Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
also want to add that NYC, Atlanta, Chicago and Prob LA all have stronger hip hop scenes than Houston.
Aerosmith hasn't been relevant since the seventies. But know that I think Steven Tyler's a great singer and Joe Perry is an outstanding guitarist. Joe Perry's consistently rated in the top ten on various rock and roll guitarists lists. And, I think Mama Kin, Dream On, Walk This Way, Sweet Emotion and Back In The Saddle are among the best rock and roll songs ever recorded. But, and this is a big giant ghetto but, Aerosmith hasn't done anything worthwhile in almost three decades. Too much heroin, I think. The pap they came out with in the late 80s and during the 90s is top 40 detritus recorded for no other reason than to recoup some of those millions they injected into their veins and snorted into their noses during the early and mid 80s. Don't misunderstand me. I like Aerosmith. Early Aerosmith.
And, claiming the dominance of pop songs (Aerosmith after Draw The Line)as cultural relevance is as ridiculous as pointing to the results of a City-Data poll as a definitve answer to a question. And, as AK123 pointed out, if you're going to be comparing big national acts, Houston's ZZ Top is more in line with Boston's Aerosmith (Hey, didn't they just do a tour... together?). Also, Mike Jones is still more relevant than Boston's best response: House of Pain. Jump around! Jump around!
Did you not catch "American Idol" a few years ago when they were auditioning in Houston, and Randy kept saying "Beyonce, where's the talent?" In other words, the music scene in Houston is worse than it sucks. There are so very few decent groups there it's pathetic, but why would they stay in Houston if they had anything going for them when nearby Austin is called the "Music Capitol of America?" Go to Austin if you want to hear good music. Forget Houston as it's a loser in this category. Barbeque and great TexMex, yes. Music...no way.
Aerosmith hasn't been relevant since the seventies. But know that I think Steven Tyler's a great singer and Joe Perry is an outstanding guitarist. Joe Perry's consistently rated in the top ten on various rock and roll guitarists lists. And, I think Mama Kin, Dream On, Walk This Way, Sweet Emotion and Back In The Saddle are among the best rock and roll songs ever recorded. But, and this is a big giant ghetto but, Aerosmith hasn't done anything worthwhile in almost three decades. Too much heroin, I think. The pap they came out with in the late 80s and during the 90s is top 40 detritus recorded for no other reason than to recoup some of those millions they injected into their veins and snorted into their noses during the early and mid 80s. Don't misunderstand me. I like Aerosmith. Early Aerosmith.
And, claiming the dominance of pop songs (Aerosmith after Draw The Line)as cultural relevance is as ridiculous as pointing to the results of a City-Data poll as a definitve answer to a question. And, as AK123 pointed out, if you're going to be comparing big national acts, Houston's ZZ Top is more in line with Boston's Aerosmith (Hey, didn't they just do a tour... together?). Also, Mike Jones is still more relevant than Boston's best response: House of Pain. Jump around! Jump around!
Lame.
You didn't like anything from Get a Grip? I thought that was a hell of an album. Livin on the Edge, Crazy, Cryin, and Amazing were all great tunes IMO.
Hasn't been relevant since the 70s? They had hit records in the 80s and 90s that sold millions.
All pop pap. May as well be Britney Spears as far as cultural relevance goes. In another 30 years, nobody will remember late 80s/early 90s Aerosmith, but 70s Aerosmith will stand the test of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Clavin
House of Pain is New York based. No members were from Boston.
All pop pap. May as well be Britney Spears as far as cultural relevance goes. In another 30 years, nobody will remember late 80s/early 90s Aerosmith, but 70s Aerosmith will stand the test of time.
Ok then... Marky Mark.
You liking or not liking the music isn't a factor. The fact is that they sold millions in that time frame, making them relevant. I've never been a fan of the band but to say they aren't relevant in the 80s and 90s is incorrect. Britney Spears may suck, but she was relevant for a while.
Even though you're being sarcastic about Boston's "rappers", Mark Wahlberg is much more famous than Mike Jones is ever going to be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
