Joey Kramer suing Aerosmith

TV Ratings: Grammys Fall a Little, Reach 12-Year Low in Viewers

 

Exactky why I loved Aerosmith and couldn't stand Rush from the get go. Completeley different bands. And every Rush fan I knew basically felt the same about Aerosmith in the 70's as they did the NY Dolls, The Stooges and the Sex Pistols. Hated it all.

 

Which made it weird when Rush opened for Aerosmith back in the 70s.
Not 1 Rush fan I knew ever had a gripe or complaint, much less "hated" any other band's music, but for sure they loved Rush.

 

Meh, I loved both Rush and Aerosmith in the 70's, I never saw any velvet rope between them. Anything that really rocked was OK in my circle of friends, we weren't hung up on technique or the lack thereof.

I was familiar with the Dolls, the Stooges and the Pistols in the 70's and I didn't even think Aerosmith was on the same planet as them. WAY too commercial.

 

Yes, in my neck of the 1970s to early 1980s rock and roll woods, there was a FAR larger gap between the Sex Pistols and Aerosmith than between Aerosmith and Rush. Rush and Aerosmith were in the same neck of the AOR neighborhood. Both fit nicely on our local album rock station with the Eagles, Zeppelin, Floyd, Stones, Foreigner, Fleetwood Mac, Van Halen, etc.

The Pistols and Ramones were this bizaroo punk stuff that only pale skinny outcasts and weirdos with pins stuck through their noses in the gutters of NYC and London listened to. That was totally alien stuff in my middle-class high school.

 

welp since rush retired long before they reached the age of the aerosmith guys because they knew that age and health was catching them. so your "professionals" already knew in 4-5 years from now they would sound just as bad as aerosmith did. go check out aerosmith 4-5 years ago when they were similar to the ages of the guys in rush are now and they were still sounding fine. rush last played in 2015 making thwm about a decade younger in age than the aerosmith guys are now

 

If so, it must have been stock audio of a cat being strangled.

 

My .02.

In my neck of the woods(Boston area) in the early 70's before they hit it big Aerosmith opened shows for the Dolls(Joe was a big fan). They were liked by the hard rock crowd who dug their looks and sound. When Aerosmith got huge in 75/76 a lot of that crowd stuck with them but also went to find music that was raw and immediate. Some might've liked Rush, but none in my circle did. We weren't interested in long drum solo's and fantasy lyrics. Just wasn't our thing. We were lucky enough to have a pretty thriving club scene in and around Boston in those days(from which Aerosmith was sprung to some extent) and great radio also. Because of this a lot of us got turned onto not only the early punk bands from NY and the UK, but also were able to nurture a lot of local bands who played basic, no frills r'n'r, not much removed from what Aerosmith did in their early days and first few lp's.

Aerosmith got huge with Toys In The Attic in '75. But they got huge because they toured relentlessly, and radio rediscoverd "Dream On". By the time Rocks hit, they were monsters, but still, their sound was not much removed from what the bands that your mention above. All stripped down r'n'r. That is not what Rush played. Once Aerosmith made their comeback in the mid/late 80's and became MTV faves and made a lot of AOR music throughout the 90's, I was long finished with them. What you saw on the Grammy's is what a lot of us liked about them when they were touring in the 70's. Messy, unpredictable, ragged and loud. Exactly what fans of Rush(at least those that I knew back then) hated about them.

 

I thought they sounded good with Randy Castillo

 

I would think part of what may have led to the expectations that Aerosmith be a “polished” band by now is, along with the length of time they’ve been playing these songs, their turn into kind of a pop band over the past couple of decades. When you have hit ballads with string arrangements on them, people may stop thinking of you as a raw rock’n’roll band that is unconcerned with precision.

I think the overall point as relates to this thread, though, is clearly that their excuse that Joey didn’t give them enough notice to rehearse flies completely out the window when it turns out not to appear they’ve done much rehearsal, anyway...

 

Well, of course my friends and I realized that Rush was different from Aerosmith, we just happened to like both. Aerosmith's album's weren't sloppy, they were awesome. Rush's albums were also awesome. I never met a single person back then who pooh-poohed Aerosmith in favor of Rush or anyone else. I was probably the most cynical person I knew in regard to Aerosmith, and that's only because I was put off to buy their albums and get a flyer advertising T-shirts and posters and stuff, which I saw as declasse commercialism. I still listened to the albums though.

I didn't watch the Grammys because I'm keeping up a near-lifetime tradition of never watching the Grammys. The last time I watched them, Fleetwood Mac won every bloody award and I was like, "Screw this!"

 

Maybe if he'd snorted a grammy or two it would've been better.

 

They've never been very polished live, although certainly once they cleaned up they were a lot more professional during their comeback era.

I've never had an issue with sloppiness and off notes in live shows. Probably preferred it if I'm being honest. Way too many bands playing pristine versions of their hits bores me silly. And given that my current music obsession is improvisational/avant jazz and experimental music in general, loud and abrasive is ok with me.

That said, I again will agree with the sentiments about barring Joey. Awful, completely unnecessary decision if in fact it was all about concern for him not being able to play well enough.

 

Unfortunately I think Aerosmith is still copying the Stones, because Joe (like Keith) is clearly now the weakest link.

 

Run: "WTF?! Who let Carly Simon up here?!"

 

No their albums weren't sloppy. But their live shows back then could be, and often were.

But Aerosmith's music was quite a bit different from Rush, and their whole general druggy, "elegantly wasted" vibe certainly was.

But whatever. Different parts of the country, different times, different experiences. It's all good.

 

I’m with you, I can listen to the record at home if that’s what I want to hear.

 

I draw the line at jokes like that.

 

To all the haters.... Let's see what you're up to at 71 years of age. My darling mother, for instance, was dead. Steven and the boys deserve better than your arrogant, haughty, conceited, disdainful, overbearing, pompous, condescending, supercilious, patronizing, imperious, proud, lofty, lordly, snobby, overweening, and smug comments.

 

Somebody got a thesaurus for Christmas!

 

I've always tended to think of Aerosmith as more of a pop band with electric guitars. Technically, they qualify as "hard rock," but even they have acknowledged that their songs tend to rely on hooks.

Rush, not so much.

 

How did this turn into a Rush-bashing thread?

 

Eh, I don't think it's all so cut and dried. For one thing, any decent songwriter is going to write a song with a hook now and then. Also, there's about as many hooks on "A Farewell To Kings" as there are on "Rocks."

 

Why, that's 1 : amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity. 2 : meriting derisive laughter or scorn as absurdly inept, false, or foolish...!

 

I think it's more an Aeroesmith-bashing thread. "Elegantly wasted" is not describing Rush.