Jump to content

Aerosmith - Get a Grip - Opinions?


Dr. Who

Recommended Posts

Released in April 1993 in the midst of the Grunge era, Get a Grip was Aerosmith's first release of the '90s and it was released to very positive reviews and was a massive record upon release; It sold over 20 million copies worldwide and 7 million just in the US alone. In terms of quality, it is generally considered to mark the end of their renaissance, to be their last great album.

That said, with 21 years of hindsight, what do you guys feel about Get a Grip?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always liked "new" Aerosmith. It isn't quite as good as the classics, but they had some great stuff in the 80s and 90s. Get a Grip was the last great one, though.

FUcking Just Push Play and Music From Another Dimension are a double whammy of dissapointment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an Aerosmith fan, I find this particular album to be mixed for me...

I love Eat The Rich, it is probably my favourite song by them ever. Also, I think Flesh is an excellent song too. But aside from those two songs, I rarely listen to the album in it's entirety. Obviously it has soem of their big ballad mainstream hits too, and those are decent enough.

I think Pump is a better album.

Also, read above that someone said Music From Another Dimension is disappointing? I completely disagree, it has some excellent tracks on it. Street Jesus, Legendary Child, Lover Alot, and Out Go The Lights, are all awesome, and again it has some good ballads, such as What Could Have Been Love and Can't Stop Lovin' You.

That being said, the track Devil's Got A New Disguise, is better and that was a song released as an extra track on the Best Of compilation which was named after it. But then I prefer their sleazier tracks to be honest.

Also, anyone else love their Blues covers album - Honkin' On Bobo? I think it is a solid effort, some great renditions.

Edited by sploit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the singles, but lets face it, some of those album tracks are the dictionary definition of the word "filler."

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I found Nine Lives, JPP and MFAD to be far more consistant releases, even if they didn't reach the heights of the good stuff on GAG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't quote on this comp so to the guy who likes Music From Another Dimension-

Street Jesus and Out Go The Lights are some of the best tunes Aerosmith has done in 20 years

The rest is a hodgepodge of tracks ranging from decent to garbage. As a whole, the record does not work and was really disappointing to me.

Oh Yeah, Lover A Lot, Shakey Ground, and Another Last Goodbye are pretty darn good, Beautiful and Something are "meh"-ok, and the rest is generic- crap IMO

EDIT- Honkin' On Bobo is pretty darn great, but its a covers album

Edited by ZoSoRose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aerosmith are a terrible, terrible band. Always have been, always will be.

BTW, how come a band like Bon Jovi, for example, gets shit on because they've used outside writers on occasion but Aerosmith gets a free pass?

Aerosmith are the epitome of chasing trends to pad their pockets. The bottom of the barrel. Garbage.

Edited by Sixes
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's got a couple good songs but I never really dug it. Nine Lives was their last good album, and it's far better than Get A Grip

Nine Lives is ok, but better than Get a Grip? Not by a long shot....

I think its a great album, and last great Aerosmith album. Honestly this album got me into rock. Plenty of hits on it, no need to name them all, but Eat the rich is one of the best riffs and rock songs ever. Not just by Aerosmith, but by anyone. Plus Shut up and dance, Line Up, and Get a Grip are all great album tracks IMO.

Edited by Mike420
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, how come a band like Bon Jovi, for example, gets shit on because they've used outside writers on occasion but Aerosmith gets a free pass?

Not to start a flame war, because we are all entitled to our opinions, so if you think they are garbage, then so be it. But as for this point let me explain. Bon Jovi were never anything other than a band looking to be rich and famous. Honestly I don't think at any point in their career was their music their number 1 priority. Looking good and being a "rockstar" was always THE most important thing to them. If you don't believe me, ask their contemperaries. Ted Nugent once said that their is a difference between musicians and rockstars, and he called Jon Bon Jovi a rockstar, he is not a musican. But he also said he is one of the most driven guys he has ever met, and doesn't look down on him at all, but they did choose different "paths" if you will. I'll be the first to admit that Slippery when wet is a good if not great rock album, but it's the only one worth a damn that band ever released. The rest of their albums have moments, but its more style of substance. I'll also give the guys credit, they can write some good songs, so I'm not completly bashing them. But when you compare them to Aerosmith, their are some MAJOR differecnces.

The biggest difference is Aerosmith had the entire decade of the 70's to gain credibility, which they did. At no point in Bon Jovi's career did they gain any real credibility. Aerosmith wrote some classic albums and songs, at a time when substance was all that really mattered. Their was no MTV to have Steven Tyler flying around on a rope singing his songs. His songs were played on the radio and the people liked them, plain and simple. If you wanted to see what the band looked like you had to buy the album and look at the cover or go and see them in concert. Basically what I'm saying is that Aerosmith were the real deal for at least a decade, while Bon Jovi were always more of a fluff band, thats why it's not a good comparision. Now to your point, yes Aerosmith has sold out more and more as the years have gone by, which is how they started losing me as fan tbh. But that doesn't change the fact that they were the real deal at one point. They have as much credibility as just about any band you can name IMO; gnr, Metallica, Sabbath, whomever. Aerosmith are just as legit as any of those. To be quite honest, they are probably America's greatest rock and roll band. Name another one with as many hits, longevity, original members, etc, etc... Like them or hate them, but you should at least respect them....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, how come a band like Bon Jovi, for example, gets shit on because they've used outside writers on occasion but Aerosmith gets a free pass?

Not to start a flame war, because we are all entitled to our opinions, so if you think they are garbage, then so be it. But as for this point let me explain. Bon Jovi were never anything other than a band looking to be rich and famous. Honestly I don't think at any point in their career was their music their number 1 priority. Looking good and being a "rockstar" was always THE most important thing to them. If you don't believe me, ask their contemperaries. Ted Nugent once said that their is a difference between musicians and rockstars, and he called Jon Bon Jovi a rockstar, he is not a musican. But he also said he is one of the most driven guys he has ever met, and doesn't look down on him at all, but they did choose different "paths" if you will. I'll be the first to admit that Slippery when wet is a good if not great rock album, but it's the only one worth a damn that band ever released. The rest of their albums have moments, but its more style of substance. I'll also give the guys credit, they can write some good songs, so I'm not completly bashing them. But when you compare them to Aerosmith, their are some MAJOR differecnces.

The biggest difference is Aerosmith had the entire decade of the 70's to gain credibility, which they did. At no point in Bon Jovi's career did they gain any real credibility. Aerosmith wrote some classic albums and songs, at a time when substance was all that really mattered. Their was no MTV to have Steven Tyler flying around on a rope singing his songs. His songs were played on the radio and the people liked them, plain and simple. If you wanted to see what the band looked like you had to buy the album and look at the cover or go and see them in concert. Basically what I'm saying is that Aerosmith were the real deal for at least a decade, while Bon Jovi were always more of a fluff band, thats why it's not a good comparision. Now to your point, yes Aerosmith has sold out more and more as the years have gone by, which is how they started losing me as fan tbh. But that doesn't change the fact that they were the real deal at one point. They have as much credibility as just about any band you can name IMO; gnr, Metallica, Sabbath, whomever. Aerosmith are just as legit as any of those. To be quite honest, they are probably America's greatest rock and roll band. Name another one with as many hits, longevity, original members, etc, etc... Like them or hate them, but you should at least respect them....

Not buying it. In fact, in a way this makes it worse. So Aerosmith are - we are led to believe - this genuine rock n' roll band with integrity yet sold out. Bon Jovi have no other choice but to sell out because they are fluff.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...