I've been waiting on a new tour for a few years now. Dates are *finally* starting to leak. It seems Aerosmith are playing Cincinnati on August 30 at Riverbend Music Center. Support is listed as ZZ Top. Now, notice I said "leak" - the date isn't confirmed or anything, so don't plan a vacation around the show. That said, I have a beef over tour support.
I have nothing against ZZ Top. In fact, I'm sure they are going to be awesome. My question is, really, why do certain bands even bother with support?
In my mind, there are just a few bands that don't need to take support on the road. Those bands would be Aerosmith, The Rolling Stones, Iron Maiden, Bon Jovi, AC/DC and Bob Dylan. Why can't bands like this - each with a massive catalog - get on stage and rock out for two hours and call it a night? I know when I go to a regular show, I'm paying the giant ticket price for the headliner - not support. Now, I'm not dissing support here. I just don't see why Aerosmith or Maiden or whoever even bothers. Yeah, Motley Crue has Crue Fest to attract a younger fan base...but do the same rules apply for Aerosmith? I'm not so sure.
Every band wants to remain relevant and hip. At some point, though, this comes at a cost to the fans. I would much rather hear two hours of classic Aerosmith than 90 minutes of awesomeness plus five songs from a support band.
Oh, and while I'm talking about Aerosmith - if they wanted to jump on the bandwagon and do an entire classic album all the way through - I'd choose Rocks. Hey, a girl can dream, right?
Here's a hella-old clip of my beloved Aerosmith performing "Mama Kin" way back in 1977. The clip is so delicious, I was giddy for a few minutes after watching for the first time. If you're a vintage Aerosmith fan, get ready. This is the good stuff.
"Sleeping late and smoking tea!"