|
Post by pillis on Nov 18, 2014 11:10:49 GMT -5
I know rock isn't the thing anymore -- rock is never commercially successful anymore these days, but commercial success isn't necessarily a measure of quality. Plenty of rock bands still make awfully good records. They might not be top-charting hit records, but these records have been well-received by fans and critics. When you're a rock band, and rock fans literally vomit over your new record, that's a really bad sign. Even if Aerosmith isn't commercially successful, they should at least be well-received by their core fanbase and the rock community in general. It makes me sad that Aerosmith is a laughingstock to rock fans. I hate having to defend and explain my love for Aerosmith to other rock fans. I think it's tragic that such a glorious rock band took such a drastic nosedive because they were trying to be everything to everyone. They really have to get over this idea that they can appeal to a broad audience, and I hope MFAD'S commercial failure was a wake-up call for them. No, the lack of promotion wasn't the problem. No amount of promotion will spin shit into gold. For example, look at how heavily-promoted Taylor Swift's new record is. Her new record will probably be super-commercially successful, but it's still a pile of shit. "Commercially Successful Music" !== "Quality Music" I absolutely don't feel the need to defend myself for being an Aeromith fan. I feel that many rock and metal fans are so narrow minded and judge your music tastes based on how many skulls there are on a band's logo or other stupid things. I heard lot of rock bands in the past few years at live shows and I find the majority of them (at least the big names that pop up at festivals quite regurarly like Alter Bridge, Avenge Sevenfold, Slipknot, Linkin Park, Foo Fighters not to mention U2, Muse and Coldplay) very commercial and cheesy in their own ways. I do agree on MFAD trying to have 70s, 80s, 90s and modern songs and that was the main flaw of the record to me. Despite I feel the overall sound to be choesive there wasn't a real musical direction and the tracklist order was a mess. Promotion can actually turn a pieace of shit into a platinum record. And honestly, Taylor Swift's album hasn't been promoted that heavily for pop standards. They released just a successful single (Shake It Off) with a few performances and then they dropped the album with just another couple of promo singles out on the web that haven't had videos or performances. What they did instead was spamming Taylor news and pictures for a long period of time before the release of the album turning this girl into the hot new thing focusing more on her fashionable outfits rather than building hype for her album. I think that she's huge in the states because of her country/crossover roots (this is her third album to debut with more than 1 milion copies in the first week) while here in Europe she's not a big phenomenon actually. Of course she's popular and most of the kids know her but she started getting famous here with her Max Martin (HELLO??) produced single I Knew You Were Trouble (obviosuly he's the main producer on 1989 a well -.-) which was a pop/dubstep piece of shit while her country stuff like tim mcgraw, picture to burn, love story, You Belong With Me are mostly unkown. So this proves that every country has its own rules and its own genres so, to break into different charts you need different singles and different strategies. Since MFAD was intended to be a big successful and charting comeback album it featured many potential singles that could have charted in many different regions. I think that it was a well balanced rock/commercial album and it made sense after 11 years of absence to me. But it would have all made even more sense if they had promoted this bloody record making it a fairly good hit for today's rock standards. Having a succesful album and especcially succesful singles between 2012 and 2013 I think it could have helped them to attract more interest and to be more confident so that they could produce new music without too much commercial stress. But being on a label like Sony forces you to put out a marketable album and MFAD had huge commercial potential (and a good quality overall imo although you don't agree) but wasn't promoted and ultimately that was the reason of all the MFAD era mess. If MFAD were a better hit I am sure that we would have already heard new and better Aerosmith songs by now released indipendently with a much more focused attitude...instead we've been watching this pathetic drama for the last couple of years. I absolutely understand your disappointment but you shoulnd't forget that music is business and Aerosmith are a HUGE act so when they produce an album with a major label, it's obvious that they are required to have a commercial appeal. Now that they are't signed they can do what they want but again, coming from this flop it's going to be even harder for them to enter in a studio and work on new music.
|
|
Air-Roo
Got a Grip
Posts: 72
Join Date:
May 27, 2014 18:22:49 GMT -5
|
Post by Air-Roo on Nov 18, 2014 12:53:07 GMT -5
A platinum record is not necessarily "a good record" though.
This seems to be the flaw in your thinking, that commercial success is a measure of quality, and a platinum record must also be a quality record.
Lots of very commercially-successful platinum records are awful.
And, lots of records that fail commercially are pretty great. Lots of excellent bands make excellent records that don't even make the charts.
Yes, I certainly agree with you that promotion can turn a horrible record into a platinum record. But, that's not what we're arguing about. Promotion can't turn a bad record into a "quality" record.
The main problem with MFAD is not that it failed commercially. The main problem with MFAD is that it was a bad record. Yes, I agree with you that more promotion could have made MFAD commercially-successful than it was. But, promotion can't take a "bad record" and turn it into a "good record."
I don't feel that rock fans are narrowminded, and I certainly don't feel that rock fans judge band based on "the number of skulls in the logo." In my experience, rock fans judge bands based on the quality of the music. And, Aerosmith simply doesn't make good music anymore. If we're mainly looking at the quality of the music, and if we're mainly judging the band based on how good the music is, then, the fact of the matter is that Aerosmith does not produce good music. That's the reason why so many rock fans are so critical of the band.
|
|
|
Post by gwb on Nov 18, 2014 22:34:40 GMT -5
Air-Roo, I could never have said it better than you, According to Phyllis's logic, Michael Jackson's Thriller must be the best album ever since it sold the most copies. Then again, his audience was much larger than rock bands's audiences would be. So should Aero try to mimic Michael Jackson on their next album? Is that really what we want?
|
|
|
Post by tomass on Nov 19, 2014 9:52:29 GMT -5
Thriller did have some damn good songs on it
|
|
|
Post by pillis on Nov 19, 2014 10:00:00 GMT -5
Did I say that a good selling album is immediately a quality album? No. My point was that MFAD was a compromise between hard rock sound and commercial appeal because after 11 years hiatus sony wouldn't allow Aerosmith to produce an indie record which could appeal just to a small niche. So I am saying that if MFAD was more succesful Aerosmith would have ended the contract with Sony with much more positive ideas for the future, willing to hit the studio again and PROBABLY without feeling the need to put in the album every song they would record. MFAD was long and featured some weak or too long songs (Can't Stop Loving You and Out Go The Lights above all imo) so I am assuming that pulling out another album after that without Sony and coming from a succesful era could have helped them to be much more confident and creative. That's my opinion, I wasn't trying to say that a platinum record is a good record...gosh no. And I like Bad more than Thriller tbh.
|
|
Air-Roo
Got a Grip
Posts: 72
Join Date:
May 27, 2014 18:22:49 GMT -5
|
Post by Air-Roo on Nov 19, 2014 12:26:02 GMT -5
They really need to stop trying to compromise between hard rock and commercial appeal.
As far as commercial appeal goes, it's a losing battle. The state of the music industry is abysmal, and a large majority of "commercially appealing music" sucks these days. Katy Perry, Rhianna, Ke$ha, Ariana Grande, and Nicky Minaj are what's "commercially appealing" right now. Meghan Trainor is "commercially appealing" in today's climate. Rock'n'roll no longer has any commercial appeal. I can't get enthusiastic about a great rock'n'roll band trying to emulate "commercially appealing artists" just for the sake of being "commercially appealing."
No, rock is no longer commercially successful. But, it doesn't stop most of the still-surviving great rock bands from continuing to make decent rock records -- the audience for that is much smaller than it was 25 or 35 years ago, but the audience is still there.
A huge number of other great rock bands are producing these "niche" records that appeal to a "niche" audience. If everyone else can do it, then why isn't Aerosmith also doing it? If Aerosmith is being forced by their record label to produce horrible, insipid crap with the hope that it's going to be "commercially successful," then Aerosmith needs to get out of that contract with Sony stat! Somehow, I don't think it's the record label that's to blame. I think there are elements within the band who are delusional enough to imagine that Aerosmith can still be "commercially viable" as long as they do the power-ballads. I think there are elements in the band that value "commercial success" at the expense of everything else. Even if they get a contract with a label that's more supportive of their niche efforts, they still have to deal with Steven Tyler, you know? I hope MFAD's commercial failure will be a wakeup call to certain elements in the band.
Sometimes, I question whether they're even capable of making good records anymore. I sometimes wonder if they still "have it." Creativity is hard! Creativity takes a lot of effort, and it's possible for creative geniuses to run out of ideas and lose their creative edge. There's a possibility that all of their best songs have been written already, all of their best ideas have already been used. As people get older, it gets harder and harder. Most bands have a tough time just getting past that sophomore record so, no matter what the future holds, Aerosmith deserves our respect for everything they've accomplished already. Even if it all ends here, they still have to be proud.
I don't know if Aerosmith is the right band to do a "Thriller" tribute album, but some rock/metal band should try it! Michael Jackson was excellent, and "Thriller" was an excellent record, and I'd love to give it to a nice power-metal band and see what they could do with it.
|
|
|
Post by pillis on Nov 19, 2014 20:18:09 GMT -5
Well I don't see many great rock bands producing super amazing rock albums, most of the rock music I hear on the radio or from big bands is total crap or commercial, then from tha point is personal. I like Aerosmith even with this commercial twist simply because I am not interested in a 70s nostalgia resurrection which is not going to happen any time soon. There ae some bands that indeed have stucked to their original sound ending up being repetitive, delusional and reductive (yes I am talking about ac dc and rolling stones).
And as you said, creativity doesn't last forever that's way Aerosmith started working with other people...they could have kept using the same formula of wtw and dream on but I'm happy they didn't do that. Honestly they have kept that Aerosmith twist over all these years...the raunchy lyrics, the rap verses, the long guitar solos, terrific riffs, catchy hooks, good melodies and incredible vocals but trying to stay relevant and reach younger people in each decade.
We all miss the 70s or the 60s but that was the time when modern music was invented...of course creativity was at its peak. Now everyone can be a producer with a computer and there's a huge offer of music. I personally think that the 80s produced the most crappy music of all time but at least it was a decade full of innovation with new technologies and musical styles.
I also agree that today's music is pathetic. I do like many pop/rnb and very commercial stuff but I'm getting so picky that I can count the artists that I like on my hands. I think that this is mainly due to the "crisis" of record labels and the fact that we are still using rules from the '90s for the most part and that's ridiculuos simply because the market has changed so much and labels should embrace this change in time and think of new ways of making money. There are already many answers but all the contracts, deals and details about % and revenues have to change.
So basically record labels aren't willing to invest in real new talents and original and innovative stuff because they won't sell any records. The challenge is to understand if the public likes an artist/album/song because we have so much information that is paradoxically way more difficult than before when you could count just on curiosity...especially since it's easier to find negative opinion on the internet.
MFAD was the last album with Sony and they also released lots of greatest hits and collections to speed up the process I think. So they had to do it to fulfill the contract and when you have a contract with sony you have rules. I think that ultimately they are now happy without label and are willing to produce new music without a strong commercial pressure but at the end of the day I am also sure that they like being icons, they like being on top and they would like to score some other hits.
Most of these guys like ballads, deal with it. They are part of the package since day one...I just hope they're going to record heartfelt and stripped down songs like another last goodbye or rocky ballads like closer rather than radio power ballads like we all fall down (which I still enjoy on a certain degree) but that's a personal preference. They had cheesy songs even in the 70s and early 80s, it's just that what was radio friendly back then was much more polished and refined than what's "cool" today because those were the golden years of blues, soul, rock n roll, rnb...basically the roots of everything, not super compressed 120 bpm, 3:20 minutes overproduced stuff.
So I am not expecting a radical change from MFAD, they're definitely going to have a commercial appeal but they are also going to be much more focused and wonn't have the pressure to squeeze in every song they have like they did in 2012. I predict less but more polished and meaningful ballads (can't stop loving you and closer had pretty bad lyrics) and a choesive sound hopefully going into an aggressive and dirty direction. I really wish they're gonna avoid some kind of 80s throwbacks. The best songs on MFAD in my opinion were Another Last Goodbye, Legendary Child and Lover Alot because kept the power of Aerosmith but updated to the 2010s and featured good lyrics so that's what I am looking for. Something that sound Aerosmith, so mighty and powerful but doesn't remind me of anything they did before too evidently.
I bet that Steven can put some of his silly words play into fun lyrics...there are tons of puns and jokes that he did on American Idol that let me think that he's still got it...probably he lacked that spark during the writing sessions which, if I remember correctly, were quite hasty.
Then at the end of the day I was probably not disappointed by MFAD because it was exactly what I was expecting and I knew that they were going to make some compromises. I really wouldn't blame Steven for the commercial twist of the band, he just likes ballads and good melodies as ALWAYS.
|
|
Air-Roo
Got a Grip
Posts: 72
Join Date:
May 27, 2014 18:22:49 GMT -5
|
Post by Air-Roo on Nov 21, 2014 13:28:51 GMT -5
Listen to more rock bands! Deep Purple, Motorhead, the Dio-era Black Sabbath lineup, Ted Nugent, David Bowie, have all put out decently good records within the last few years without being repetitive or delusional. Glenn Hughes and Jason Bonham have a new project together and they’re doing excellent work. Also, look beyond the most well-known, most mainstream artists: There is still good rock music out there. I know that “rock” and “metal” are 2 different genres, but I’d classify metal as a sub-genre of rock. It’s interesting that, while “Classic Rock” seems to be dying, “metal” seems to still be doing pretty well, with many good bands making many good records. No, metal isn’t very commercially successful, but it does have a large audience, and it’s one place in the world of “rock” where "rock" bands are still thriving creatively and attracting big audiences (and young audiences - teens!) these days. Maybe "rock" is just evolving towards a more extreme and heavy sound? I don’t know how a classic rock band can still manage to sound ‘relevant” and “up to date” in 2014, but I wish Aerosmith would stop trying so much. I thought, for me, the shift happened sometime around "Just Push Play." For a period of time, Aerosmith was one of those epic bands that many other artists looked up to and copied. With "Just Push Play," I began to notice that Aerosmith was copying elements from other, lesser, younger artists in an apparent effort to "sound relevant." They need to stop trying so hard to be relevant! When a band is relevant, it means that they're the ones at the forefront of music, they're the ones everyone else is chasing and trying to sound like. "Desperately trying to sound relevant" is very, very, very different from "Actually being relevant." I wish Aerosmith would stop striving for that. Yeah, they’ve always done ballads - and that’s a problem I have with people who say “ Aerosmith needs to stop with the ballads!” They’ve always done ballads like “You See Me Crying” and “Dream On.” So have lots of other bands! Stairway to Heaven! Deep Purple’s “Child In Time!” Black Sabbath’s “Changes” and “She’s Gone” and so many others. The ballad has been a part of hard-rock since forever, but I think there’s an important difference between a heartfelt and well-written rock ballad and the type of cheaply commercial hit-grab embodied by this brilliant parody: MFAD is packed with these kinds of empty, vapid attempts to score hits and it’s sad to see a great rock band stoop to that, although, they’ve been doing this kind of thing since the 1990s. The thing is, they haven’t updated their sound to the 2010s. MFAD sounds basically like 1990s Geffen Aerosmith, it raises some important questions: - Does Aerosmith sound repetitive and delusional, too?
- Is being stuck in a 1990s time-warp different from being stuck in a 1970s time warp? Has Aerosmith truly “progressed” musically since the 1990s? Or did they re-hash previous work, just like AC/DC usually does?
- Was MFAD really a commercially appealing record, or was it a failed attempt at being commercially appealing?
- Do they really still have commercial appeal?
- Have they really stayed relevant? Really?
- What can they do to be relevant now, in 2014, in our current musical climate?
- I hate to admit that I wouldn't have heard of Aerosmith if it hadn't been for that Alicia Silverstone ballad trilogy back in 1994 when I was a tweenie teenybopper. At one point in time, the strategy clearly worked. But is this strategy still working? Did they attract a new audience of teenage fans, or did the youngsters mostly ignore MFAD?
- Despite my own personal history, is it good and right for a Great Rock Band to purposely seek out an audience of 12-year-old girls? Even at risk of alienating their longstanding fan base? Why do they have this fixation on attracting young fans? Most rock bands really don't chase after the 12-year-old teenybop crowd.
You’re 100% right that the rules have changed __ record labels need to embrace new technology and find a way to capitalize on it. I predict that the days of Big Labels and Big Bands is coming to an end. I don’t think we’ll ever see another “big” band like Van Halen or Aerosmith. I think the big labels are dying a slow death, and I predict that big labels will be gone within 20 years. You’re 100% right about record labels not wanting to invest in new talent, and not wanting to produce any innovate new music. It’s awful! I’m sure the internet is partly to blame, I’m sure downloading is partly to blame, and I’m sure the record industry’s quality-control problem is partly to blame, but I predict that we aren’t going to see many more “rock stars” in the future. BUT BUT BUT, Mozart and Beethoven didn’t have major-label record deals! The demise of record labels and “rock stars” isn’t going to kill music — as long as there are humans, there will always be music. We aren’t going to live in an awful music-less void in the future, but, I think the days of “music-as-an-industry” are pretty much coming to an end. I think that the days of “commercial” music are pretty much coming to an end. In the future, I think we’ll mostly be seeing indie artists and hobbyists which is sad on the one hand, but inevitable on the other hand. Talented musicians have always found ways to make a living; I’m not that worried about them. But for those of us who love “rock stars,” it’s sad, because we’re getting close to the end of an era. There will never be another Aerosmith. All my favorite bands are full of guys in their late-50s, 60s, 70s and there’s nobody coming along to replace them.
|
|
|
Post by bartman2001 on Nov 21, 2014 15:11:49 GMT -5
Love me some "Mob Rules"
Great points
|
|
|
Post by pillis on Nov 22, 2014 11:18:16 GMT -5
You made great points, I also think that Aerosmith are not that relevant today, at least not on the charts but that's not a point of view a record label will ever take in consideration. I also do not agree on big labels to be gone in the next 20 years, in fact the music industry is healthy, it's just record sales that have been dropping but there has never been this big demand of music before.
I also don't think that MFAD sounds too 90s, it followed the same formula of 5 big ballads, which are indeed too many even if they were masterpieces (simply because they kill the pace of the album) but soundwise I think it was a good mix of hard rock, good harmonies and modern productions. But forget it, it definitely could have been better, I've never said that it was a perfect album...I would have left out in the deluxe version Out Go The Lights, We All Fall Down, Can't Stop Lovin' You and Closer (I really like this one in particular) and maybe inculded in the standard edition Shakey Ground and have a totally different tracklist.
I also think that metal, despite being considered a niche market (at least on the charts), is in fact a huge market when it comes to festivals and merchandise. I think that, in its own way, metal is a very commercial and marketable genre with many standard rules that bands have to follow in order to break through. And it's not difficult to see some hard rock/rock names in metal festivals line ups, simply because 60s and 70s rock artists are not that relavnt and popular anymore while 80s metal (and everything after that) has still a great demand. I actually have never seen a strictly rock festival.
About JPP well, that was the moment when Aerosmith was trying to survive to the teen pop explosion and honestly they put out a killer and edgy album which I love. It's far from being my favourite but I see its potential and its originality in 2001. What I hate about that era was their ridiculous style, from outfits to photoshoots etc...extremely cheesy and cheap.
I know that there are still bands and artists who are able to put out decent music (I really enjoyed Tom Petty's latest album). You named Black Sabbath and David Bowie, while I didn't like their album 13 and The Next Day at all, they had HUGE marketing strategies behind them. Ozzy has been a highly talked-about topic for the past years, also thanks to the popularity of his family members, all busy workig on tv programs and the Black Sabbath reunion was the hot thing in the metal/rock scene back then. Bowie has released an awful and gratitious video for The Next Day just to raise some controversy and gain the attention he needed...so, to me, promotion and marketing are crucial in any case.
What Aerosmith really needs is a good rock label or at least a good manager willing to put them on the right track and market them with consistency. They can work with any producer on the music but the next album has to be supervised by a smart executive who's gonna have the final decision on everything in order to make the album choesive not only musically but also commercially and that means picking up the right singles, making the right videos, doing the right promotional performances and doing the right interwviews!
But at this point I really don't now if we are ever gonna hear new music. Apparently they are already booking new shows for next summer, Steven has already said that Aerosmith are gonna tour in 2015 so I doubt they will ever manage to hit the studio for real. Probably they have all written down some lyrics/melodies/ideas but that's far from being actually working on new music all together. Realistically they're gonna start writing and composing next summer while on tour and start recording in sept/oct 2015...everything will depend on their tour schedule. I predict some dates in 2015 between summer and mid November then a new album in the first quarter of 2016 with a big world tour which is likely to be their last one in support of a new album. But honestly, this seems all very hasty to me so I wouln't be that positive about it.
|
|
|
Post by gwb on Nov 22, 2014 15:02:05 GMT -5
Imo, as I've said before several times, I am happy if they never write new music again. Their mindsets, life situations and drive to work hard has changed (not surprisingly) since the early days, and so I don't think I will ever like their new stuff nearly as much as the old stuff. Also, despite being rough in play quality, some of that old stuff holds a special place in my heart due to nostalgia and the way things were back then. Therefore, I'm happy if they focus more on touring than on writing, but I will bitch like hell if they go back to the same cookie cutter setlist and refuse to pull out at least 3-4 rare gems at each show (like they often fail to do, but not always).
|
|