Veteran bands giving the finger to new music....

[lerxstcat]

Actually Ozzy's setlist is currently heavy on the classics. He's even brought "Shot in the Dark" back. I think he's only doing 2 songs from the new album. So you might want to go after all.

[holycross1]

Perry has worked hard, and Played hard. Eddy has his reasons I'm sure. Maybe they will feel different oneday. Everyones entitled to change thier mind, move on, or just keep on the same old road.

[brannon67]

I agree and disagree with you guys. Its like a catch 22, or damned if they do, or damned if they dont kind of thing with these bands. Everything is so fcked up in the world nowadays, especially the music sceen. You cant please everyone. Its crazy. People want new music from these artist, then when they finally give it to us, we compare it to the old, and most of the time are let down by that. We bitch about how its not like the old, but we wanted new music. It makes no sense at all. Everything is way out of wack. I believe alot of these bands just need to call it a day, pack it up, go home, produce, or mayby start new bands with different members, under different band names. I dont know. I dont have the answer. I cant figure it all out.

[tonemonster]

Aerosmith blows goats. period. they should have never came out of "retirement" in 1987 with that stupid fucking dude looks like a lady song. it was all fucking garbage since that point on. van halen has sucked since the FUCK cd. AC/DC has sucked since Bon Scott died. and the Andy griffith show sucked when Barney Fife left and took that job in mont pilat.

as for the substance abuse, its rock and roll baby. Motley Crue talks about how cool they are since they quit doing drugs...........uh.........what? you guys suck ass. not just ass, but tri colored monkey ass. if you guys want to start rocking again and being cool, start doing drugs again and maybe then I will respect you. until that point your just a bunch of money grubbing corporate wannabee garage band hacks that have no integrity. you might as well go out and start selling Amway and Quixtar stuff.

[chrisolson]

Really?

[tonemonster]

Its twooo, its twooo, its TWOOO!!!!

[RacerX]

Aerosmith blows goats. period. they should have never came out of "retirement" in 1987 with that stupid fucking dude looks like a lady song. it was all fucking garbage since that point on. van halen has sucked since the FUCK cd. AC/DC has sucked since Bon Scott died. and the Andy griffith show sucked when Barney Fife left and took that job in mont pilat.

+1 to all

[atomic charvel guy]

Tone,
you should give Done with Mirrors a listen, it's got some good tunes on it.
Reason a Dog, My Fist Your Face (dedicated to Marvin Hagler) Gypsy Boots, and some others too.
It's pre- Permanent Vacation, from 1985, I think it's very listenable.
But their best stuff is obviously their first 4.

[sully]

Tommy, I agree. That album's a good one, for sure.

[toejam]

Done With Mirrors was awesome! That was really their "comeback" album. It's sort of a cross between their old stuff and the newer direction they would go into after that.

[tonemonster]

As I said....... it went to hell in 1987 with Dude looks like a lady and hasnt recovered since. complete garbage since that point. why the hell keep buying their CD's is just beyong my imagination. I dont get it. they should be jobless in the soup line for the quality of music they have put out the last 23 years.

[Krymson86]

I think the reasoning behind Aerosmith saying something like that is that they're worried about putting out a "bad" album and the fans sort of turning on them for it. For instance, most everyone thrashes on Metallica now for making god awful music when they used to be legitimately awesome.

Some examples of bands that keep making great music are Iron Maiden, AC/DC and the late Ronnie James Dio.

[DalyTek]

...since when did AC/DC do anything "new"?
they've been hitting the same three chords for 2 centuries now

I'm really interested in hearing the 200-year-old AC/DC tunes!
What exactly were they recorded on?

[diablomozart]

interesting subject and if i may, would like to inject my 2 cents here...

the biggest reasons for anyone in a band can be multiple...you'll have your artists who want to make a musical statement and sales, etc be damned...on the other side of the coin you'll have those who view it as their job, concentrating on how much money they can make and how big of a rock star they can be...and myriad reasons or shades of gray in between those two...

when it comes to a vintage artist like joe perry, it may very well be he started out as making a statement but eventually the realities of the business set in and it became a job...yeah a job he still enjoys (after all who doesn't like playing to 1000's of people and making some serious cash while you do it?) but in essence it is the vehicle for which he provides for his family...with downloading and the music industry in, pretty much, a shambles...why would someone want to spend the kind of dough it takes to make a great album knowing they probably won't even recoup the cost of the venture?...great studios aren't cheap...add in the fact that they could either spend the money on a new album or use that time to go tour and actually make money (although more and more labels want a 360 deal where they take a large percentage of touring take as well as merch) and their choice seems clear to me...

is it a little dishonest for someone to say "the fans won't care about new music"?...of course it is...but they are also fighting their own legacies in this respect...you will always have a vocal public who screams "this isn't as good as *fill in the name of a classic album here* and the artist will get grief over it...but many of those fans refuse to take into account the fact that we all grow older and our tastes change...and that includes the artists themselves...

i've seen many examples (both here and on other message boards) that say "if it's good we'll buy it"...the problem here is good is a subjective term, especially when it comes to art of any nature...you can't tell people what to like or dislike (although the record companies have tried to do just that for years)...

in the end, people like joe perry are part of a business...making and/or playing music is their job...and they will look for ways to maximize the money they make from that job...no different than anyone else out there working a 9-5...just because they are artists doesn't mean they have a different set of rules to live by or that their thought process is that much different from yours or mine...and while we may clamor for new material (which some fans are just never happy and will always rail against the new stuff versus the old stuff", if it isn't profitable or they see recording it as a dead loss then they should just say so...

so let me end this with a hypothetical question....how many of us have been doing the same job for years?...and how would we feel if someone came up to us and said "you need to quit because you are not doing anything new"?...maybe it's time to start seeing our legends in music as people because in the end that's what they are...d.m.

[6string40]

so let me end this with a hypothetical question....how many of us have been doing the same job for years?...and how would we feel if someone came up to us and said "you need to quit because you are not doing anything new"?...maybe it's time to start seeing our legends in music as people because in the end that's what they are...d.m.

I'm not sure that's a good/fair analogy at all. Most of us don't have jobs that are "artistic" in nature. Art requires some adaptation/change. Not saying genre change in that your art always changes to whatever the new trend is, but change in that each piece you release is different.

Take a painter...each of his/her paintings is the same style/genre, same medium, but each one has different colors and imagery. Same should go for musicians and their music.