Talk:Aerosmith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of the Rock music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to rock music, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects. If you would like to help out, you are encouraged to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

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.

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

Contents 1 Get a Grip 2 Outtakes 3 Sub-pages 4 Aerosmith Summation 5 Merge 6 "America's Greatest Rock and Roll Band" 7 History Cleanup 7.1 1960s 7.2 1970s

[edit] Get a Grip

Can someone please explain the comment?

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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Aerosmith Summation

Okay I don't mean to be pedantic but I'm looking here, and... I mean, is this just a fansite hosted by Wikipedia? I mean, the HU-1 "Huey" has been in service with the U.S. Army since before Aerosmith were formed, but noone has written a whole page saying who flew it in which decade, which battles it saw service in, and how many kinds of fuel and engines it has seen over the years. I'm just saying, if you want to make a fan site, make it elsewhere. Am I wrong? Is Wikipedia here to be a source of information or a source of useless information?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrlsuk (talk • contribs) .

[edit] 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)
  • I just unmerged the article. With one vote for and two against, I am not seeing why it should be merged. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 02:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry about that -- my merge was a result of trying to tackle the backlog on Category:Articles to be merged, not because of any interest in this particular merge. If merges are disputed, it would be wise to change the template to {{mergedisputed}}. At any rate, might I suggest that Aerosmith's contributions to pop culture be renamed to Aerosmith in popular culture (and cleaned up)? theProject 02:38, 5 September 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)

[edit] "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) .

• I'm reverting this edit until similar "greatest" references on pages for The Who, The Rolling Stones, etc. are removed as well. 131.156.238.75 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)