Aerosmith - Done With Mirrors (1985) - Page 2

Vic2010 · 07-05-2010, 10:58 AM

I really dig this album. There are a few Aerosmith albums I haven't heard that came before this one. I think after that classic run of albums up to/including "Rocks" this album is their best. I never bothered with anything from the 'smith after Done With Mirrors (not counting "Honkin' On Bobo").

aeroplane · 07-05-2010, 03:38 PM

Used to enjoy playing a few cuts from this on my old radio show(s). I always preferred playing deep album tracks and stuff from lesser known albums whenever I had Aerosmith on the playlist.

The cuts I used to play were "The Reason A Dog", "Darkness" and "Let the Music Do The Talking."

This was a good album and like most of you have been saying, I feel Aerosmith hasn't made a "better" album since. When I first bought Done With Mirrors on cd, it was out of a clearance or cut-out bin in some music store.

**Magic** · 07-05-2010, 07:02 PM

Pump isn't all bad....it has a few good tracks...but for the most part anything after "Done with Mirrors" reflects a big change in Aerosmith......and "Honkin' on Bobo" is the worst album, IMO...

I will review all these at some point, but I hate reviewing albums that I know I will have to give a low rating to.

aeroplane · 07-06-2010, 01:10 PM

I think one problem with Done With Mirrors is the number of tracks. For a mid-1980's album, nine songs doesn't look like a whole lot compared to other albums on the market place. Some time back, probably during the 80's, the climate for albums started to shift from quality to quantity. Now the casual music buyer (i.e. nobody from these forums) would rather see 12-13 songs on an album than 8-10. Who gives a damn if all of those songs are good? To some people, the more songs an album has, the better. This obsession with more and more songs is why you see people craving unreleased tracks, demos or b-sides that quite honestly weren't good enough to make a regular album and weren't included for a reason.

Thus people tend to be disappointed occasionally with albums that are too short and don't have "enough" songs. DWM sort of falls into that category.

Just a random thought there.

**Magic** · 07-06-2010, 01:24 PM

Good point. I always thought the formula from the past was 10 tracks to an album. Of course there were time constraints on vinyl that you dont have now with digital CD technology.

To be honest, I like to see at least 13-15 tracks on a CD. In the 70's, I could buy an album for 10 bucks, hot off the press. Which actually was a lot of money, all things considered. Today, a new release goes for 13 bucks on debut....sometimes more. Which I consider pretty economical, especially when you see 13 tracks or more.

I would love to see a full cost analysis comparison from the 70's and 2000's for the costs to produce that first CD.

aeroplane · 07-06-2010, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Magic

Good point. I always thought the formula from the past was 10 tracks to an album. Of course there were time constraints on vinyl that you dont have now with digital CD technology.

To be honest, I like to see at least 13-15 tracks on a CD. In the 70's, I could buy an album for 10 bucks, hot off the press. Which actually was a lot of money, all things considered. Today, a new release goes for 13 bucks on debut....sometimes more. Which I consider pretty economical, especially when you see 13 tracks or more.

I would love to see a full cost analysis comparison from the 70's and 2000's for the costs to produce that first CD.

The trouble is that having more songs on there is fine if they are "good." If you are putting songs on there just to get to a magic number, that portion of the album is going to be downgraded by fans, critics or whoever might be reviewing this album or comparing it to the band's previous works.

If a band is "capable" of doing 6-7 really good songs for a particular album and they ultimately record and release 9 songs on a cd, it is a whole different story than using those same 6-7 songs on an album with 13 songs, isn't it?

Either way, I have always noticed that the majority of albums with middling to fair reviews tend to either be 35 minutes long or 75 minutes long, usually on account of being too long or too short.

Personally though, I agree with the "more songs" thing just to get my money's worth. I hate paying $12-14 for something that is basically ep length. The only issue is I am not a "skipper." I'm a guy who likes to put on a cd and let it run, even if I've owned the album for years and have listened to it dozens of times.

**Magic** · 07-06-2010, 01:44 PM

I agree with having the extra tracks being "filler" for the CD. Amazingly, though, fans seem to eat up the marketing strategy for those "previously unreleased tracks". I have even seen short outtakes from a practice session on CD's. And those "hidden" tracks.

I guess they do what they have to do to keep a "new" marketing strategy that sells the product.

tomcat · 07-10-2010, 09:10 PM

-My Fist Your Face is pretty good. It sounds like old Aerosmith with the more aggressive guitar. I've caught myself digging this one in the past I must admit.
-Let the Music Do the Talking. I've always liked that song. That kicks ass.
-She's On Fire is pretty cool. I've never heard that song actually. I like bluesy stuff.
-Shela, was decent. It reminded me of the older stuff a bit. Pretty rocking solos.

Really this wasn't too bad of an album for something fo far removed from the early stuff. I'll have to go through the albums after Rocks, and up until this one. I think I may be missing out on some cool stuff.

Permanent Vacation is when they really just started to blow, at least all that MTV Aerosmith, like Rag Doll--I hate that song.