Talk:Aerosmith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 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.

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] Article Needs Work

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

[edit] Jerry Garcia Quote

Any sources for the Jerry Garcia quote?

[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] 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)

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

[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)


[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/e/r/Talk%7EAerosmith_fea1.html"