Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: dj181 on December 11, 2012, 09:31:22 AM
-
i say yes
-
Never liked Aerosmith. Geezer rock even before they were geezers.
-
Define "better":
Musicality
Influence
Longevity
Record Sales
Ticket Sales
Media impressions
Q Score
Number of Records
-
Really? Aerosmith? Really? ::)
-
.
-
Define "better":
Musicality
Influence
Longevity
Record Sales
Ticket Sales
Media impressions
Q Score
Number of Records
better as far as range and artistic creativity
'smith was boss thoughout the 70s, but after that they went downhill as they "sold out" and let the general public dictate the music that they should produce ie. pop music
-
better as far as range and artistic creativity
'smith was boss thoughout the 70s, but after that they went downhill as they "sold out" and let the general public dictate the music that they should produce ie. pop music
You could make a case that Halen "sold out" as well, however, people still pay to see both bands and bands who don't "sell out" haven't been heard from in years...
-
wil smith
-
"Rocks" and "Toys In The Attic" are solid albums. After all these years, these two albums are more influential then anything VH recorded I'd guess except maybe the first album. During the '80s and early '90s, it was the other way around, every kid wanted to play like EVH and the shredders that followed (damn, even I had a cover band playing Satriani and Steve Vai's stuff and I just can't listen to most of that stuff anymore).
-
'smith!? Is that some new hipster talk!? It's Aerosmith.
-
No!!
-
better as far as range and artistic creativity
'smith was boss thoughout the 70s, but after that they went downhill as they "sold out" and let the general public dictate the music that they should produce ie. pop music
You could argue that Aerosmith has shown superior range. Their music appeals to more fans, and has done so across 4 decades, threatening to go into its fifth with strength. By way of comparison, Van Halen topped out with a decade of good solid productivity. Their range, at the peak of their heyday, was amazing (be it Roth or Hagar...most forget that it was in Hagar's day that their music was chosen to lead Pepsi as the theme song for the brand, or with their addition to the sountracks of Twister. That said, it's not like Aerosmith hasn't had their music featured in action blockbusters (the Bruce Willis metor movie Armageddon comes to mind). However, Aerosmith's music has evolved from the 70's hard rock scene to mix nicely with the 80's hair rock scene, and then morphed into a female friendly ballad machine that keeps them relevant despite their age. Van Halen has not shown the same range.
As far as creativity, I would argue in favor of Van Halen. Eddie represents one of, if not the greatest guitarist of our time. And Alex is one of the greatest drummers of all time. Though Joey Kramer is solid, he's no Alex Van Halen...not even close. Alex's sound from his kit is better, his mastery is superior, his creativity is better, and his desire to take risks with straight ahead 4/4 rock is head and shoulders above Kramer. And I don't think anyone on this board will claim Perry is anywhere near as good as Eddie Van Halen. Both bring unique sounds, but Eddie Van Halen inspired a generation, for generations to come. Perry will go down as simply a great guitarist. Now, in terms of singers, my opinion is that Tyler buries Roth or Hagar. Tyler has created a brand that is mesmerizing and has maintained that persona for decades. Roth has faded, emerged, and faded, and emerged...each time slightly different but failing to recapture his past mystique. Hagar is an amazing voice, but not iconic in his presentation as an artist. Overall, I feel Van Halen has been more creative, but not by much. Van Halen revolutionized arena rock and were the undisputed champions of 80's rock (over other bands like Bon Jovi, Motley Crue, Def Leppard and GnR -- all of which owe a debt to Van Halen). Aerosmith sort of rode along in the wake of all these styles mimicking where needed, and exploring where safe...but they were truly not the creative avant-guarde geniuses that were the Van Halen brothers.
Please forward this editorial piece along to the writers of Rolling Stone magazine. They need fresh writers...I've had it with the hacks they have on staff.
-
"Rocks" and "Toys In The Attic" are solid albums. After all these years, these two albums are more influential then anything VH recorded I'd guess except maybe the first album. During the '80s and early '90s, it was the other way around, every kid wanted to play like EVH and the shredders that followed (damn, even I had a cover band playing Satriani and Steve Vai's stuff and I just can't listen to most of that stuff anymore).
EVH spawned an industry. he pretty much put "shredding' on the map.
Those were solid albums and i bought them both in the record store when they came out, and I still play them occasionally.. but more influential than VH ? no way.
i don't hear ANY interviews with musicians where they say "the first time I heard Aerosmith it melted my brain" , They were a Zep/Stones hybrid and were some talented guys.
-
You could argue that Aerosmith has shown superior range. Their music appeals to more fans, and has done so across 4 decades, threatening to go into its fifth with strength. By way of comparison, Van Halen topped out with a decade of good solid productivity. Their range, at the peak of their heyday, was amazing (be it Roth or Hagar...most forget that it was in Hagar's day that their music was chosen to lead Pepsi as the theme song for the brand, or with their addition to the sountracks of Twister. That said, it's not like Aerosmith hasn't had their music featured in action blockbusters (the Bruce Willis metor movie Armageddon comes to mind). However, Aerosmith's music has evolved from the 70's hard rock scene to mix nicely with the 80's hair rock scene, and then morphed into a female friendly ballad machine that keeps them relevant despite their age. Van Halen has not shown the same range.
As far as creativity, I would argue in favor of Van Halen. Eddie represents one of, if not the greatest guitarist of our time. And Alex is one of the greatest drummers of all time. Though Joey Kramer is solid, he's no Alex Van Halen...not even close. Alex's sound from his kit is better, his mastery is superior, his creativity is better, and his desire to take risks with straight ahead 4/4 rock is head and shoulders above Kramer. And I don't think anyone on this board will claim Perry is anywhere near as good as Eddie Van Halen. Both bring unique sounds, but Eddie Van Halen inspired a generation, for generations to come. Perry will go down as simply a great guitarist. Now, in terms of singers, my opinion is that Tyler buries Roth or Hagar. Tyler has created a brand that is mesmerizing and has maintained that persona for decades. Roth has faded, emerged, and faded, and emerged...each time slightly different but failing to recapture his past mystique. Hagar is an amazing voice, but not iconic in his presentation as an artist. Overall, I feel Van Halen has been more creative, but not by much. Van Halen revolutionized arena rock and were the undisputed champions of 80's rock (over other bands like Bon Jovi, Motley Crue, Def Leppard and GnR -- all of which owe a debt to Van Halen). Aerosmith sort of rode along in the wake of all these styles mimicking where needed, and exploring where safe...but they were truly not the creative avant-guarde geniuses that were the Van Halen brothers.
Please forward this editorial piece along to the writers of Rolling Stone magazine. They need fresh writers...I've had it with the hacks they have on staff.
very nice write up man, i'm impressed :)
how about their lyrical talent and creativity? i'd say that 'smith wins hands down
-
Vintage Aerosmith ROCKS. Modern Aerosmith blows.
Better than VH? Not a chance.
-
EVH spawned an industry. he pretty much put "shredding' on the map.
Those were solid albums and i bought them both in the record store when they came out, and I still play them occasionally.. but more influential than VH ? no way.
i don't hear ANY interviews with musicians where they say "the first time I heard Aerosmith it melted my brain" , They were a Zep/Stones hybrid and were some talented guys.
Well, actually, thatīs almost word for word what Slash said about "Rocks" which he credits as being his epiphany. But what do I care? Those were decent bands but I can live (and do so) without their spawns be it shredders for which I have frankly no interest or for the hords of hair metal bands ala Bullet Boys, RATT, etc..which came after. Those albums are buried apart for one or two and I might listen to them once in a blue moon. I keep my Coltrane records at a much closer reach.
-
no
-
Well, actually, thatīs almost word for word what Slash said about "Rocks" which he credits as being his epiphany. But what do I care? Those were decent bands but I can live (and do so) without their spawns be it shredders for which I have frankly no interest or for the hords of hair metal bands ala Bullet Boys, RATT, etc..which came after. Those albums are buried apart for one or two and I might listen to them once in a blue moon. I keep my Coltrane records at a much closer reach.
I compare serious Jazz (not the Kenny G crap) to Chess. it must be rewarding to be so good at something so challenging and difficult to master, but as a spectator, it's not so great. I appreciate it, but i can't listen to it all the time. I'm sure a serious musician would enjoy it more because he knows what the guy is doing and how hard it is.
I guess Slash says nice things about everyone ;D
-
I compare serious Jazz (not the Kenny G crap) to Chess. it must be rewarding to be so good at something so challenging and difficult to master, but as a spectator, it's not so great. I appreciate it, but i can't listen to it all the time. I'm sure a serious musician would enjoy it more because he knows what the guy is doing and how hard it is.
I guess Slash says nice things about everyone ;D
Well, I was a jazz musician for almost ten years after playong hard rock and metal for about five. Just hit me one day listening to pne record. Then just got into it by listening. Just more demanding, not the type of music you just put in the background. But still not an abstraction or puremy intellectual experience. Something you have to dig and somehow get close too to ser itīs beauty. I'm still a Zep, Tim Buckley, Robert Wyatt, Nick Drake fan and Vn Morrison's "Astral Weeks" is one if my top ten albums whatever style wére talking about (first Curtis Mayfield record also).
-
i say yes
both groups vastly overrated. commercial success doesn't equate with there musical abilities. singing poor to fair, above average guitar work though.
-
Great songs.
-
.
-
aerosmith was pop
van halen rock
lets not compare apple to orange
-
Aerosmith was the goods for a few albums, they then got sober and started making lame,bloated ballads that were popular because of solid MTV music videos.
Halen was fucking amazing up to halfway through the album 1984.
-
-
Good find.
-
Good find.
Pretty damn good for '76
-
Pretty damn good for '76
Yep, 70's was some good rock maybe the best all time.
-
Was Head better than Priest?
-
"Rocks" and "Toys In The Attic" are solid albums. After all these years, these two albums are more influential then anything VH recorded I'd guess except maybe the first album. During the '80s and early '90s, it was the other way around, every kid wanted to play like EVH and the shredders that followed (damn, even I had a cover band playing Satriani and Steve Vai's stuff and I just can't listen to most of that stuff anymore).
No one else like,s listening to that either. Funny how fat bloated Yngwie has has much more cred today than Sat & Vai.
-
very nice write up man, i'm impressed :)
how about their lyrical talent and creativity? i'd say that 'smith wins hands down
Always thought that song was so cheesey. Really wish that had not gone there.
However does remind me of the Tolkien style fantasy movie Dio was trying to get financed in the late 80's he wanted both DLR & Tyler in it.
-
Think the best Smifs ;D songs are
Draw the Line
Chip Away The Stone
Mama Kin
Seasons of Wither
Remember when they replaced Joe Perry with a look alike in about 79.
When they first sobered up they actually made some listenable records Room full O Mirrors etc
Seen them on the Pump tour in late 80's thought they sucked.Was so disappointing, big bloated American rock. It sucked.
I am sure Van Halen have been every bit as bad from time to time. They toured down here once only with Gary Chorizo singing. I did not go, either did anyone else.
-
Aerosmith was the goods for a few albums, they then got sober and started making lame,bloated ballads that were popular because of solid MTV music videos.
Halen was fucking amazing up to halfway through the album 1984.
quoted for accuracy
and on a side note, music really took a plunge for the worse starting in '84 :'(
-
That's my cut off year.Will listen to most everything before 84 & very rarely anything after.
-
'Til the beginning of the '80s, there was a number of pretty good big "dumb" rock bands like Thin Lizzy, KISS, Van Halen, etc....Fun bands. Then they either disappeared or started making crappy music. Came the hair metal bands on one side of the Atlantic and the NWOBHM on the other which was one of the worse moment in the history of rock'n roll (actually it didn't roll at all). Only band I still like from that period is Motorhead. The late 60s and early 70s were way above.
-
'Til the beginning of the '80s, there was a number of pretty good big "dumb" rock bands like Thin Lizzy, KISS, Van Halen, etc....Fun bands. Then they either disappeared or started making crappy music. Came the hair metal bands on one side of the Atlantic and the NWOBHM on the other which was one of the worse moment in the history of rock'n roll (actually it didn't roll at all). Only band I still like from that period is Motorhead. The late 60s and early 70s were way above.
music really changed and became more "real" in '67 and hit it's peak at around '73 or so
-
Live it's Aerosmith. Van Halen uses way to many tracks when they play "live". I know today they all do but some bands are worse than others. Real rock sounds real with all it's imperfections. Sometimes I wonder if Van Halen can get together in a garage and really play a song today.
-
Think the best Smifs ;D songs are
Draw the Line
Chip Away The Stone
Mama Kin
Seasons of Wither
Remember when they replaced Joe Perry with a look alike in about 79.
When they first sobered up they actually made some listenable records Room full O Mirrors etc
Seen them on the Pump tour in late 80's thought they sucked.Was so disappointing, big bloated American rock. It sucked.
I am sure Van Halen have been every bit as bad from time to time. They toured down here once only with Gary Chorizo singing. I did not go, either did anyone else.
Always like toys in the attic 8)