Talk:Aerosmith/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Album

I somewhat doubt the assertion in the last sentence, is there a source? - Hephaestos 04:12, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The album comes out this spring. I just updated the article. I've been hearing rumors for 6 months. First it was supposed to be out for Christmas '03, the March, now I hear June. Heard them do 3 songs from the record earlier this year. It wiil be rockin', long over due.

Article Needs Work

This article needs to be rewritten in a more professional style.

Jerry Garcia Quote

Any sources for the Jerry Garcia quote?

Get a Grip

Can someone please explain the comment? 

--Djbrianuk 00:02, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Outtakes

While it is nice to have this, I think this section is much to large and may confuse ordinary people who visit the page. Additionally, there are no sources/citation present for this information. Any thoughts on condensing it, citing it, and making it an embellishment of the page rather than the entire meat of the page?

  • It needs to be re-formatted so that it doesn't take up so much of the Table of Contents, needs to be verified, and should be written in an encyclopedic tone (particularly the sectin's lead paragraphs). I'll put a {{verify}} tag on to hopefully speed up the process. Harro5 05:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It might also be beneficial to move this info to an new page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.156.224.34 (talk • contribs).
    • It would probably be wise to see the content cleaned up first and then moved if necessary, as it would likely not be cleaned up as quickly if moved to a less-visited subpage. Harro5 08:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I say move it, and then clean it. Right now, it's just doing too much damage just sitting there taking up the entire Aerosmith page and confusing people User:131.156.224.34

Sub-pages

Several of the largest musical artists have separate sub-pages for things like Discography, Trivia, and other sections, featuring only a limited version of that information on the main page, and the full detailed versions on the sub-pages. I was wondering if we should do the same thing for Aerosmith, as the article is becoming larger than the alloted limits. This also assures that things like the details of the band's history will not need to be compromised.

68.73.125.116 06:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


Merge

(moved from Talk:Aerosmith's contributions to pop culture since the mergeto/from templates point to this article's talk page)

The opening of this page is fancruft, and the information could easily be contained in a section of the main page entitled, 'Other Media' or something like that. Preferably, the information could be incorporated into the history section. I know the main article is a little long already, but this page could really be pared down to a list of titles, etc. Ckessler 07:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose - There are reasons that larger articles get split up, and this is a perfect example of one. Some of the information is trivial, but WP is not paper. If you want to see crazy amounts of fancruft, go surf a few Pokémon pages - a direct correlation would be Pokémon in other media. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 13:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The page was created because the trivia list was becoming too long. In addition, one of the major reasons behind Aerosmith's longevity and widespread knowledge among people is due to their appearance in movies, on TV, and in video games, and it is important to have a section chronicling that. If you look at other major artists like Michael Jackson, the Beatles, and Madonna and how in depth some of the sections are, it should not be a problem having a small article about Aerosmith's presence in popular culture. The major reason I created the articles relating to Aerosmith awards, discography, and contribs to pop culture is to help the main page maintain the standards for article size, and to expand the knowledge of Aerosmith. I agree with the above poster, and Wikipedia is an un-limited resource of knowledge and experts in their relative areas should be expanding (not limiting) articles and knowledge as much as possible. If you want to change some of the wording around in the intro of Aerosmith's contribs to pop culture, fine. But the rest is all fact and should not be tampered with. Abog 02:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

With more than 7 days on this discussion, with 2 against and 1 for, I'm removing the tag. I started a rename discussion on the other talk page per theProject's recommendation. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 11:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"America's Greatest Rock and Roll Band"

I removed the "america's greatest rock ban" thing. It isn't very encyclopedia like to call anything the greatest, since it's a matter of opinion. If you really feel they are the greatest band, lines in the article like "The band have scored twenty-one Top 40 hits, have won four Grammy awards, and continue to tour relentlessly" are a much more professional way to indicate that they are the greatest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.89.191.46 (talk • contribs).

PRWire and Aerosmith themselves are not considered reliable sources. The third source is also a PR type item. Until this comes from a reputable source, it has to be removed. See WP:RS Ckessler 21:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Anon user, the source on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame page is Steven Tyler himself. Please read WP:RS, as I've suggested, to get an idea of what a reliable source is. Also, you are about to violate WP:3RR, so you might want to refrain from reverting again. Ckessler 21:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Just cause it's not CNN/AP/AOL Time Warner, does not mean it's not reputable. A press release is just as good. Remember, I said they are "regarded as America's greatest rock and roll band". I never said that they are in fact America's greatest rock and roll band. Just, that they are often referenced and nicknamed as such to the general public. You yourself are also violating the 3-revert rule. 131.156.238.75 21:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, actually it does matter, per WP:RS, the document I have asked you to read. I am one edit short of violating 3RR, so I have stopped. You on the other hand, have violated it, and are now listed on the 3RR noticeboard. Ckessler 21:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame article indirectly claims Aerosmith to be America's greatest rock band, or one of the greatest by saying how almost alone they were able to send a fesity retort to the British Invasion bands, and went on to achieve greater success and longevity than all of them. 131.156.238.75 21:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the "America's Greatest Rock and Roll Band" came about as an ironic extension of the analogy describing Aerosmith (mainly in the '70s) as the 'Rolling Clones' implying a certain similarity in style to the Stones and thus making Aerosmith "America's Greatest Rock and Roll Band" while the Stones remained "The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band" - a title they gave themselves in 1968 to sell tickets on their first post Brian Jones US tour. I've changed the phrase to "often described as..." which I think is indisputable even if you argue that the contention is false Megamanic 08:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Often described by who? Rolling Stone magazine? My point is that it doesn't matter what the wording is, the statement still needs to be sourced. I'm not disputing Aerosmith's status as a great American band, I'm disputing the lack of sources. Maybe I'm just being picky, but I'm trying to be consistent, and follow the same guidelines that I have been urged to follow on other articles in the past. Ckessler 08:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I think "bills itself as" is an appropriate compromise. Can we end this now?131.156.238.75 21:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in this discssion, but that is bias. i don' care how many references you have, it may not be your oppinion but its someone's opinion. please take it down. ...Patrick (talk, contributions) 02:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not just state that Aerosmith has sometimes been annointed "The Greatest Rock & Roll Band," as have several other bands such as The Rolling Stones and The Who? NjtoTX 23:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Aerosmith is America's greatest rock n roll band though, theyre 2nd to the eagles in sales and sucess but the eagles arent rock n roll they're country rock so Aerosmith is consider america's greatest

History Cleanup

This is the current state of play:-

Joe Perry and Tom Hamilton moved to Boston in September of 1970. There they met Joey Kramer, who was, coincidentally, from Yonkers, New York, and also knew Steven Tallarico (soon to be Tyler). Shortly after meeting and after hearing Perry and Hamilton play, Kramer agreed to join the band they were forming, with the understanding that Tyler, whom he'd always hoped one day to play with, would be the Lead Vocalist. Steven Tyler then joined them in Boston in October of 1970 and Aerosmith was born. The five original members were: Steven Tyler (Vocals), Joe Perry (Lead Guitar), Tom Hamilton (Bass), Joey Kramer (Drums), and Ray Tabano (Rhythm Guitar). It wouldn't be until the summer of 1971 that Ray Tabano was replaced by Brad Whitford of Reading, Massachusetts on guitar, and that Aerosmith would be complete. Other than a period from July 1979 to April 1984, this is the line-up that is still Aerosmith today.

1960s

Steven Tyler, who was to become Aerosmith's lead singer, was in the following list of bands: the Vic Tallarico Orchestra (as a drummer during the summers of 1964-66 in Sunapee, NH); The Strangers (drummer/vocalist 1964-65); The Strangeurs (vocals 1966); a band called Chain Reaction (vocals 1966-68) (not to be confused with Chain Reaction that formed in 1976 with future members of the Red Hot Chili Peppers), who recorded a single in 1966 (partly available on Aerosmith's 1991 box release Pandora's Box); The Chain (drummer/vocals 1968-69); Fox Chase (drummer/vocals 1969-70); William Proud (drummer/vocals summer 1970). In 1969, Tyler met Joe Perry, who was at the time playing in a band called the Jam Band with bassist Tom Hamilton and drummer David "Pudge" Scott, while Perry was washing dishes at the Anchorage in Sunapee Harbor, NH. This meeting eventually led to the formation of Aerosmith.

1970s

The original line-up included Steven Tyler (lead vocals), Joe Perry (guitar), Tom Hamilton (bass guitar), Joey Kramer (drums), and Ray Tabano (rhythm guitar). Tyler, who was originally a drummer and singer, adamantly refused to play drums, insisting he would only be in the band if he could be the frontman and lead vocalist. This led to the recruitment of Joey Kramer, a Berklee College of Music student, who quit school to join the band. Brad Whitford, an educated and highly skilled guitarist, who also attended the Berklee School of Music and formerly of the band Earth Inc., would replace Tabano in 1971. After some local success doing live shows, Aerosmith signed with Columbia Records in 1972 and issued a debut album, Aerosmith in 1973 that included a minor hit single, "Dream On". All but one song on the album was released as a single. After constant touring, the band released Get Your Wings (1974), which did quite well on the charts and produced the rock radio hits "Same Old Song and Dance" and "Train Kept A-Rollin'", as well as fan favorites like "Lord of the Thighs" and "Seasons of Wither".

Look at the first bit & the start of the "1970's" bit. This is self contradictory - did Kramer get Tyler to join or did Tyler insist Kramer joined? Also do we need a list of all of the bands Steven Tyler was in in the 1960s in Aerosmith's history? I personally say no - move it to Tyler's biography if it's not already there and refer to Tyler being a "veteran of several bands in the 1960's" or something in the Aerosmith article. If we are going to add earlier bands into this article (which I don't support) how about the other four members? Megamanic 09:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree - let's figure out who asked who and thin out the previous bands (moving them to appropriate individual articles). — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 10:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the early history section, and included everything involving the formation of the band from the late 1960s to 1971 as "Formation" as opposed to having one thing said in the opening paragraph, repeated again in both the 1960s and 1970s sections. I updated it to the best of my judgement and tried to keep many of the sentences that were previoulsy written intact. If you notice any inaccuracies, missing information, or still have questions about the formation, discuss it here, or change it yourself. I just tried to make things easier to read and understand for the general population. Abog 16:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


"Greatest Rock Band" issue revisited

Still not properly sourced, the article has the phrase in quotations. The writer is not saying it, the newspaper is not saying it, they are merely quoting the band themselves, hence the quotation marks.

Saying they consider themselves to be "America's greatest rock band" doesn't sit well with me either, I could deem myself "America's smartest woman," but that doesn't make it so. Ckessler 01:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't mean that they are, just like The Rolling Stones aren't the "World's Greatest Rock Band", yet that is still mentioned in that article since they are often regarded as such, just like Aerosmith is often tagged "America's Greatest Rock Band", and as we've seen, the phrase comes from many sources, from their record label, to the media, to everyday people. If they were indeed America's Greatest Rock Band, I would just type it "Aerosmith is America's Greatest Rock and Roll Band." However, when we add the phrase "often regarded", it means that they are just often referred to and heralded by that title, but not necessarily all the time or by everyone.

So please, go hound the people over on the Stones' page, cause I will not stop fighting this until that is changed. Additonally, the Rolling Stones' citation doesn't even link to anywhere. Because, The Rolling Stones aren't the World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band any more than Aerosmith is America's Greatest Rock and Roll Band. That still doesn't deny the fact that they are both heavily referred to by their respective titles. 131.156.238.75 03:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not working on the Rolling Stones page, I'm working on this page. Until you have a proper cite for it, it doesn't belong here. That's not my rule, it's Wikipedia policy, stated clearly here: WP:RS. Ckessler 03:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It is properly cited. Try policing articles that aren't properly cited. 131.156.238.75 04:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, Madonna is listed on Wikipedia as being the "Queen of Pop", Elvis Presley is listed as being "The King of Rock n' Roll", and Bruce Springsteen as "The Boss". Of course, whether Madonna is really the "Queen of Pop", Elvis "the King", and Bruce Springsteen "The Boss" could be disputed. However, it is undeniable that they are commonly referred to by these nicknames/taglines. Same thing with Aerosmith being commonly referred to as "America's Greatest Rock and Roll Band", in the vein of the Stones' "World's Greatest Rock Band" title. In no way, are we implying that they are the Queen, the King, the Boss, the Greatest, etc., just that these prominent musicians are commonly referred to, nicknamed, taglined, and heralded by such titles. It is only fair that if we let these other articles on prominent musicians mention the musicians' nickname/tagline/title in the lead paragraphs, then the Aerosmith article shall as well. I really think this is just a case of you being nit-picky or having some type of grudge against Aerosmith or something, otherwise as a true Wikipedian, you would be going after articles on equally prominent musicians that make use of these "Greatest", "King/Queen" type titles. I am always finding articles that mention Aerosmith as being "America's Greatest Rock and Roll Band", yet you always seem to deny the credibility of the source, or the fact that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of articles out there that mention the "America's greatest" title. But believe me, the sources I provide are usually credible, and a lot more credible than what I am seeing for some of these other articles. Please, can we end this now? I find it just a tad bit ridiculous that you try and come back here every month or so, tyring to deny the prominence of an important American rock n' roll music group, the credibility of the sources to back it up, and the widespread usage of the term. 131.156.238.75 03:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Having some readability problems with the influenced list

On my computer, half the list isn't showing up. One of you guys might want to fix up that. Also, the outline seems to have chapter 6 as "=". 128.205.153.147 18:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Influenced list

Please stop removing Skid Row, Warrant, Poison, Cinderella, and Pearl Jam. I actually went to allmusic.com and found that these bands were listed in the "influenced" section on Aerosmith's page on allmusic.com. And anyone who knows anything about rock knows that these bands were highly successful on the hair metal scene (well except for Pearl Jam, who was successful in the grunge/alternative scene), and much of their influence lies in bands such as Aerosmith. Additionally, let's try to keep the insignificant and unsuccessful artists, such as Faster Pussycat, who only had one gold album, off the list. 131.156.238.75 18:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Skid Row and Warrant are "significant" but Faster Pussycat aren't, you're joking right?Your edits are highly POV and you only seem interested in adding bands that you are a fan of, not ones who you can actually hear the influence of Aerosmith in their music. - Deathrocker 01:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, considering Skid Row, Poison, and Warrant actually had mainstream success (multiplatinum albums, hit singles), they are worth mentioning. If you add Faster Pussycat, that's opening the floodgates too much. Take a look at Aerosmith's page on [1], it actually shows "similar artists" and "followers". Since, Faster Pussycat is listed, then that's fine, we'll keep them. But Poison and Skid Row are also listed and should remain. Warrant is not, so I deleted them. Abog 02:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Formation Location

Please quit changing the origin of the band from Boston, MA to Sunapee, NH. Yes, in Sunapee, NH, Joe Perry and Tom Hamilton were playing in a band, called the Jam Band. Sure, the Jam Band had its origin in Sunapee, but Aerosmith did not. And yes, Steven Tyler may have had a chance meeting with Joe in Sunapee, yet the band was still not formed yet. The formation of Aerosmith did not happen until 1970 in Boston, MA, when Tom and Joe quit the other band, met up with Steven Tyler, Joey Kramer, and Ray Tabano. That was when and where Aerosmith began, end of story. 131.156.238.75 01:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Greatest Rock and Roll band, again

""king of rock 'n' roll" from elvis article, "godfather of soul" from james brown, "world's greatest" from rolling stones, etc.. no double standards please.)"

"King of Rock and Roll" and "Godfather of Soul" are widely used nicknames, not a declaration by the band themselves, or PR lackeys. As for the Rolling Stones, the title of "greatest rock and roll band" is credited to a reputable source. I've had this argument 3 times on the this talk page, and would really like for an admin to get involved to settle it once and for all. ~~

  • A) "The Godfather of Soul" is a nickname James Brown invented himself, as are most of his other nicknames. It even says so in the lead of that article. Please do a little research before assuming.
  • B) The Rolling Stones source is from the band itself as well (a video)...they were introduced as such during a tour by their own people...the same thing you wrongly criticize Aerosmith of.
  • C) "America's Greatest Rock and Roll Band" is a widely used nickname for Aerosmith. Type it into any search engine if you don't believe me. I also have at least one credible newspaper source using the nickname, and there are plenty more out there. When their new album comes out and they have another tour this year, the nickname will be back in full force again. Just watch the headlines and quit denying the truth.
  • D) Please no double standards. If you're going to do it for one prominent musician with a tagline/nickname, you need to do it for the rest, or at least believe that their nicknames/taglines need to be removed as well, otherwise you're guilty of POV yourself.
Abog 04:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
If you have a newspaper source, please, by all means use it. That might clear up the problem, rather than using the same cites over and over again, which still don't meet the standard.
I'm not denying anything. I'm asking you to follow the same guidelines that are set forth for all other articles on Wikipedia. If you asked me to find appropriate citations that James Brown is called the "Godfather of Soul" in the media, I would have no problem doing so.
I could start a band in my garage, write a Wikipedia article about it, and call the band "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the Universe," but unless I had a proper cite to back it up, it couldn't be added, notability issues aside.
By the way, I am having the same issues at The Who, if you're interested. Fancruft has no place on any article. Ckessler 04:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Have you looked at the sources lately. It's the Bradenton Herald and the House of Blues. It's not the band itself like it once was. This isn't fancruft. Everywhere you look, it's "America's Greatest Rock Band." It's not something I made up. It's not even something the band made up. They've been known as that for a long time. And even the press notes it at the beginning of most articles. Same with the Stones. They're not the World's greatest rock band, but it's a common nickname (even though THAT one was started by the band), as is Aerosmith's.
It's not fair that every other prominent, legendary, musician gets to use their nickname in the lead of the Wikipedia article, no matter how crappy the source, but Aerosmith does not.

Abog 04:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's fine now, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not an admin, so I don't have the final say on anything, nor am I arguing just for the sake of an argument. As I noted in my previous message here, I was working on the same issue on another article, so no, it's not just on this one. Ckessler 05:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Peacock Words

I removed a lot of the phrases that fit into this description, but some of those that remain are:

"Aerosmith's longevity, durability, and adaptability have allowed them to sustain high levels of popularity, acclaim, and success for the better part of the 37 years they have been active."
"and captured the band's rawness during the heyday of the Draw the Line tour"
"1976's Rocks was one of the grittiest and hardest rocking albums the band has made."
"All of the stars collaborated with Aerosmith at the end for a much-celebrated performance of the group's legendary song "Walk This Way"."
"Their long-promised blues album Honkin' on Bobo was released in 2004. Honkin' on Bobo continued to be a success for the resurgence of blues and roots music across the US and Europe."
Where are the sources for these statements? Who says? These statements are not only unsourced, and reek of original research, they have no place in an encyclopedic article. Ckessler 03:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
A more appropriate thing to have done would have been to mark questionable/controversial statements with a "citation needed" tag, as I'm finding that many of the things you have issue with and have taken out can be proven. I am finding sources for many of these questionable statements, and may even put some back in. But as you simply removed them, it seems obvious you remain more interested in denying and hiding Aerosmith's success rather than simply getting sources for the statements.
Additionally, when an album gets 4-star and 5-star ratings in almost every major music magazine and goes 7 times platinum, I think it's safe to consider it a critical and commerical success. There are other instances in which these statements are backed up by facts, and as long as they are, they should be allowed to stay.
Most of the things you removed aren't "peacock terms", as listed on that Wikipedia page anyway.
So, while you have made my task more daunting in trying to source things and put things you took out back in, instead of helping find sources or merely marking unsourced areas, I will press on. --Abog 03:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you believe there is some conspiracy in my action, because there certainly isn't. This is not a fan page, or an encyclopedia of one person's opinion. Ckessler 04:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, obviously you believe I'm conspiring to make this a fan page, when I am currently finding sources for pretty much everything you removed. Nevertheless, by outright removing phrases, instead of specifically tagging them and discussing them and finding sources for them like normal people do on Wikipedia, you're just outright removing things, which is pretty irresponsible and suggests that you would rather try to deny and hide Aerosmith's success instead of verify it. --Abog 04:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The "facts" that I removed are not really facts; in reality, they are adjectives and descriptives that you are using to describe the band. Any sources that you find will still need to be acceptable per WP:RS. Ckessler 04:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
They are facts if they can be verified. Additionally, enough with the "you" statements. I didn't write this article from the start, and I'm not responsible for including many of these pharses. However, I do think that we should try and verify these statements first before deleting them. --Abog 04:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sorry; you're correct. You didn't write the statements in question; I meant to say the statements you are referring to. By all means, if you can source these statements, then readd them, per WS guidelines. Ckessler 04:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
As you already deleted most of the peacock terms and I accounted for the remainder you posted here, I removed the "peacock terms" tag. The only other major problem remaining would be the last sentence in the lead, which acts more of a summary and ending point more than anything. I'll try and think about it and work on it though. If you have any other issues, please just put a "citation needed" next to the specific phrase, and if it is truly "peacock term" in nature and there is no source to back it up, we can then remove it. But really, there isn't anything so obvious and glaring like "the best", "the most famous", "wonderful", and other terms that are currently uncited that would warrant this tag. --Abog 05:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just Want To Say

this is one of the best band articles i have ever read on wikipedia. SO well organized. makes The Rolling Stones look like garbage (in article comparsion). Three Cheers for the people who put this together. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.78.202.2 (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Influenced By

I think that entire section should be removed. I don't think that allmusic.com is an acceptable source, because it's not based on anything. They didn't talk to each band and find out if they were influenced by them, or talk to Aerosmith and find out who they were influenced by. It's just a list based on musical styles. Ckessler 16:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

POV-motivated Vandalism

Recent edits by an anon user will not stand, nor will name-calling such as "fanboy". Please stop deleting already-cited content, or disregarding certain sources due to your personal opinions. --Abog 23:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox image

Having the fair use image in the infobox is out of order, despite the fact that a free image showing the whole band well is hard. Flickr has a huge supply of free images, I reccomend that someone who knows the band (which rules me out) cludges together several images of the band members (take a look at this gallery, for instance) or accepts an image that either does not show all the members, or that shows them in poor detail. Perhaps this image, which could be cropped to a level that wasn't so bad? In any case, I am tagging the current image for deletion. J Milburn 16:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone beat me to the tagging. In any case, there are free images available, use them, please. J Milburn 16:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Some Aerosmith notes

The band almost had Bob Mayo, the keyboardist for Peter Frampton. He played often with early versions of this group. The band owes a huge debt to Mark Parenteau, a Boston and Detroit DJ who often played their tunes. The band had some very interesting early tours. I believe they opened for Mahavishnu Orchestra. Get Your Wings was considered a bust by many. Toys In The Attic was a 'make or break' record for them. The songs listed are good but none were really hits. There's a great story surounding the writing of 'Walk This Way', which almost did not make the Toys album. A movie inspired the writing. The band headlined 'California Jam II', which produced a good record also. 'Chip Away At The Stone' is on there. The whole band probably should have went to jail after the recording of Draw The Line. Tour performances after that record were often awful. I saw the World Series Of Rock in Cleveland, 1979. They were my favorite band and they stunk. Rock In A Hard Place and Done With Mirrors. Ugh. These guys probably still owe somebody money. But Leber-Krebs are not one of them. Live Bootleg is really not that good an album. One side of two records is good or decent. Pump is their best record since Rocks. Permanent Vacation was also very good, nearly on the Toys level. That these guys lived thru the 70s and still make good tunes is really their story. They are more than lucky.

  • Thanks for the notes. Some are actual facts and could be incorporated into the article (such as DJs playing their songs early on). Some could be added to existing album articles (GYW being a bust, Toys being make-or-break, etc.). And many of the tour stuff could be incorporated into articles on each individual tour, which still need to be made (Mahavishnu, Cal Jam II, World Series of Rock, etc.). Your opinions on the albums aren't really appropriate though. There are facts, such as album sales and professional reviews, to back them up though. Most of this has already been done. 76.224.77.250 02:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Free Images Needed

This article used to have images of album covers to liven up the article a bit, but those are only allowed in album articles now. Thus, if anyone can find any FREE images (generally photos that you yourself took or that someone else took that releases the rights of ownership to them, etc.) of Aerosmith, preferably from various stages of their career (70s, 80s, 90s, etc.), it would be greatly appreciated and would greatly enhance the article. Thanks in advance for your help! Abog 01:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

3 Separate Templates

  • Why are there 3 separate templates for Aerosmith?
    • Because the template would be too large otherwise. The Beatles have a separate template for singles as well. Abog 03:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Genre

Aerosmith's genre is hard rock and blues rock. A troll anon, who has being doing the same to Alice Cooper, David Bowie, ACDC and various other acts is trying to paint the band as "heavy metal". Also "arena rock" isn't a real music genre and as thus not viable for use in a band of this level's article. - The Daddy 19:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be throwing the word troll around There's a reference next to "heavy metal" which when checked says: "Aerosmith was one of the most popular hard rock bands of the '70s, setting the style and sound of hard rock and heavy metal for the next two decades with their raunchy, bluesy swagger.". Brittanica also have heavy metal, as do many reliable sources. --Alf melmac 19:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
While hard rock and blues rock are Aerosmith's primary genres, I've seen them included under the heavy metal genre several times (All Music Guide, for one). Given that they greatly influenced many heavy metal acts after them, and that they have several heavy metal songs, I think it's acceptable to add heavy metal as one of their genres. But, I agree that arena rock is not really a genre, and even if it was, I wouldn't include them there.Abog 04:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

deleted this 'regarded by many as "America's Greatest Rock and Roll Band"', as it doesnt seem to have NPOV. Neither of the sources were very credible and one no longer exists. It can go back if new/more credible source can be found. The only use of the term in association with this band that i can find is when this article has been sourced and in advetising. --Neon white 18:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

moved to misc sections, as something that is clearly NPOV and very much a marketing tag, shouldn't be that prominent. --Neon white 02:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
'America's Greatest Rock and Roll Band' is only a press release term and therefore does not comply with NPOV rules, the term is not neutral, it is intended to promote the bands image, it doesnt belong in a factual article except in a trivia section pointing out its use as a marketing term.
MauiNews is nowhere near being a credible source for music. A source has to relevant to the subject see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I quote 'Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.' --Neon white 00:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It is actually a widely-known nickname associated with the band. The press uses it, the band uses it, the record company uses it, the fans use it, everyday people use it. Sure, maybe nobody's written a thesis or a book about the nickname, but it exists. Look at any article about the band, and it's probably there. Maui News is just one of hundreds of examples.
I will continue to argue this, unless all other articles on prominent musicians have their nicknames removed, articles which probably have higher edit counts on Wikipedia, including James Brown ("Godfather of Soul"), The Rolling Stones ("World's Greatest Rock Band"), Michael Jackson ("King of Pop"), etc. Many of these aren't even cited whatsoever. But they are well-known nicknames for those musicians, just as "America's Greatest Rock and Roll Band" is a well known nickname for Aerosmith.Abog 02:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
saying something is 'widely known' is not an acceptable citation for wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Common knowledge you need to provide citations, i can only find it mentioned in advertising and and the media. Wikipedia needs to be accurate and the accurate statement is to point where exactly the term is known to be used which is largely in the media. It simply is not accurate enough to suggest it is a widely used term without citations. I think you should take a look at the following articles which outline the proceedures to use when editing wikipedia. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines --Neon white 00:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The media is such a loaded word, since anything in this day and age and any individual can be considered "media". Any type of source qualifies as media. Thus, adding the phrase "in the media" is redundant. In addition, I have been on Wikipedia long enough and am well aware of the "guidelines". Abog 08:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Well i suggest you take another look at the guidelines seen as you have breached several of them so far. As far as i know the term media still refers to tv, magazines, radio etc. If you want to be more specific, you could use the term popular media or just magazines and newspapers as that is the only citation available. Anything that adds info or quantifies is never redundant. It is my belief that it is a commercial slogan and therefore should be identified as such to comply with NPOV. --Neon white 14:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
again i refer you to this quote 'Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.'Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You can't citate local newsletters as reliable sources for music unless it has a serious reputation for music knowledge. --Neon white 14:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
"It is [your] belief" that it is a commercial slogan, but it's not necessarily true. Last I heard, journalists' objectives weren't to blatantly advertise for anyone, but to merely state the truth. So when a credible source such as the Maui News, New Hamspshire.com, or the Bradenton Herald makes note of a band's nickname, it is merely a representation of truth. "America's Greatest Rock and Roll Band" is a well known nickname that is synonymous with Aerosmith, just like "the King", "Godfather of Soul", "the Boss", the "Queen of Pop", "World's Greatest Rock Band" are synonymous with other musicians.
And why add "popular media", since that basically includes everyone nowadays, thanks to the Internet. Just leave it as "some", since some people do call them that, but some don't. Some journalists call them that, some don't. Some media groups call them that, some don't. Some performers call them that, some don't. Some fans call them that, some don't. Some average joes call them that, some don't. It's just a well-known NICKNAME that SOME people use to describe the band, and that's all there is to it. The current phrase is the most appropriate. Abog 23:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
i believe that it is a commercial slogan because the majority of accurances of the phrase exist in adverts. Yet again go read the page Wikipedia:Reliable sources, those are not known sources on music and therefore not credible according to wikipedia's standards. All the other nicknames are sourced properly, this one is not. Popular media means mainstream newspapers, tv etc. It does not mean everyone. It simple makes the statement more accurate and more clear to say who exactly calls them that. Which is was my question and i'm sure others will ask the same question of the statement which is why i added clarification. It is not untruthful and should not be removed. Text should only be removed if it is factually incorrect. This is not. The nickname is not that well known or it would have more popular citations rather than very small local newspapers. The bottom line is that anything that clarifies a statement is appropriate content. Wikipedia is about providing thorough and relevant information, it's not your personal page were you can censor info. read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles --Neon white 21:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
i'd include the dispute on the Requests for comment page but it's not like you're attempting to form a consensus just reverting ever single edit. --Neon white 21:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
But I call them America's Greatest Rock and Roll Band and so do many other fans and other people. But myself and others are not "popular media" or "other musicians". The other artists (like James Brown, Elvis Presley, etc.) don't have silly phrases like "in the media" added. Why?...because that limiting statement fails to account for other people that call them that. Those sources I provided are just reiterating what other people call them, not advertising. So enough with the half-truths of "in the popular media", a statement which makes it seem as if it is only something the press regards them as, and not the general public. The press is simply repeating something the public says/already knows.
I do not aim to prevent other people from contributing, however when I see a statement that is factually inaccurate or only accounts for one side of the story, I will revert it. Putting "in the media" and "other musicians" makes it seem as if the media and other musicians are the only ones who call them that, which is false and misleading, as there are others who call them that as well. Putting "regarded by some" is, however, factually accurate as it accounts for all who may call them that (the media, the fans, the press, the record label, other musicians, etc.) yet at the same time makes it clear that only "some" people call them that.Abog 22:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Their First Gig

Their band did their first gig at Nipmuc High school. The gig consisted of five songs. Those were Deam Police sang by Cheap Trick, All The Young Dudes sang by Mott the Hoople, and the three songs they wrote, Make It, Uncle Salty, and Draw the Line.

"String" of Multi-Platinum Albums?

Toys in the Attic was their third album...the previous two constitute a string? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.91.61.98 (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The "string of multi-platinum albums" refers to the five mutli-platinum studio albums they released in a row in the 1970s that started with their 1973 album Aerosmith, and ended with their 1977 album Draw the Line. Five multi-platinum albums in a row...I'd consider that a "string". Abog (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Toxic Twins.jpg

Image:Toxic Twins.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Guitar Hero

A Guitar Hero: Aerosmith page has been created. Please link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm03gt (talk • contribs) 00:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

why is there no criticism listed on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.166.218.4 (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it generally isn't appropriate for articles on music groups. There are mentions of criticism throughout the article though (selling out in the 1990s; poorly-selling albums in the 1980s, etc.) as well as in related articles (Steven Tyler criticized for saying "home of the Indianapolis 500" while singing the National Anthem; ticket prices on certain tours costing too much money, etc.). Abog (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

History 73-97

I bought the CD name Aerosmith - History 1973-1997 (Golden Hits). It isn't on discography in article. Here is cover to see:
FRONT: http://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=imgwb8.jpg
BACK: http://img85.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img2vj7.jpg
CD: http://img237.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img3gg0.jpg
And here: http://www.soundsbox.com/album.php?al=1188, I was find that album, but there is another cover. The CD was used, so maybe seller, changed cover, or is it may be fake? Please, if anybody can help. Leave the message on: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyskusja_wikipedysty:Kofeina 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.82.167 (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks like a bootleg to me. There are so many bootleg and unofficial compilations out there, that it's hard to keep track of and come up with any sort of definitive list. There are only about 25-30 official releases (studio, compilation, and live) by the band and their record companies Columbia and Geffen, or the parent label Sony Music. Everything else is probably either manufactured by another company, is a repackaged/modified version of a prior release, or is a bootleg assembled by someone else. Looking at the images you have provided, there appears to be no identification of the band's record label or any other legitimate company that manufactures music, so methinks it is probably a bootleg. --Abog (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.82.167 (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Failed

I'm sorry, but I failed the GA nomination for Aerosmith. This failed mainly because of criteria 1: the prose. Especially the organization of the article.

Firstly, the lead is a problem. The first paragraph was good, but the second focused too much on their discography. It was too in-detail for a lead. You don't need to talk about every single and every album. Also, the names of the band members should be in the first paragraph of the lead. Remember, the lead is the highlights of the article, it shouldn't go into that much detail.

Secondly, the organization of the article was not to my liking. Although the article is separated into years, it is rather jumbled, with tours, singles, and albums mixed together. I think it would be advisable to split their singles/albums and their tours into different sections. That would make the article more organized and flow easier. Also, you should have an "Awards" section for all of their awards. What you should do is just break the article up more so it flows.

The article meets the other criteria:

2. It is adequately referenced. Definitely.

3. Appropriate broadness. Yes. Just need to break it down.

4. Written from a neutral point of view. Fine.

5. Article is stable, with no edit wars. Good.

6. Images are used liberally. Good.

It would be very optimistic to put this on hold and expect this to be done in a week, which is why I didn't. With a little fixing, this can easily be a good article. Good job on everyone who contributed to this. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 01:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Heavy Metal?

Aerosmith is not a heavy metal band! The only "metal" song made by Aerosmith is probably Back in the Saddle. Aerosmith isn't even an early metal band. This would be Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Alice Cooper, Aerosmith is just a blues based hard rock band. They came after the first metal bands. Heavy metal should be removed from the info box. 68.102.235.239 (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, but a lot of their music is. Ever listen to "Round and Round", "Nobody's Fault" or "Rats in the Cellar"? And the fact that they inspired Metallica and every other metal band should say something. Keep in mind that heavy metal is a very wide genre of music. Also, Aerosmith being a heavy metal band is well-cited in many sources, including Allmusic, which is the authoritative source on music information. If it wasn't well-sourced, I'd say remove it, but since it is, it should stay. Abog (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Aerosmith has made any music close to being considered heavy metal since the 1970's though. Most of there later music is just rock really. 68.102.235.239 (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

True, but the 1970s make up almost half their catalog. I wholeheartedly agree that they are more of a hard rock band, but the band contributed greatly to the early days of the heavy metal genre, helping pave the way for harder bands that came after them, and enough of their songs have hints of heavy metal to classify them as such. And like I said, Allmusic is pretty much the standard bearer as far as genre classifications, so I'm more going off what they say than I am my personal opinion. Abog (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

External links

Would like to add a link using the guideline listed as: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Thanks Sakutak (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm cool with that, unless somebody else has a problem with it. Abog (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why has the link, been removed again? The critera above is still being met. Is someone "not cool" with it, and why? Thanks. Sakutak (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL - do not knowingly link to websites which contain copyright violations or material which is unsourced and likely to be a copyright violation. And that website is abundant with picture and video links that are unsourced or used without proper consent. Simple as that. Poor quality amateur fansites should never be linked on Wikipedia. Libs (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything in that site is accompanied with a link to the source.

I deleted this entire comment as well as the one on the Libs (talk) discussion page. I do not wish my link on this website. I do not know why you would insist on re-adding the comments. I do not wish to be a member of Wikipedia. I would like my account and all comments deleted. Thanks. The addition of the link was approved in April by Abog. Your views on the quality of the web site were not requested.Sakutak (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Greatest Hits

Their greatest hits album ("Walk This way," "Sweet emotion", ...) is not mentioned in the discography. What the heck? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macetw (talk • contribs) 02:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's because Greatest Hits is a compilation album, not a studio album. Only studio albums are listed on the main article. Listing all the compilation albums would make this section too large. For a list of all albums, including compilations, see Aerosmith discography. Abog (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Power ballad

Im not an expert in Aerosmith but a lot of their songs have long voiced notes, slow tempo, and of course electric guitars, so why are they not considered a power ballad group? Because of this i think power ballad should be added into the genres/music styles of the group. Dentren | Talk 17:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Power ballad isn't a real genre and just about all mainstream hard rock artists have power ballads anyways. Abog (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Glam metal

I'm sure it's been discussed before but "glam metal", which is not in the allmusic cite used in the infobox also appeared as de facto 'elements of' in the lead. The only line in the cite given for that reads "Aerosmith was one of the most popular hard-rock bands in America, striking a flamboyant middle ground between the cool, bluesy swagger of the Rolling Stones and the more campy, glam-metal approach of the New York Dolls and Mott the Hoople." I have therefore changed the lead the reflect this.--Alf melmac 08:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

name Aerosmith

What's the origin of the name? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

After playing their first gig at the Nipmuc Regional High School in 1970, the band took the name Aerosmith, suggested by drummer Joey Kramer. The name means nothing in particular; it simply was the only name that no one hated. Janadore (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Could it have some connection to the 1931 Arrowsmith (film) starring Ronald Colman which in turn was based on Arrowsmith (novel) by Sinclair Lewis?Tom Cod (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Should we really have HM in the infobox?

While Aerosmith do have several songs that qualify as metal in my mind, isn't it a bit overkill to call them a metal band? Yes, there are a good amount of sources that refer to them as metal, but we have a source for them doing some R&B and that isn't in the infobox. I think it's safer to say they incorpated metal into their sound instead of labeling them a metal band. This is just my take on their style: Rock, hard rock, blues-rock. Thoughts anyone? Rockgenre (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Missing album in discography

I didn't see the "Aerosmith-Live Bootleg" album in the discography for this article. It came out in November of 1978. It was a double album and was entirely live. The artwork for the album was intended to look like a shoddy fly-by-night operation had produced it in someone's basement. There were even "stains" from someone's coffee cup on the album cover. Is it possble that the compiler of this article was fooled by the title of the album (which was a tongue-in-cheek type joke) and thought it was not a legitimate publication? If so, they can go to the official Aerosmith website and find it in the discography there. Hopefully that will clear up any confusion.

75.187.193.108 (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  • It is not listed because it is a live album. Only studio albums are listed in the main article. The full discography, which includes live albums and compilations, is included in the article Aerosmith discography. Abog (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct English

Is it just me or is the final sentence of the first paragraph simply wrong? Shouldn't the pluperfect tense be used? "By 1971, Tabano had been replaced by Brad Whitford, and the band had begun to develop a following in Boston" makes so much more sense. If, for example, you change "Tabano" to the first person and "1971" to yesterday, you're left with "By yesterday, I was replaced by..." which I think better illustrates the problem. Or is this pedantic? --217.34.44.238 (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone has changed it to "In 1971". This is fine. Perhaps that person could have read this page and ended the "Correct English" discussion...--217.34.44.238 (talk) 12:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Devil's Got A New Disguise

in 2006, Aeromsith Released A Album Called: Devil's Got A New Disguise. Devil's Got A New Disguise Is Not Listed In The Album Section :O! Plz Note This! Here Is The Picture From Aerosmith's OFFICAL Web: [[2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.181.11 (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Devil's Got a New Disguise is a compilation, and not a studio album, that's why it's not listed here. It is listed in the article about full Aerosmith discography. --Kar.ma 09:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Steven Tyler Leaving the Band

So far, as of today (11/9/09), there has been NO OFFICIAL CONFIRMATION that Tyler has left the band. His behavior has been bizarre, and he's made statements that he's gone, but all we know for sure is that there's confusion right now. Even Joe Perry doesn't know for sure what's going on. I don't think that Tyler should be listed as a former member yet. Zappafrank2112 (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2009

I agree 100% with this. Joe Perry saying he heard on the Internet that Tyler is leaving the band is hardly confirmation of anything. As far as I'm concerned, this is still in rumor stage. Crazydiamond1to9 (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe that this page needs to be locked from editing until there is a confirmation that Tyler left the band and/or the band has broke up. Right now, anything that has been changed saying that any of that stuff has happened, should be reverted back to what it was originally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joke Insurance (talk • contribs) 03:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I just reverted another anonymous edit that moved Tyler out of the band, which someone did while I was trying to clean up the existing current text about Tyler. Who knows how many of these people we'll see? - AyaK (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Almost the whole Perry leaving section has been copied from elsewhere. See http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22perry+was+interviewed+this+morning%22&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=8bd4816e1661ba1a . It even refers to an audio player at the bottom of the page. I deleted the part I was (pretty) sure had been copied. Mitchell k dwyer (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. As of now, we only have confirmation that Joe Perry read something on the internet. That is gossip to the extreme. We have no reliable confirmation that Steven Tyler has left the band and we most definitely have no reliable indication that the band is on hiatus. We shouldn't follow these rumours. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

LOCK I suggest that this page be either locked or semi-protected. The state of the band is currently in flux, and this page is a mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CDaly (talk • contribs) 04:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Tyler's public comment yesterday that he isn't leaving Aerosmith will get this to settle down. Let's leave it alone for now. - AyaK (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

BBC article. Straight from the horse's mouth. He's not quitting. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 20:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


It's so funny how on wikipedia that you guys jump on every tabloid piece and change whole articles around before getting all of the facts. That's why wikipedia will never be considered a real encyclopedia. Jamisonhalliwell 23:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that Tyler has rejoined the band, shouldn't he be added back to the Current Members list? GoingBatty (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Steven Tyler is currently listed as a current member. --Kar.ma 09:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Best selling rock band?

Aerosmith is the best selling rock band? What about AC/DC? Asterix 13 (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The article says that Aerosmith is the bestselling American rock band, which they are. AC/DC is Australian. Abog (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Rock Hall of Fame mention

"Aerosmith is the only band to be inducted to the Hall of Fame with a song active in the charts ("Jaded")"

This doesn't appear to be true. When U2 was inducted, their song "Vertigo" was still charting. Perhaps it was true at that point, but it isn't anymore.

Source for U2 reference: http://top40-charts.com/song.php?sid=11649&sort=chartid&string=U2

Perm Dude (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"string of multi-platinum albums"

So, I knew Aerosmith was around in the 1970s, but then I was reading the lede of this article and came across the following:

"and released a string of multi-platinum albums, beginning with their 1973 eponymous debut album, followed by their 1974 album Get Your Wings. In 1975, the band broke into the mainstream with the album Toys in the Attic, and their 1976 follow-up Rocks cemented their status as hard rock superstars."

My reaction was, wow, I didn't know they were huge right off the bat and way back in 1973. Then, I actually clicked on each of the albums, and the first 4 (!) only went gold upon release and attained platinum status over a decade later in 1986. Rocks was the only album to actually reach platinum around the time it was released. It's a bit aggrandizing and rather misleading to say they released a string of multi-platinum albums. I'd say they released a string of gold albums, culminating in a platinum release, all of which attained multi-platinum status by the mid-80s. I'm not sure how people would want to fit this into the lede, but something needs to be done. RobHar (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Pump release

There seems to be some confusion about the release date for Pump. In the Aerosmith Discography article it's listed as September 8, 1989, but the Infobox for the actual Pump article says September 12. --CltNC830 (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Aerosmith 70.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Aerosmith 70.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Myfirstconcert.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Myfirstconcert.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ocean Tortoise

In my opinion, Aerosmith has dedicated a special lesson, yet to answer from any question from whom I ever learned. The Doctor may heal every desease, but as worth as they can, the medical result get worst today. Ocean Turtle is the correct message from The Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.138.215.16 (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

Is it just me, or is the first section far too long!? I think it goes too indepth, one papragraph or mayeb two short ones would be more appropriate.Yellowxander (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

ok just looked at some other pages of bands of similar stature and they also have a few paragraphs. But the sections table is still visable without scrolling, so would suggest reducing to 3 maybe 4 paragraphs. Yellowxander (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Look up the articles for Michael Jackson, Black Sabbath, Metallica, and Yes and you'll see they all have rather lengthy summaries too, and two of those articles are locked. BTW, they are summaries, not introductions. TheNethero (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Discography

normally what should be listed is just studio album, all the sales and singles should not be included here, detailed info is what the discography page is for. I will be rectifying this.Yellowxander (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

So twice now this has been undone. It is not standard to have tables and singles in the Discography section when an artists discography has it's own article. Listed should be the studio albums in bullet point form with the year of release in brackets. This isn't something I'm making up, I'm contributing to standardising and tidying the Aerosmith article, so, to reference...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicians/Article_guidelines#_Discography_section

See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) § Discographies

"Musicians that have released a significant amount of work should be given their own discography articles. These articles should follow the guidelines given by WikiProject Discographies. The discography section of the musician's primary article should link to the separate discography article using the {{main}} template, for example: {{main|Johnny Cash discography}}.

The discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a summary of the musician's major works. In most cases this is done using a simple list of their studio albums, leaving a complete listing of releases to the discography article. For example:

Live and compilation albums, EPs, singles, etc. should generally not be included.

If a musician has released an extremely large number of albums, it may be better to describe their discography in a prose summary. See, for example, Tangerine Dream#Discography.

For artists without separate discography pages, relevant discographical information, such as record labels, date(s) of release, chart positions, and sales certifications, may be included in the discography section. The use of a table may be advisable to keep the information readable and organized.

For further examples of good discography sections, see U2#Discography or Alice in Chains#Discography. "

I agree that there is little point in having a discography article and then putting all this information in the article and the guidelines seem pretty clear to me.--SabreBD (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
As Abog said in the edit history, that's a simple guideline, not a rule. Since some people don't really understand the benefits of the small table when it comes to discographies, I'll explain it. When artists have released a significant amount of work it becomes "especially" useful to have the table. Information such as "how well the album did on the charts" or "how well the album sold" becoming increasingly cluttered in the main discography article due to the amount of records there are. Since the discography has it's own article, it doesn't hold back any information for any of the albums. However, with this much information filling up the main table, it becomes more of a chore to figure out how each one stacks up.
The small table in the main article makes it easy for people to understand each album from one another since all the important details are visible without having to scroll up or down. Figuring out the best selling album, the best charting album, and main labels used by the band are what the small table is for. Without it, the amount of effort it takes to figure out information like that is more than doubled. Besides, this table format has been in Aerosmith's discography section for a couple years now, so people have grown accustomed to it. Then again, if we're all just on a mission to change everything to fit our own ideal standards, then my reasonings are bound to be ignored.
As for the singles having their own article, I don't really see a reason for it either. That might be a more sensible item to get rid of perhaps. TheNethero (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The table is not req'd. Just list the studio releases only. For any artist's discography details... go to the discography page. Mr Pyles (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with TheNethero. Since Aerosmith has such an extensive and complicated discography, when all albums and singles are considered, the current format we have works well for this article. It provides users looking for basic information about the band with a comprehensive, summarizing, well-ordered discography section that provides very basic info on the studio albums and the most successful, notable singles. In addition, the table looks better and reads better. It is an enhancement that goes above and beyond the basic standards of this guideline and is a significant improvement over it, while still being summarizing by not including every detail and not including every non-studio album. Someone looking for all the information on all the albums and all the singles can still research and sort through the lengthy discography article(s), but for those looking for basic info on the band's core albums and most successful singles, this section works. The guideline you are referencing is merely that...a "guideline". It is not a Wikipedia policy that has to be followed to a tee. To my understanding, this guideline that is being referenced is the absolute basic, bare-bones template for a discography section...for those trying to create a basic band article, not a good or exceptional comprehensive article. This article has already been rated a "good article". Part of what makes it a good article is that it is so comprehensive, well-organized, easy-to-read, easy to find information on all aspects of the band, and has added details and enhancements like those in the discography section, rather than the typical bare-bones sections you will find in other articles. Abog (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Please remove You could enhance the article by including the entirety of the discography. Where do you stop? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Let's not be ridiculous. You stop where it's currently at...and has been for the past couple years. Adding the entire discography in this article would only make the article incredibly long. However, putting in a few columns in the album section and identifying the biggest singles (as has already been done) does not make the article incredibly long...but it does enhance the article quite a bit, and provides casual readers with a significant amount of knowledge of the band's discography in what is actually a pretty small section. There are several people here who have developed this article and keep a watchful eye on it to prevent things from getting too long and out-of-control. I've already deleted non-studio albums on several occassions, along with the addition of trivial recentism in the main biography. Abog (talk) 05:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
That's not much different from saying "we could simplify the article by completely removing the discography section and send everyone to the discography page," so it doesn't make for a good argument. (TheNethero (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC))

"America's Greatest Rock and Roll Band"

A one-liner does not constitute as a name, especially due to the fact that the statement is up to personal opinion. This should be removed. -- BlakFlak (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a nickname. What does it matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.213.233 (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It matters that the article here is accurate and reflects what the sources say, as per WP:AWW. Accordingly I have removed one source for this that can no long be accessed and one that didn't mention it. I have adjusted the sentence to fit what the sources actually say. It could, of course read "Kid Rock described them as ...". But I think, "some regard them as..." sounds more positive as a claim to notability. I cannot yet find any reliable sourced that supports the idea of this as a widespread nickname, but I am working on it.--SabreBD (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The nickname certainly doesn't belong in the lead sentence, based on the provided references. However, it does flow nicely in the "Awards and achievements" section, where I have integrated it as follows:

"Aerosmith, sometimes referred to as "The Bad Boys from Boston", is seen by some as America's greatest rock and roll band. However, despite their popularity and success in the 1970s, it wasn't until their comeback in the late 1980s and 1990s that they started winning awards and major recognition."

Hopefully, this will help settle the matter. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 04:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Couching puffery in weasel words does not settle the matter, which once again afflicts the article lead. --Ori.livneh (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Steven Tyler: Frontman or Leader

After Aerosmith made its comeback in the late 80's/early 90's, the media began to identify Steven Tyler as the band's "frontman", which was a term that was new to me. On account of this, Aerosmith's new generation of fans have probably come to regard Steven Tyler as the "leader" of Aerosmith. Older fans know that none of the 5 members of Aerosmith would endorse this idea. I would like to propose adding the following sentence to the article: "Although Steven Tyler has never officially been billed as the 'leader' of Aerosmith, he has been the primary songwriter, lyricist and spokesman during the band's 43 year career." I am new to Wikipedia's editing process, so if I am doing something wrong, please let me know. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeltaRhino (talk • contribs) 00:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead and rhythm

I propose changing the band members section to list Perry and Whitford as simply "guitars, backing vocals." Most Aerosmith fans know that while Joe always received more attention for his playing, Brad actually wrote, recorded, and performed lead guitar parts in many of the band's songs, so to refer to him strictly as their rhythm guitarist is really not fair. I'm not so sure what to do about the band's other three former guitarists, as I am not as familiar with their playing, but I believe this change mentioned should take place. Any thoughts from others? Hsxeric (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I understand some of what you're saying, it says on both guitarists' articles that one is lead and the other rhythm. Brad's not being "referred to strictly as their rhythm guitarist" – he is their rhythm guitarist. He might have done a couple of lead parts, but Joe's lead and Brad's rhythm. It wouldn't make sense to put them both as the same thing when one is different from the other. I think things should stay the way they are for now. 4TheWynne (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment needed

This article has over 10 citation needed tags, and more than half of the short " Influence and legacy" section is unreferenced. Unless this is remedied, I think downgrading this article to B- or C- class may be warranted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have since remedied this and added sources for all the "citation needed" tags. Please let me know if I missed anything. Thanks. Abog (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Members Timeline Visuals

I think it is fair to say that the rhythm guitar lines in the Members Timeline should not be yellow. There are plenty of other colors that make the timeline easier to read (Namely orange). Does anyone else disagree that it is hard to look at with the yellow? I made this edit, and it was reverted, so was just wondering what next...

Personally, I think that yellow is so light, it should only be used when you have run out of other reasonable colors. Something I have seen on other pages is using green for Lead Guitar, and light or dark green for Rhythm Guitar. That may be a good option as well. ---DLManiac (talk • contribs) 03:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yellow stands out more than other colours, whereas green and bright green are too similar, and I just think yellow is more visually appealing than something like orange. I use the same colour pattern for every timeline that I edit: dark blue for vocals, purple for bass and red for drums. Then, if there's one guitar, I use green. If there's another instrument, like rhythm guitar or keyboard or something similar, I use yellow. If there are more than five instruments, I use teal, or blue, or red orange, etc. Personally, I don't think yellow is too light, and it shouldn't matter, as long as you can see the bar. I stick with a particular format, and I only reverted the edit because it wasn't discussed first. I'm editing more and more timelines and adding them in (or changing them to) this format anyway, so you'll end up seeing more and more of this as a more permanent format. Hope you understand. Regards, 4TheWynne (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I do believe that there is quite a more widely used standard on the site with vocals Red, Guitar (Lead) Green, Bass Blue, Drums Orange, Keyboards Purple, and Rhythm guitars Light or Dark Green (However I see yellow sometimes). So going by the argument that everything should be standardized, it would be easier to keep it to that standard.DLManiac (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the light green is quite different enough. However, I believe we should adopt the above standard (After we choose an agreeable choice for Rhythm Guitar, then we can go standardize other timelines. Is there a timeline page to discuss this? DLManiac (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
To "standardize other timelines" would be undoing all of the work that I've put into 20+ timelines. Maybe in part, but I've never seen this full standard that you're proposing. There is no "we". I'd just leave it how it is, please. 4TheWynne (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it is very just for you or I to make decisions on what standards for the entire site to use. But in the future, instead of implementing your own standard, it would be more uniform to conform to the more common standard as I have outlined above. DLManiac (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Since you haven't replied, I'm going to revert this timeline to the "normal" color scheme that you will find on countless other pages.DLManiac (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with DLManiac. Don't start changing every band's timeline colors just because YOU think it looks better. It looks fine the way it is and there's no need to change it. (Occasionally I see drums as purple and keyboards as orange, but I am fine with either). TheSickBehemoth (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks TheSickBehemoth. On one hand, we have a solid timeline here with Aerosmith. On the other, he has unfortunately plagued several dozen other band timelines, and it is impossible to fight. — DLManiac (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I've also noticed that, DLManiac. He seems to think that he should change other bands' timelines to reflect looking like the one on his page of his band. I'm currently trying to compromise with him on Killswitch Engage about it... TheSickBehemoth (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I was gonna try to to a Proposal to get a standard set, but never got around to it TheSickBehemoth. — DLManiac (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if I've been causing any angst, as it isn't and never has been my intention. I don't you to think of me as a serial pest or anything like that - however let me say that next to none of the timelines that I've "plagued" since we last spoke here had the same format. Some of the bands never even had timelines when they probably should've. I have a format that I like to stick with, that's all. But please don't get a bad understanding of what I'm trying to do here. Not all timelines have this same format which some might deem "normal", and it is OK for other bands' timelines to have different formats, as there is no set standard (and I don't believe there should be). I'm allowed to change whatever timelines I want, as there is not a single rule or policy telling me that I can't. I hope you understand my point of view. Thanks – 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 23:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Then start going on each artist's talk page and have a discussion about it. Obviously, if we are talking about this and your edits keep getting reverted (not just by us, but other editors), then you are doing something wrong. The colors you use are, no offense, atrocious and look unappealing. Stop this. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I even tried to have a compromise with you in Killswitch Engage about color scheme and band order and I allowed some of your edits to remain, but then you just completely reverted them back to your standard. Please stop this as it may become edit warring and you could get banned for it.TheSickBehemoth (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
If you don't think there should be a standard, then why are you so adamant about keeping YOUR standard? Listen, I love the fact that you are making these timelines, it's wonderful. You format everything nearly perfectly, and it's very nice. The only problem I have is the colors, and that is because it is extremely convenient to look at a timeline and not NEED to look at the legend to know what's going on. Yes, it's great the legend is there when you need it, but it should be necessary to have to look at it just to understand what's going on, if there are the same old 5 colors there. I tried to talk to you about this way back when and just ask that you use the other colors. You have given know good reason other than you like that scheme. And please stop using the excuse "I can edit things however I want". Yeah. We know. So can anyone, but that doesn't mean we should make all of the edits we want because it makes us feel better inside. Some things can make us more productive here. — DLManiac (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You know what, if that's what you believe, then I'm not going to argue. I'll step away from this page - you can edit the timeline how you want, and I won't intervene. Again, I'm sorry if I've been too difficult here. I just don't want the "wonderful" (thank you) stuff that I've implemented to be undone, and then be forced (or talked into) using a different format, that's all. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 05:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference question

An obituary of R.L. Burnside claims: "Aerosmith came out to “Baby” [Let My Baby Ride] every night on their last tour [ Honkin' on Bobo Tour?]." I can't find a quick verification. Can you? What do you think of this? trespassers william (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Best Selling US Rock Group of all time?

This article states that Aerosmith are the best selling US rock group of all time and links to the page with the list of best selling artists. When you click on it it clearly shows The Eagles as having sold more. So this should (I would guess) be removed or changed. Maybe change it to best selling US HARD rock group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.109.168.69 (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC) The Eagles are not a "rock band", more easy listening and soft rock.

The Eagles are rock, straight up. So they would be the best selling rock band. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Walk This Way: The Autobiography of Aerosmith

A lot of these claims are backed by Stephen Davis' opinion in his book. Reviews and assertions and not necessarily Wikipedia worthy.--MattyMetalFan (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Aerosmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It's all working. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aerosmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aerosmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

"Glam Metal (1985-1990)"

I wrote on the article that they were part of the Glam Metal scene for the appropriate years (1985-1990). Through those years, only three albums were made. Those included were "Done With Mirrors (1985)", "Permanent Vacation (1987)", and "Pump (1989)". As soon as grunge became the in thing during the 90s, Aerosmith stoped doing Glam Metal and went back to their Blues/Hard Rock sound. User:Gwar&Kiss 15:47, 06 April 2011

Why is it listed under their genres Pinkzeppelin4 (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Aerosmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aerosmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Gems help

Hi, I could do with some help on the Gems (Aerosmith album) page, please see talk their for info, ta! Yellowxander (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Aerosmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I began a discussion recently suggesting that bands should only have members subpages if they have had large numbers of line-up changes. I don't believe that having a members subpage for this band is necessary, as there are only three former members, a lot of the information there can already be found at the main article, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The touring members can simply be listed in the band members section, and there's then no arguing over where the timeline should belong. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 12:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not support a merge. I think there’s enough information regarding the timeline, the reasons for the lineup changes, the touring members, etc. to warrant a separate article. And I’m glad to see the members page much improved with text to provide context, photos, and numerous references. It’s actually a wonderful article and I’d be extremely sad to see it go. Also it’s an incredibly notable band with a very lengthy and storied career with an understandably long history and article. We don’t need to make it even longer by adding the list of touring members, the timeline, and the context regarding the lineup changes to a section of the main article. I also think it would do the public and researchers a huge disservice to remove the information chronicled regarding touring members, fill-ins, etc. It might be different if this was a less successful band that was only around five years and didn’t have a long main page article. But this is a notable band that has been around almost 50 years with notable lineup changes and a series of touring members and an already-long main page article where a sub page regarding band members is clearly warranted. Abog (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
This isn't about getting attached to articles... it's an encyclopaedia. There's literally only two paragraphs of information (all of which can already be found at the main article), and the rest is tables, pictures and the timeline. I see neither how this subpage is of any benefit to anyone, nor how it's "clearly warranted". 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 06:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, the band members subpage provides readers context on the lineup changes and the members history in an organized fashion, while also giving more details on extraneous information such as the temporary fill-ins and touring members that are an important aspect of the band but which would be too extraneous for the main page and further bloat it, the same way listing all the awards, tour details, etc. would. With a band as notable and with as long a history as Aerosmith, the more things we can break off from the main article into sub-pages to aid in content organization and thus being able to provide more detailed information in these sub-pages, the better. Abog (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
If you wanted to have a say at the discussion that I've linked above, that would definitely help – it will give you a much better idea as to what I'm trying to do here. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 13:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
It's inappropriate. I think the merge tab should be deleted now, right? 4TheWynne. عليّ سعيد (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

"Bad Boys from Boston" and "America's Greatest Rock and Roll Band" in the first sentence

I am against having "the Bad Boys from Boston" and "America's Greatest Rock and Roll Band" in the first sentence, and I expressed this by moving the quotes downward into the middle of the second paragraph. This was reverted by Abog here, so now we're discussing the matter.

The guideline WP:LEAD suggests that the monikers should only be present in the lead section if there is some prose about them in the article body, which is a good reason to either remove them altogether, or to compose some relevant prose for the article body. Still, the monikers intrude too much by being placed in the first sentence.

The monikers are not so widely used that they should be presented so prominently. The biography Walk This Way: The Autobiography of Aerosmith has nothing about the "the Bad Boys from Boston" or "America's Greatest" anything. Same with the book Steven Tyler: The Biography, which instead mentions the band's "standing as one of America's greatest rock bands." (Not the greatest but one of...) Joe Perry's bio Rocks: My Life in and Out of Aerosmith twice mentions the moniker "Bad Boys of Boston", but when the book brings up "America's greatest band" it is talking about Springsteen's E-Street Band. Tyler's book Does the Noise in My Head Bother You?: A Rock 'n' Roll Memoir has nothing about bad boys or America's greatest. Huxley's book Aerosmith: The Fall and the Rise of Rock's Greatest Band says nothing about bad boys of Boston, and the bit about being the greatest rock band is hyperbole considering the Rolling Stones, etc. It doesn't say "America's greatest" anything. The book Dream On: Livin' on the Edge with Steven Tyler and Aerosmith has nothing about bad boys of Boston, and when the "greatest rock-and-roll stars" is brought up, it's about Tyler's view that he is not one. Nothing about a moniker applied to the band.

The bit about "America's Greatest Rock Band" was added without reference 12 years ago by an IP from Illinois.[3] A few months later, the unreferenced bit about "bad boys from Boston" was added by an IP from Brazil.[4] It doesn't matter to me how long these assertions have been in the article. What matters is how widely used are the monikers. I don't think they are so important. All in all, my argument against the monikers is one of undue emphasis, of too much weight given these not-very-common stylings. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning now, but didn't want to start an edit war. Thanks for opening the discussion and explaining your changes. Pinging User:Abog to see their thoughts. RF23 (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The monikers are important in describing the band and are often used by the media and the band itself to refer to the band. Furthermore, both phrases redirect to this article, and generally, alternate titles, nicknames, monikers that redirect should be listed early in the lead. The same is done for Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, Madonna, James Brown, and other major artists with monikers and honorary titles with which they are commonly associated. The phrases are well-cited in mainstream music media including Billboard, MTV, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fane, etc., and other mainstream publications like Newsday, The Boston Globe, etc. All the references you cited are primary references and I think it’s more important to see what sources that are not the band themselves or not biased in favor of the band have to say about the matter. However, if we really do care what the band thinks of themselves, one needs to only look at their social media pages and their official merchandise and see that the band has fully embraced the monikers. I also think every location these monikers were moved to within the lead was a worse location. It would interrupt the chronology of the band’s history and falsely imply that they were referred to by these names only at certain points in their career and then the monikers went away, which is false. The monikers have generally been bestowed more recently, maybe starting in the late 90s. To summarize, the monikers are well-cited, well-documented, placed in a location that reads well, and placed in a location early in the lead that is in keeping with other major artists and their monikers and the general precedent of placing alternate titles that redirect early in the lead. Abog (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Aerosmith - Jaded.ogg

File:Aerosmith - Jaded.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Walk This Way mix with additional talk box effects

Hello,

in January 1988, I airchecked a different studio version of Walk This Way with added "guitar talk" being styled as some kind of left-right-responding to Steven Tyler's vocals during both verse and chorus. I failed in finding out when and where this remixed version had been released (possibly after the success of the RunDMC version?). Does anybody here know more? --217.83.3.48 (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Glam metal

Since when are they glam metal, or even metal? The Mo-Ja'al (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Since someone found enough sources to back it up. You think about it, the sound and style of the band during the 1987-94 era (esp. 1987-90) was quite glammy. I think “Cherry Pie” by Warrant was inspired by “Love in an Elevator” Abog (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aerosmith/Archive_1&oldid=1142193459"