Aerosmith: Losing Grip On Reality

I love Aerosmith more than I could even put into words; they're America's answer to the Rolling Stones. Love 'em or hate 'em Aerosmith has managed to stay together for thirty-five years with the same line-up (aside from a five-year period 1979-1984). This is largely unheralded in the music industry. More importantly, I "think" Aerosmith is at the top of their game from a performing perspective. As Aerosmith rose in popularity in the 1970's, their performances became more and more unwatchable due to substance abuse. However, in the late 80's they resurrected themselves in a way that I'm not even sure the most devout religious figures could ever dream of. The irony of this resurrection is that many people feel they sold their souls to the devil in return for their success. Nothing could be further from the truth. When Perry returned to the band in 1984, they immediately ventured onto the road and the following year they released their comeback album, 'Done With Mirrors', an album that is near impossible to find these days and one that sadly never received the remaster treatment. This is the band at their grittiest and it's a damn fine album, albeit, not a great one as the band was still not clean at this point. Two-years later they returned with the jolting 'Permanent Vacation' an album full of ballads and boogie-woogie grooves. Three songs entered the top-twenty ("Dude Looks Like A Lady", "Angel" and "Rag Doll") and the rest you can say is history. One thing I think should be made clear is that Aeromsith did not sell-out, all they did was seek help from A&R guru John Kalodner, producer Bruce Fairburn and songwriter Desmond Child. Granted, these three are responsible for some of the most popular rock records of the last twenty-years but what these three did was allow Aerosmith to believe in themselves again and thrive in ways they never did in the 70's.

Aerosmith's late eighties resurrection is badly maligned by almost everyone but my answer to them is usually asking them if they truly have listened to these albums? 'Pump' is a magnum opus on par with their best 70's material while 'Get A Grip' is heavy on filler but is still rocks harder than almost any album released in the last five years. The underappreciated 'Nine Lives' is a stronger album than 'Get A Grip' but because it's singles weren't as resilient people unfairly smear it. The Geffen era of the band is top notch and those who feel otherwise are misinformed, however, I believe that these people associate the ballad "I Don't Want To Miss A Thing" with everything Aerosmith has done post 1987. It's the bands only number-one hit alas it's also the only hit they did not write. All that being said, I find the song to be an epic and soaring ballad. This was the last truly illustrious power ballad ever recorded. The band put their unique imprint on the song which does make it distinctive and not a sell out record for me even though most people look at this moment as when the band "jumped the shark". For me, this moment didn't occur until they started charging over $100 per ticket.

In September of 2002, I saw Aerosmith twice; once in Chicago and a second time at Alpine Valley (midway in between Chicago and Milwaukee). Between these two shows I saw a band at their zenith. They were in command of their catalog, their aptitude and their audience. Everything they did during these two shows oozed confidence and in truth, aside from a revelatory December 1994 gig, this was the best I have ever seen Aerosmith. Like a fine wine, they were getting better with each passing tour and year proving their cynics wrong with spectacular unyielding shows consisting of raw gusto and sublime sexual references that aroused anyone who saw it. Now, I would like to tell you that in the five-years since those triumphant gigs that Aerosmith has continued to excel leaving their audiences breathless gasping for more at the end of the night. The truth is, I have no idea and probably never will ever see Aerosmith live ever again which saddens me.

Beginning in 2003, Aerosmith seemed to care more about the almighty dollar than the music. They chose to do a co-headline tour with KISS where top ticket prices were around $150 with service charges. Here is where the math does not add up. I saw Aerosmith the year before for a top ticket price of $90 (with service charges) and I saw them perform a two-hour show, with Kid Rock and Run DMC opening. Two years earlier I saw KISS on their farewell tour for $75 with Ted Nugent and Skid Row opening. Here we are a few years later with both bands sharing the same stage for double the cost and only a portion of the show (each band performed approximately eighty-minutes per show). Who thinks this is a good value? I don't and I can't understand why people paid money to see this show. It wasn't like Billy Joel and Elton John where they perform together and give fans something unique they can't see when they pay to see these two talented artists solo. Even more mind boggling was when Aerosmith chose to tour with Motley Crue in late 2006 for a co-headline tour where top tickets cost around $165 with each band performing approximately thirteen songs per night. That is approximately $12.75 a song. What kind of a value is this? None. These artists and promoters should be ashamed for ripping fans off and they should be disappointed with themselves by smearing their legacy.

The backlash is occurring even though most artists, promoters and managers would like to spin it differently with carefully crafted press releases. Here are the cold hard facts; The Billboard Boxscore for the Alpine and Chicago shows last fall for the co-headline tour with Motley drew approximately 12,500 people per night. That's a total of 25,000 people over two-nights (with a combined capacity of over 60,000). Now, in 2002, a very conservative estimate had Aerosmith, all by themselves, playing to 50,000 people combined at BOTH the Alpine and Chicago shows and I think that number was closer to 60,000. To make matters even more mind-boggling is the fact that in 1990 Motley performed close to 70,000 fans over two nights at Alpine and Aerosmith performed to close 65,000 between the Chicago and Alpine gig. Add those numbers up and you have 135,000 tickets sold. Motley resurrected themselves in '05 and Aerosmith hasn't lost a step since 1990�so why could these two legendary bands barely muster 25,000 fans over two nights (over 100,000 less than in 1990 and half of the size audience from four years earlier)? I'll give you one defining reason; Ticket prices.

Fans are sick and tired of paying through their nose for tickets where it costs them more than a $1 a minute. That's my rule, unless you are the Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney or U2, no one should ever charge more than $1 a minute (and I don't justify those artists prices either). In late 2005 Aerosmith wasn't even performing 100-minutes and yet their tickets were closer to $200 than $100. Part of me is profoundly disappointed by the band and their management for allowing this to happen and if attendance is any indication, fans are as well. They are saying enough is enough and they're no longer paying these exorbitant prices. Aerosmith is venturing on what could be their last hurrah. People should be flocking to see this mighty and legendary band while they still can...but most won't because they don't feel like skipping a car payment to see them. They should be selling out multiple nights at arenas, but because of $100+ tickets, they'll be lucky to fill one night. I can pull up eight tickets together for any of their upcoming shows. Ten years back, tickets would have sold faster than you could say "Dream On". Just this past weekend I saw an enormous billboard off a highway promoting the show. Ten years ago, the show would have sold itself and billboards would have been useless because multiple shows would have been sold out.

Now, one show I would have paid an exorbitant price for would have been a roots blues filled show in support of their criminally underappreciated 'Honkin' On Bobo' album. This album was dumped into stores without a lot of thought and sadly as a result, few bought it. All of those whiny fans asking for a return to form by Aerosmith missed out on this funky, gospel, R&B flavored disc, possibly their best since 'Rocks'. Part of the blame lies with the band that performed in mostly "B" markets where they performed only two or three songs from the album nightly. The band should have taken up week long residences in Boston, New York, Chicago and San Francisco performing in clubs to promote the record building hype and showcasing themselves in a new light. Because they performed so few songs in concert from this album, many fans were disinterested and opted not to seek the album out. By pricing tickets too high, you begin to cater to a group of people who only know your catalog from a limited scope and these are the types who will never buy a blues influenced album. If tickets had been more fairly priced and the tour more varied, the album may have faired better and Aerosmith would have shown the world that they still resonate and are a vital creative force instead of a jukebox cranking out decades old classics.

I love Aerosmith and want to see them thrive, show the world what a first rate kick-ass rock n' roll band they truly are and make me eat my words. However, I am going to have a hard time convincing people they didn't sell their souls to Dianne Warren when I'm continually turned down by their management when I ask to review them because frankly, I can't afford tickets to see them anymore. Instead of letting their music do the talking, Aerosmith is letting the money entice their sweet emotions instead of letting the music and roar of the crowd get their rocks off. Instead of walking their way, I will most likely be walking in the opposite direction on a permanent Aerosmith vacation.

Anthony Kuzminski can be found at The Screen Door

...end