Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aerosmith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aerosmith page.

Contents

[edit] Single releases

The singles template need a cleanup and the discography may need a "promotional-only" section. Does anybody know if the song "Hangman Jury" has been released as official single? I suppose it isn't even a promo release. Promotional releases should't be listed in the template, even when they charted. The list below needs to be improved by someone who knows more about the releases. Janadore (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Promotional releases

  • Bitch's Brew
  • Darkness
  • My Fist Your Face
  • F.I.N.E.*
  • What Kind of Love Are You On
  • Rocking Pneumonia And The Boogie Woogie Flu
  • What Kind of Love Are You On
  • Taste of India
  • Sushine
  • Road Runner
  • You Gotta Move
  • Devil's Got a New Disguise

[edit] Official releases

  • Toys in the Attic (Japanese market)
  • Get It Up
  • Let the Music Do the Talking (Japanese market), Shela was chosen for the American market

[edit] EPs

  • A Big Ten Inch Record (promo)
  • European Tour '76
  • Rats in the Cellar (promo)
  • Darkness (Limited Edition)
  • Vacation Club (Japanese market)
The problem is that there are simply way too many singles and way too many markets and blurred lines between what's "official" and what's not, that in my opinion, it makes sense to just list the singles that charted, as well as some singles that did not chart (mainly because the band was in its infancy) but were, however, major releases that are considered hits today (i.e. "Mama Kin" and "Same Old Song and Dance"). If we are going to be official though, I would rather add "Rocking Pneumonia", "Bitch's Brew", "Darkness", "My Fist Your Face", "Road Runner", and "You Gotta Move", instead of deleting all of the promo releases and non-charting singles. These would also need to be added to the discography page, under the singles section. And "Get it Up" and "Toys" were singles too? I guess we'll add those ones as well.
I'm hesitant to add too many EPs though, especially promos, as they would need to be added to the main template, which is big enough already. I have no objection to putting the promo EPs on the discography page though. Abog (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I would rather add all the promo releases to the discography page. Promos are solely for radio DJs and not for sale. Only true singles should be listed in the template, no matter if the single charted or not. Keeping all together is in my opinion confusing for visitors, as they expect true singles only I guess. Singles like "Toys", which wasn't released in the US market, shouldn't be added in the template as well. This website may help us to ordering the content. Janadore (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I suppose. It just seems, though, that more people would want to access "Mama Kin" more than they would want to access "Get it Up"? You know what I mean? I also don't know if I trust that website very much. Abog (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I should have rephrased that. The website could be very helpful, especially with release dates and the like. It just seems so confusing to me, and it seems like there may be gaps or errors in the information that is presented. I understand the differences between promo singles and regular singles. But it just seems crazy to think that some of the band's most notable hits such as "Mama Kin" and "Deuces are Wild" (which hit #1 on the Mainstream Rock chart) would not be included in the template under this method. Which is why I think it's best to include all the singles, promo or not. Abog (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know either if the discography have gaps or not. Unfortunately it is the only website I've found with a 'complete' discography. From Dezember 1997 'til now it was never listed on aerosmith.com which I've seen yesterday as well. "Mama Kin" ain't a single? Then the article need to be changed. We cannot put a song which isn't a single in a template for singles. Take a look at related templates which have true singles only. We should follow that standard. It looks unprofessional if only the Aerosmith template shows this and that. Maybe a third template named songs is a solution. I've just seen that allmusic.com listed "Make It" and "Once Is Enough" as singles as well. Janadore (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem. Because I think "Mama Kin" was a single. It's just not shown. Promo singles are singles as well, and I think we should still include them somehow. A lot of major singles have been released over the years which were promos, or "airplay only", but nevertheless were big hits, even though they weren't publicly released as singles. If you just want to include the publicly released ones on the template, then that's fine I guess. I'll trust your judgement on this. But I think the Aerosmith discography article (under "Singles") still needs to include everything. Abog (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If you think "Mama Kin" was a single, then we keep the link in the template. I'll remove all promos as I think it's important to follow the standard. Absolutely, the discography article need to include everything. Janadore 12:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fine. Thanks for updating the templates as well. Looks good. Abog 20:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personnel/Songwriter Standards

There is currently some major disagreement regarding the listing of personnel and songwriting credits on the Aerosmith album articles. Some of the main issues that need to be resolved include: which order the songwriting credits go (e.g. is it "Tyler/Perry" or "Perry/Tyler"?), how the instruments the band members play should be listed (e.g. "lead guitar"/"rhythm guitar" or "guitar"/"guitar"?). There must be some sort of standards or precedents that exist for the personnel and songwriting credit components of Wikipedia album articles.

I believe it would be best to go strictly off what the album liner notes themselves say. In most of the Aerosmith albums' liner notes, there is no distinction between "lead guitar" and "rhythm guitar". This is because Joe Perry and Brad Whitford trade off a lot. There are several songs when Joe was so high that Brad had to do all the guitar parts, and there are some songs where Brad plays lead and Joe plays rhythm just because that's how it's arranged, and there are even some songs in which the double lead is employed. Thus, as vague as it may be, it is best to list the personnel like they are listed in the album liner notes. I have just about every Aerosmith album, so I can double check every one if need be.

In addition, it appears that the songwriting credits were in alphabetical order by last name and probably should remain that way. Hopefully, there is some existing Wikipedia standard to follow regarding this issue.

Outside input on this matter would be greatly appreciated. I agree that the edit war is counterproductive. It really is a sad waste of time. I'm busy with working and the holidays and everything, so I don't have a heck of a lot of time to revert anyway, so hopefully some resolution can be made.

My proposal:

  • Personnel should be listed strictly as it appears in the album liner notes
  • Songwriting credits should be listed in alphabetical order

In my opinion, this is the most accurate and fair way of doing this.

Abog (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Credits should be listed as seen in the booklet. It's the best source we've got and it's coherent. Joe is the official lead guitar player of Aerosmith. In a case like "Last Child" Brad should be listed as lead. Janadore (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

We're talking about the personnel for the entire album though. It varies song to song, and the band themselves don't consider themselves to have a distinct lead and rhythm, which is why they don't put it in the liner notes. Also, a lot of times, things in the studio are different, and only the band knows who actually played what. Which is why we should go off exactly what the liner notes say for just about everything. Not what the critics or other outsiders who may not know the band really well might say. If Aerosmith really thought the distinction between lead and rhythm was distinct and important in their band, they would have put in the liner notes. But lo and behold, it isn't. And thus you see, "Joe Perry - guitars" and "Brad Whitford - guitars". Which is as accurate, true, and verifiable as it gets. Anything else is pure speculation, which is something I don't think we should be doing on Wikipedia. Abog (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree with that. The current revision of the Just Push Play article for example looks fine to me. Personnel and also songwriting credits should be listed as it appears in the album booklet. Janadore (talk) 08:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
There are really only three ways to do it. You either list the people in alphabetical order, you list them the same way as they appear on the album (if possible), or you list them in some secret code. Personally, I prefer not to use this last method because someone might mistake the secret code for you can change it to put your favorite member first. Or he might want to use a different code than you, like, singer first, then important guitarist, then less-important guitarist, then bassist because that's kind of like a guitar, then drummer because he sits in the back. Best to avoid this sort of confusion. -Freekee (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)