and not very insightful).

One of the great problems with a band that influences current music so much, is that they become universal, and thus transparent.

I'm a bassist, and this argument, as it applies to Jaco Pastorius, a revolutionary bassist, seems to come up often among young bass players just arriving on the scene:

"Gee, I don't like Jaco, I can't see how his music is even relevant to mine, what's all the fuss about this guy?"

Of course, the fuss is because bass players played one way before he existed, and almost everyone played (like it or not) differently in their approach afterward, as he influenced so many. The same can be said about bassist James Jamerson. He changed things even more in his day. Even if you didn't like Motown, before Motown the bass was barely heard, and afterward it was the most powerful instrument in the mix, as loud as the vocal, thus forever changing almost all music.

The Beatles were a game changer, and everyone was influenced. It's safe to say that this is true of Zepplin, Aerosmith, Hendrix, and even Elvis.

They may be hard to understand anymore, because their "distance" from what everyone else is doing has been reduced due to the fact that everyone else has been influenced by them so much.

Of course, the "antidote" to this, as a musician, is to "reinvent" yourself periodically - or maybe just hide out for a while, and make a "comeback"...that seems to work too (kidding, but not really).

Of course, reinventing yourself usually pisses off your core audience, who expect you to regurgitate their favorite song ad-infinitem.

So it's a no-win any way you slice it. Smart musicians keep changing, and smart listeners try to keep up...but everyone needs to make a living.

This is the Yin and the Yang of the music biz at its essence, I suppose.

[neebelung]

Originally Posted by Avatard

Hmm. Couple of comments about their relevance today. Interesting (and not very insightful).

One of the great problems with a band that influences current music so much, is that they become universal, and thus transparent.

I'm a bassist, and this argument, as it applies to Jaco Pastorius, a revolutionary bassist, seems to come up often among young bass players just arriving on the scene:

"Gee, I don't like Jaco, I can't see how his music is even relevant to mine, what's all the fuss about this guy?"

Of course, the fuss is because bass players played one way before he existed, and almost everyone played (like it or not) differently in their approach afterward, as he influenced so many. The same can be said about bassist James Jamerson. He changed things even more in his day. Even if you didn't like Motown, before Motown the bass was barely heard, and afterward it was the most powerful instrument in the mix, as loud as the vocal, thus forever changing almost all music.

The Beatles were a game changer, and everyone was influenced. It's safe to say that this is true of Zepplin, Aerosmith, Hendrix, and even Elvis.

They may be hard to understand anymore, because their "distance" from what everyone else is doing has been reduced due to the fact that everyone else has been influenced by them so much.

Of course, the "antidote" to this, as a musician, is to "reinvent" yourself periodically - or maybe just hide out for a while, and make a "comeback"...that seems to work too (kidding, but not really).

Of course, reinventing yourself usually pisses off your core audience, who expect you to regurgitate their favorite song ad-infinitem.

So it's a no-win any way you slice it. Smart musicians keep changing, and smart listeners try to keep up...but everyone needs to make a living.

This is the Yin and the Yang of the music biz at its essence, I suppose.

Great post, man.

[marko138]

Originally Posted by Avatard

Hmm. Couple of comments about their relevance today. Interesting (and not very insightful).

One of the great problems with a band that influences current music so much, is that they become universal, and thus transparent.

I'm a bassist, and this argument, as it applies to Jaco Pastorius, a revolutionary bassist, seems to come up often among young bass players just arriving on the scene:

"Gee, I don't like Jaco, I can't see how his music is even relevant to mine, what's all the fuss about this guy?"

Of course, the fuss is because bass players played one way before he existed, and almost everyone played (like it or not) differently in their approach afterward, as he influenced so many. The same can be said about bassist James Jamerson. He changed things even more in his day. Even if you didn't like Motown, before Motown the bass was barely heard, and afterward it was the most powerful instrument in the mix, as loud as the vocal, thus forever changing almost all music.

The Beatles were a game changer, and everyone was influenced. It's safe to say that this is true of Zepplin, Aerosmith, Hendrix, and even Elvis.

They may be hard to understand anymore, because their "distance" from what everyone else is doing has been reduced due to the fact that everyone else has been influenced by them so much.

Of course, the "antidote" to this, as a musician, is to "reinvent" yourself periodically - or maybe just hide out for a while, and make a "comeback"...that seems to work too (kidding, but not really).

Of course, reinventing yourself usually pisses off your core audience, who expect you to regurgitate their favorite song ad-infinitem.

So it's a no-win any way you slice it. Smart musicians keep changing, and smart listeners try to keep up...but everyone needs to make a living.

This is the Yin and the Yang of the music biz at its essence, I suppose.

I agree with what you're saying, I've just never put Aerosmith in the same conversation as the Beatles, Jimi, Zeppelin, or Elvis.

[Rider]

Originally Posted by Avatard

Hmm. Couple of comments about their relevance today. Interesting (and not very insightful).

One of the great problems with a band that influences current music so much, is that they become universal, and thus transparent.

I'm a bassist, and this argument, as it applies to Jaco Pastorius, a revolutionary bassist, seems to come up often among young bass players just arriving on the scene:

"Gee, I don't like Jaco, I can't see how his music is even relevant to mine, what's all the fuss about this guy?"

Of course, the fuss is because bass players played one way before he existed, and almost everyone played (like it or not) differently in their approach afterward, as he influenced so many. The same can be said about bassist James Jamerson. He changed things even more in his day. Even if you didn't like Motown, before Motown the bass was barely heard, and afterward it was the most powerful instrument in the mix, as loud as the vocal, thus forever changing almost all music.

The Beatles were a game changer, and everyone was influenced. It's safe to say that this is true of Zepplin, Aerosmith, Hendrix, and even Elvis.

They may be hard to understand anymore, because their "distance" from what everyone else is doing has been reduced due to the fact that everyone else has been influenced by them so much.

Of course, the "antidote" to this, as a musician, is to "reinvent" yourself periodically - or maybe just hide out for a while, and make a "comeback"...that seems to work too (kidding, but not really).

Of course, reinventing yourself usually pisses off your core audience, who expect you to regurgitate their favorite song ad-infinitem.

So it's a no-win any way you slice it. Smart musicians keep changing, and smart listeners try to keep up...but everyone needs to make a living.

This is the Yin and the Yang of the music biz at its essence, I suppose.

For some that may be the case. I listen to a lot of different bands and not one of them has said they were inspired by Aerosmith. Beatles, Led Zeplin, Black Sabbath, Thin Lizzy, Motorhead, and even Alice Cooper...... those are the fathers of rock. Aerosmith plays no role in the evolution of rock music. Yes lots of people liked them but I can't name a single band playing today that was influenced by them.

[neebelung]

Originally Posted by marko138

I agree with what you're saying, I've just never put Aerosmith in the same conversation as the Beatles, Jimi, Zeppelin, or Elvis.

Maybe not quite THAT high up on the list, but important to music nonetheless.

[defector]

How about:
Slash and Axl Rose?
Vince Neil and Nikki Sixx?
James Hetfield?
Vernon Reid?
Tommy Caradonna?

All have at one or another point claimed Aerosmith as one of their main influences in music.

IMO, in their early years, Aerosmith were the American version of the Rolling Stones .

[Avatard]

Yeah, and lest we forget, they brought Rap to MTV, and popular attention.

Wait; KILL THEM.