| April 10th, 2004 01:53 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
Lately I've been listening to the latest offerings from Aerosmith and EC. As you know doubt know both are blues albums. Aerosmith's "Honkin' on Bobo" and Clapton's "Me and Mr. Johnson" are both good disks.
I would say that this really more class vs crass. Clapton shows true reverence towards his musical idol. While Aerosmith,as is their wont,tend to,for lack of a better term,Aerosmithize their version of the blues.
It's nice to hear Perry actully play his goddamned guitar again. After years of power pop ballads and movie soundtrack bile this disk shows that Joe hasn't lost his chops afterall. Tyler is the member of the band that has always anoyed the hell out of me,but he lays down some solid harp work here and his vocals reenergize alot of these cuts. On many songs he sounds remarkably like a white Bostonian who is doing his best impersanation of the Wolf himself. Which is, of course, the point. He pulls it off well. Joey Kramer is a prick of pricks for his comment a couple of years ago about the Stones. However,his playing is rock solid on this effort. These guys have always worshiped at the alter of the Stones so perhaps Krammer's remarks were his way of trying to distance himself from the obvious "Stones Light" tag. Overall "Honkin' on Bobo" is a pretty good tribute to the musical genre that got R&R started in the first place.
Now let's talk a little religion here. God has not sounded so good in years. Clapton has indeed mellowed over the years. His recent offerings,while great for what they are,are nothing more than great lounge pop. "Pilgram" and "Reptile" are great albums for the 40 something crowd,but always left me wanting more. His playing has not gone down hill at all,but he seems to not want the mantle of guitar god anymore. When EC wants to he can make any player alive look foolish. He just hasn't wanted to lately. Well he seems to be reasserting himself with "Me and Mr. Johnson". His playing is both loose and tight at the same time. Much like Robert Johnson's was. He plays great bottle neck slide and even delivers with a blistering National Steel solo on this brilliant disk. Clapton has made no secret about his love affair with the blues and RJ in particular. His recent "Riding With the King" is great,but this album is even better. Clapton once again shows the world that Robert Johnson was the most important blues artist of his day when it came to inspiring rock and roll artists twenty years after his death. The crazy thing is that RJ was virtually unknown when he was alive,save his own stomping grounds in the Mississippi delta. Clapton gives Johnson a tribute worthy of the legend that surrounds Johnson. He is much more reverential than Aerosmith. He dosn't try to jazz these tunes up at all,but rather fleshes them out with great orchestration and inspired guitar work.
At the end of the day Clapton wins this blues pissing match by a Mississippi delta mile. His playing is,once again,stunning. I thought that those days were over for EC,but I guess when your covering your mentor you tend to step up a bit. Clapton steps up in a big way on "Me and Mr. Johnson"!
It's so f'in good that I'm gonna go pour myself a Smuttynose Old Brown Dog Ale,pack a bowl,and go crank that motherfucker up right now! Enjoy.
Riffhard |
| April 10th, 2004 02:23 PM |
|
|
| polksalad69 |
Heard Perry on the radio last week saying it wasn't a blues album which I can agree with. He just wanted to rock. |
| April 10th, 2004 02:36 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
Well I can certainly understand why Joe would say that. Once you say that it's a blues almbum your sales generaly tank. It's such a niche format,but the fact is that every cut on the disk,save one,is a blues cover,but your right about Joe rocking it. It's nice to hear that from these guys again. Maybe the Stones will actully copy Aerosmith this time around. That would be a turnaround,huh?
Riffhard |
| April 10th, 2004 03:21 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
I stopped by the listening station at Best Buy and checked out both discs. While I agree that Clapton put out the better of the 2 discs...neither are really very good. You say that Aerosmith "Aerosmithized" their songs....well Clapton "Claptonized" his covers too.
Now this is great if you like Clapton's white boy blues style. I don't. He's fussy, and way to clean and precise for my liking. I certainly appreciate his technical ability. The man is a wizard. Unfortunately, that don't really impress me. They guy got no soul in it. Sorry, but Eric sounded a little on the phoney side to me. To me his album said, "Hey everybody, watch me pretend to be a great bluesman." Needless to say, I didn't buy it.
I couldn't even get through a minute of any of the Aerosmith tunes. I just absolutely hate those guys. Love Liv, hate Aerosmith. Hey, that would make a cool t-shirt. I could get a topless snap of Liv, and put that saying below it. Hmmmmmmmmm.
I'm not NOT licking Liv.
To me, the Blues, like Rock and Roll, is best served up sloppy, soulful, and on the ragged edge. Neither act is capable of serving it up that way. They are all so concerned with playing everything note perfect that they forget to MEAN it. They got "virtuoso syndrome". Takes the heart and soul out of the music.
Both albums should sell well though. I realize that I am in the minority when it comes to technical wizardry. Millions of people get baffled and blinded by technical skill. And if that's what they like, then these albums are up their alley. I'm skippin' both. |
| April 10th, 2004 04:09 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
I don't know Marc. I think that this is one of those "different strokes" sitcheeachuns. I would say that your "Hey everybody, watch me pretend to be a great bluesman" discription of Clapton could be applied to his entire career. I think he would readily admit to that with a certain amount of pride. My thinking is that Clapton may truly think that way. The fact is though that he is a great bluesman in his own right. Whether you particularly dig it is another matter for sure. While I stand in awe of Stevie Ray Vaughn's ability,his style tends to wear on me. He's like chocolate mousse. A little goes a long way if you catch my drift.
Clapton,in my mind,has always been a slave to the roots of the music. Lately he has gotten a bit too "loungy" for my taste. Yet at least with "Me and Mr. Johnson" he is wearing his musical heart on his sleeve and that can be a good thing indeed. I mean how many true artists are out there covering Robert Johnson with the reverence that Clapton is so earnestly displying on this disk?
As for Aerosmith. I think they did a pretty ggod job,but like you I'm not really a fan. I have three Aerosmith albums,"Toys in the Attic","Rocks",and "Draw the Line." I have to dust them regularly. Again though,in the age of Incubus,Godsmack and the like,it's nice to hear a decent band pay homage to the masters.
Riffhard
[Edited by Riffhard] |
| April 10th, 2004 06:27 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Well yeah, see, right there is the difference....you thought EC was earnest, and I thought he was just puttin' on an act.
I agree that Aerosmith is better than Godsmack & Incubus & Hoobastank et al...but then again, most anything is better than that shit.
Except for Toby Keith.
I think that's about as shitty as it gets. |
| April 10th, 2004 06:44 PM |
|
|
| T&A |
Said it before and I'll say it again:
It's EC's best album since Ocean Blvd 30 years ago. EC doesn't generally do great albums; he doesn't write great songs. That's obviously not a problem here - songs just don't get any better than this. That leaves us to execution and this group pulls it off expertly. You've got Billy handling some exquisite keyboards, Portnoy playing a nasty harp (he's one of the 3 tops in his field easily), Gadd and Keltner laying down the beat - it doesn't get much better. EC wisely lays off the long leads; these songs don't need 'em.
Among the 400+ blues albums in my collection, I can easily rank this in the top 20.... |
| April 10th, 2004 07:06 PM |
|
|
| MrPleasant |
Clapton, doesn't generally lack soul, or roll (wathever) in the studio, but energy. But let's face it: the Cream days are over.
His recent work's glossy, but the sparks are always there, lurking. For instance, how can one put down something relatively new: "Tears in heaven" (or any of his blues covers for the matter)? Too mainstream? Perhaps, but it's classy mainstream, and certainly more pertinent than Springsteen's 9/11 dictations (mostly nice, too).
It's tons harder to compose (or to recognize!) a memorable tune and wrap it in a proper presentation than to scrape well known emotions - something that could be blamed not only on modern Clapton, but on Keith as well ("Losing my touch"). That's why Dylan shrewdly arranged subsequent sessions for Blood on the Tracks in the seventies, as an early "Idiot wind" showed too much of him; too much rawness, less impact after several, accustomed revisions. That's also the reason why, although charming and raw, Clapton & Dylan's rare cover of "The water is wide" isn't such a mile away from Bob's Live 1975 rendition.
I haven't catched any of Clapton's concerts, but word of mouth: he still has it.
As for the new album, I'd be glad to give it a try. |
| April 10th, 2004 08:03 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
I bought Honkin' On Bobo. It's pretty good but it's not as good as a real blues album. I don't think I'll bother with Clapton's piffle. |
| April 10th, 2004 08:55 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
My problem with Clapton...even before Cream...is that he plays too good for me to take him all that seriously. I don't really see all that much difference between, say, Layla and Tears In Heaven.
I'm not questioning the musicianship on his Me & Mr Johnson album. It's a fantastically talented band, and Eric plays magnificently. For the most part the arrangements were pretty good. The songs were pretty flawless.
And it left me cold.
It sounds too good. Robert Johnson songs shouldn't sound good. Honestly, I'd probably feel this way about whomever put out an album like this one. I am just so accustomed to Johnson's songs sounding so....far away, distant, scratchy...to me, that's just the way it's supposed to sound, y'know? Like, it should require some effort on the listener's part. The Stones and The Stripes both covered Robert Johnson songs...but they didn't bother to try to do a straight up blues cover, they rocked it up. Why? Because they knew they couldn't do a straight up cover justice. They couldn't make it sound right, and they knew it. I'm sure this was a labor of love for Eric. I just wish he woulda loved something else.
I can certainly see where people who like this album are coming from. They're just coming from a different place than I am. Some folks say EC's record is one of the best blues albums that they own....and I'm not even gonna bother adding it to my collection. Different strokes I suppose. That's one of the best things about music, different folks can listen to the exact same things and hear it completely different. |
| April 11th, 2004 12:28 AM |
|
|
| T&A |
The Stones have done plenty of covers (not SBD and LIV, admittedly) straight up, as you say, SSA. You Gotta Move and Prodigal Son were lifted directly from the masters, for instance. Little Red Rooster is another prime example. Did these leave you "cold" as well? Just curious. Your argument puzzles me... |
| April 11th, 2004 01:43 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Lately I've been listening to the latest offerings from Aerosmith and EC. As you know doubt know both are blues albums. Aerosmith's "Honkin' on Bobo" and Clapton's "Me and Mr. Johnson" are both good disks.
I would say that this really more class vs crass. Clapton shows true reverence towards his musical idol. While Aerosmith,as is their wont,tend to,for lack of a better term,Aerosmithize their version of the blues.
It's nice to hear Perry actully play his goddamned guitar again. After years of power pop ballads and movie soundtrack bile this disk shows that Joe hasn't lost his chops afterall. Tyler is the member of the band that has always anoyed the hell out of me,but he lays down some solid harp work here and his vocals reenergize alot of these cuts. On many songs he sounds remarkably like a white Bostonian who is doing his best impersanation of the Wolf himself. Which is, of course, the point. He pulls it off well. Joey Kramer is a prick of pricks for his comment a couple of years ago about the Stones. However,his playing is rock solid on this effort. These guys have always worshiped at the alter of the Stones so perhaps Krammer's remarks were his way of trying to distance himself from the obvious "Stones Light" tag. Overall "Honkin' on Bobo" is a pretty good tribute to the musical genre that got R&R started in the first place.
Now let's talk a little religion here. God has not sounded so good in years. Clapton has indeed mellowed over the years. His recent offerings,while great for what they are,are nothing more than great lounge pop. "Pilgram" and "Reptile" are great albums for the 40 something crowd,but always left me wanting more. His playing has not gone down hill at all,but he seems to not want the mantle of guitar god anymore. When EC wants to he can make any player alive look foolish. He just hasn't wanted to lately. Well he seems to be reasserting himself with "Me and Mr. Johnson". His playing is both loose and tight at the same time. Much like Robert Johnson's was. He plays great bottle neck slide and even delivers with a blistering National Steel solo on this brilliant disk. Clapton has made no secret about his love affair with the blues and RJ in particular. His recent "Riding With the King" is great,but this album is even better. Clapton once again shows the world that Robert Johnson was the most important blues artist of his day when it came to inspiring rock and roll artists twenty years after his death. The crazy thing is that RJ was virtually unknown when he was alive,save his own stomping grounds in the Mississippi delta. Clapton gives Johnson a tribute worthy of the legend that surrounds Johnson. He is much more reverential than Aerosmith. He dosn't try to jazz these tunes up at all,but rather fleshes them out with great orchestration and inspired guitar work.
At the end of the day Clapton wins this blues pissing match by a Mississippi delta mile. His playing is,once again,stunning. I thought that those days were over for EC,but I guess when your covering your mentor you tend to step up a bit. Clapton steps up in a big way on "Me and Mr. Johnson"!
It's so f'in good that I'm gonna go pour myself a Smuttynose Old Brown Dog Ale,pack a bowl,and go crank that motherfucker up right now! Enjoy.
Riffhard
-Don't Kill me but I always thought Eric Clapton
was a bit over-rated and boring.
-Areosmith are silly in this day and age with
the Tours with Kiss....Superbowl Shows, Nickleodian specials, and a ton of Movie Sound Tracks.
*Now for the compliments to you. Although I don't
get interested in Aerosmith these days or even
really take them seriously for that matter and
Clapton is just too slow and blown up for me
I will say you gave an educated review. It
did interest me by how well it was written.
Ian |
| April 11th, 2004 03:33 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>The Stones have done plenty of covers (not SBD and LIV, admittedly) straight up, as you say, SSA. You Gotta Move and Prodigal Son were lifted directly from the masters, for instance. Little Red Rooster is another prime example. Did these leave you "cold" as well? Just curious. Your argument puzzles me...<
Yeah, I don't really care all that much for those covers. It sounds like white guys trying to play blues. Which it was. You Gotta Move, and Prodigal Son...filler material to me.
Like, why would I want to listen to the Stones do Little Red Rooster, when I can listen to Howlin' Wolf REALLY do it. I'm not talking live performances here...I talking studio cuts. The Wolf blows the Stones copy out of the water every time. Easily.
I have never understood the point of note for note covers. If yer gonna do a cover, put your own stamp on it. To me, covers are a very slippery slope. If you do it note for note, you might as well just be singing karoke. If you try to change the song around and put your own stamp on it, 85% of the time you'll just end up mucking it up. Only a very small percentage of cover songs ever turn out any good. It's the reason why so many of those endless parades of "Tribute" albums almost always suck. There's one or two good takes, and the rest blow chunks. |
| April 11th, 2004 03:45 PM |
|
|
| Madafaka |
Well, I've bought the new Aerosmith album and is great. In my numeric scale is 8/10. Tunes are very "Aerosmith"
What do you think? |
| April 11th, 2004 08:00 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
I already said what I think.
The best thing released so far this month....
Bob Dylan, The Official Bootleg Series Vol. 6: 1964 Live At Philharmonic Hall.
Nothing else has even come close. |
| April 11th, 2004 09:31 PM |
|
|
| beer |
Honkin on bobo? is that what the new Aerosmith album is called? how gay is that?
The stones should call their new album "Playin with Homo". dedicated to chuck leavell.
|
| April 11th, 2004 09:44 PM |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
quote:
beer wrote:
Honkin on bobo? is that what the new Aerosmith album is called? how gay is that?
The stones should call their new album "Playin with Homo". dedicated to chuck leavell.
LOL
honk on this
|
| April 12th, 2004 12:14 AM |
|
|
| polksalad69 |
Review from the Chicago Sun Times today. I heard the Sonny Boy Williamson cover last night which wasn't too bad. This guy's problem is he thinks it's a real blues cd. Oh well, money is not flying out of my wallet.
Spin control
April 11, 2004
* 1/2 AEROSMITH, "HONKIN' ON BOBO"
(COLUMBIA)
As a concept album, Aerosmith's new ode to the blues ranks with "No More Mr. Nice Guy," Pat Boone's venture into heavy metal. The washed-up rockers display no feeling for the music whatsoever with their testosterone-infused, pumped-up versions of blues classics and their plodding, sanitized renditions of soul-blues hits.
The best of the bunch, "Baby, Please Don't Go," is lifted almost note for note and bash for bash from John Mellencamp's contribution to the "Blue Chips" soundtrack. There's also a passable "Jesus Is on the Main Line," and the one original, "The Grind," has its moments.
But if the money's jumping out of your wallet and insisting that you buy a rocked-up blues album, you'd do better with almost anything else -- Foghat, Ten Years After -- than with "Honkin' on Bobo."
Jeff Johnson
[Edited by polksalad69] |
| April 12th, 2004 04:39 AM |
|
|
| JumpinJackFlash |
That Aerosmith album suck's ball's, big time. I downloaded all the song's and deleted them just as fast. Those boy's ain't even a pimple on Kieth and Mick's ass. Can't believe they wrecked "You Got To Move" like that. What a bunch of wankers. They wouldn't even make a good Stones cover band. Joe and Steve need a big black blues man to rape them, mabye that'll explain why steve screams like that. Yuk! |
| April 12th, 2004 08:08 AM |
|
|
| T&A |
problem with Dylan '64 release:
the boot blows it away, sound-wise. once again (they did it with the '66 one too) - Sony screwed up the mix to the point where the original sounds much better. |
| April 12th, 2004 11:41 AM |
|
|
| ResidentMule |
clapton had soul back when he tried to do something new with his instrument. I wouldn't say his attempt to emulate Robert Johnson was "fake", but definitly not very inspired. I haven't really formed an opinion yet on the record, it just didn't impress me that much, Clapton needs to let his fingers move a little more like back in the day
as far as Aerosmith, their pretty far from virtuosos. that bands always been much more about feel than technical ability. they're much more of a "groove" band than a "shred" band (I couldn't really call them either though), even though their feel leans more to the hard rock side. none of them are really doing anything that skilled, the closest thing there would be Tyler's falsetto. Unfortunatly after they turned that into a gimmick and he had to do his scream in EVERY song is when the band started to get cheapened, but judging by the new record I wouldn't say it was to the point of no return. its a great "Aerosmith" album, not worth mentioning as a "blues" album, and a good/entertaining but forgetable rock album. I enjoy it a lot, but I'm not going to rave about it. good listen, no blinding guitar work (for better or for worse) and there's nothing to really complain about musically, anyone who does could stand to get knocked down a peg.
[Edited by ResidentMule] |
| April 12th, 2004 12:01 PM |
|
|
| ResidentMule |
quote:
Spin control
April 11, 2004
* 1/2 AEROSMITH, "HONKIN' ON BOBO"
(COLUMBIA)
As a concept album, Aerosmith's new ode to the blues ranks with "No More Mr. Nice Guy," Pat Boone's venture into heavy metal. The washed-up rockers display no feeling for the music whatsoever with their testosterone-infused, pumped-up versions of blues classics and their plodding, sanitized renditions of soul-blues hits.
The best of the bunch, "Baby, Please Don't Go," is lifted almost note for note and bash for bash from John Mellencamp's contribution to the "Blue Chips" soundtrack. There's also a passable "Jesus Is on the Main Line," and the one original, "The Grind," has its moments.
But if the money's jumping out of your wallet and insisting that you buy a rocked-up blues album, you'd do better with almost anything else -- Foghat, Ten Years After -- than with "Honkin' on Bobo."
Jeff Johnson
I can see feeling that way if you bought the album. I mean, if you were expecting something different for your 15 bucks, go ahead & bitch, but, as with guy(and anyone else of the same opinion), if he actually expected something authentic, he's not as much of a blues afficianado as he gives himself credit for. |
| April 12th, 2004 01:47 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Well, I for one, didn't expect ANYTHING at all from Aerosmith. That's the problem with Aerosmith, there is no reason to expect anything but crappy AOR spooge from them...another album full of nothing.
And after trying to give the new album a listen, I think they delivered on my expectations quite well.
>and there's nothing to really complain about musically, anyone who does could stand to get knocked down a peg.<
Really? How's this...it's crap. Couldn't even get through entire songs without hitting the skip button. It's shitty commercial "classic" rock, and I fuckin' hate it. I couldn't see much difference between what was on "Honkin On Turdo" and that stupid Armeggedon song. Complete and utter pose. Hollow, vapid, empty, trite.
Aerosmith thought they could do well by marketing a "back to our roots" record...they were aware that people were not taking them seriously anymore. So they put out Honkin On Crappo...back to the Aerosmith of yore!
Whoooooopppeeee!
Problem with that for me is....I didn't like the Aerosmith of yore either. Aerosmith sucks. Honk on that.
So if you think I need "knocked down a peg" for having a valid opinion...please be my guest. You can't say anything to me that hasn't already been said a thousand times. I know what I like, I know what I don't like. I know what is good and what isn't. My taste is impeccable. Yeah, I am a bona fide Rock n Roll snob, no question about it. I freely and happily admit it. And trust me Mr. Mule....you ain't gonna change that.
|
| April 12th, 2004 01:59 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
So if you think I need "knocked down a peg" for having a valid opinion...please be my guest. You can't say anything to me that hasn't already been said a thousand times. I know what I like, I know what I don't like. I know what is good and what isn't. My taste is impeccable. Yeah, I am a bona fide Rock n Roll snob, no question about it. I freely and happily admit it. And trust me Mr. Mule....you ain't gonna change that.
Personally I never considered Aerosmith much to be more than a halfway decent band. But by New England standards that ain't half bad. |
| April 12th, 2004 02:48 PM |
|
|
| ResidentMule |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
Well, I for one, didn't expect ANYTHING at all from Aerosmith. That's the problem with Aerosmith, there is no reason to expect anything but crappy AOR spooge from them...another album full of nothing.
And after trying to give the new album a listen, I think they delivered on my expectations quite well.
>and there's nothing to really complain about musically, anyone who does could stand to get knocked down a peg.<
Really? How's this...it's crap. Couldn't even get through entire songs without hitting the skip button. It's shitty commercial "classic" rock, and I fuckin' hate it. I couldn't see much difference between what was on "Honkin On Turdo" and that stupid Armeggedon song. Complete and utter pose. Hollow, vapid, empty, trite.
Aerosmith thought they could do well by marketing a "back to our roots" record...they were aware that people were not taking them seriously anymore. So they put out Honkin On Crappo...back to the Aerosmith of yore!
Whoooooopppeeee!
Problem with that for me is....I didn't like the Aerosmith of yore either. Aerosmith sucks. Honk on that.
So if you think I need "knocked down a peg" for having a valid opinion...please be my guest. You can't say anything to me that hasn't already been said a thousand times. I know what I like, I know what I don't like. I know what is good and what isn't. My taste is impeccable. Yeah, I am a bona fide Rock n Roll snob, no question about it. I freely and happily admit it. And trust me Mr. Mule....you ain't gonna change that.
getting you to change that your convinced your totally right isn't something I'm gonna bother to do. I didn't say you could to be knocked down a peg for having a "valid opinion", I said you (not you specifically) could be knocked down a peg for taking yourself too seriously, and you haven't proven me wrong. I do think this discussion would be a lot more interesting if it didn't boil down to you showing off your dominance about your taste of music. that uptight my-way-or-the-highway crap doesn't help get a point across, so if we could just move past that...
I will agree that the "back to roots" marketing was bullshit. even if it was accurate, I would've been turned off by it, because I'd rather see bands try to move forward than backwards. but i don't pay attention to hype like that anyway, so it didn't affect me. i judged the album based on what I heard, and it was entertaining. not stellar, not classic, entertaining. pretty much the same feelings about Bridges to Babylon. overall I rate that album higher up than Honkin On Bono, I mean after 7 years I still listen to it every now and then,, I wouldn't be willing to bet this one will get quite as good treatment, but I'm not gonna tell people "don't buy this CD" or "this CD is excellent, it defines rock n roll" (I wouldn't care if it did). just let it be |
| April 12th, 2004 03:01 PM |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
besides both Aerosmith & Clapton releasing blues cover albums this month, they also have one other very important thing in common that I think is worth mentioning: THEY BOTH SUCK.
and they both suck really bad. It seems as if they have both spent the past two decades trying to prove who sucks more and who could be the bigger sell-outs. If there is a Hall of Fame for once great rock bands that have completely sold-out and dedicated the latter parts of their careers to putting out commercial friendly, soft-ass, soundtrack-driven, cheesy crap in the most desperate and pathetic attempts to sell records then Aerosmith and Mr.Clapton would be the charter members. |
| April 12th, 2004 07:01 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>I said you (not you specifically) could be knocked down a peg for taking yourself too seriously, and you haven't proven me wrong. <
That is not what you said. You said this:
>>>and there's nothing to really complain about musically, anyone who does could stand to get knocked down a peg.<<<
I found plenty to complain about musically. I stated exactly WHY I didn't care for the music. Are you trying to imply that Aerosmith is above criticism?
I never said not to buy either Aerosmith's or EC's CD. I said that I wasn't buying either one. A significant difference.
I never said that you were not allowed to like or enjoy anything. I stated why I didn't like or enjoy it. Again, a significant difference.
I never said that people who like Aerosmith are stupid. Not once did I go after anybody's personal tastes. All of these assumptions that you have made about my posts are your own. I stand by everything I posted. I came down on EC and Aerosmith's latest CDs...not the people who like those CDs. Again, a significant difference.
In fact, earlier on in the thread I said how interesting that I found it to be that people can hear the exact same things differently. Different strokes and all that. I guess you didn't see that...here, I'll reprint it so you don't have to go back and look for it:
>I can certainly see where people who like this album are coming from. They're just coming from a different place than I am. Some folks say EC's record is one of the best blues albums that they own....and I'm not even gonna bother adding it to my collection. Different strokes I suppose. That's one of the best things about music, different folks can listen to the exact same things and hear it completely different.<
I have no regrets about taking my love for good Rock n Roll music seriously. I don't see why I should. I put in a lot of time and effort into it. I enjoy that. And this is wrong??? I approach things differently than you Mr. Mule...so for that I should be "knocked down a peg"? That doesn't make much sense, and is every bit as closed minded as you claim that I am. Read back over this thread and you will never find a "knocked down a peg" statement from me aimed at anyone on this board.
Please be entertained all you like by the new Aerosmith album. I really don't care what you or anyone else listens to...it's up to you as to what you bounce off your eardrums...those eardrums ain't mine. All I'm doing is stating my opinion...as you are...and offering counterpoints. That is what this forum is all about.
Besides...none of this changes anything...in the end Aerosmith still sucks, and always will.
Not as bad a Toby Keith though...but gettin' close. |
| April 12th, 2004 07:39 PM |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
Sir Stones I agree with some of your critism of both artists in question, but in all fairness Clapton has been in a bit of a slump in recent years, but his Johnson disk is indeed a noble attempt to pay homage to one of his idols, keep the blues alive and introduce it to a new audience, all in one shot.
I think he should be given kudos for his attempt, it's a pretty no frills, honest, attempt at a straight blues album.
I agree with the "put your own stamp on cover songs" argument, but in this case there is no need for flashy guitar solos ect...that isn't what Johnson was about, and in a way EC DID put a stamp on them by encorperating a full band. He was trying to update these songs, and he did a fair job, the cd isn't that bad.
Aerosmith's on the other hand pisses me off. I've tried to like these guys over the years, but they really disgusted me in the late 80 - 90's with all that power ballad shit. There is absolutely no excuse for that crap.
Their blues cd is all gimmick, they had no where else to go. end of story.
I have both these disks and I can honestly say I regret buying the aerosmith one. Once the novelty wears off, and its getting closer after each listen, I'll probably never listen to it again. It was a waste of sixteen dollars.
|
| April 12th, 2004 07:42 PM |
|
|
| polksalad69 |
Jody Williams has a new cd out I hear. If you like Chicago blues pick it up, I'm sure he can use the money more than either EC or Aerosmith can.
You Left Me in the Dark
Artist Jody Williams
Album Title You Left Me in the Dark
Date of Release May 11, 2004
Ok, just checked, it ain't out yet, but if you don't have his comeback cd from a few years ago get that one.
http://community.webshots.com/photo/39904812/39904908yHTqee |
| April 12th, 2004 08:14 PM |
|
|
| ResidentMule |
So, Mr Mule? OK, got a good ring to it
OK, I'll start with this, I'm not gonna bother responding to the rest right now:
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
>I said you (not you specifically) could be knocked down a peg for taking yourself too seriously, and you haven't proven me wrong. <
That is not what you said. You said this:
>>>and there's nothing to really complain about musically, anyone who does could stand to get knocked down a peg.<<<
yeah, saying somebody could be taken down a peg doesn't mean their wrong. it means they shouldn't place themselves on a thrown based on their own opinions. you seem about as flexible as a rock when it comes to this, and I guess your pretty happy that way, so I'm not gonna try and say your wrong, just reminding you that you don't set the universal standard for good music either, except in your own head
quote:
I found plenty to complain about musically. I stated exactly WHY I didn't care for the music. Are you trying to imply that Aerosmith is above criticism?
Aerosmith above criticism? where'd you find that? This band leaves themselves SO wide open for criticism. I dont think your tastes in music are above criticism either, and I tend to dig your taste in music for the most part. If I was looking, I could find something to criticize in everything I listen to. I found a lot more to complain about musically on Four Flicks than I did on the new Aerosmith album (not in song selection of course) - so I'm not gonna trash one thing as if the other were flawless. Maybe you wanna run through exactly what you didn't like about it again, only because you said you spelled it out exactly
oh, and I promise you, I hate Toby Keith a hundred times as mmuch as you do |
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]