Or even with Steven Tyler, please put the band in the attic already.

As long as Liv Tyler isn't involved, I'm ok with this.

/who farted yall?

Ummm...This would probably have to be the dumbest thing to happen to rock ever. If they want to go on without Tyler, fine, but you cant tour as Aerosmith without him. It would be like the Stones without Jagger, Metallica without Hetfield, Beatles without Lennon, etc. F'n nuts.

Almost as revolting as the Swank

I saw them in 1979, while they were still on massive amounts of drugs. So yeah... I'm good. Thanks.

No No No... Look what happened to Journey. Since they jettisoned Steve Perry, they only play casinos & fairs.

Never EVER get rid of a lead singer that identifies the band.

BTW.. might be a good idea to call it a day with the band as well.

/sigh

aszure: Ummm...This would probably have to be the dumbest thing to happen to rock ever. If they want to go on without Tyler, fine, but you cant tour as Aerosmith without him. It would be like the Stones without Jagger, Metallica without Hetfield, Beatles without Lennon, etc. F'n nuts.

They could always just tweak their name like "The Doors of the 21st Century", or "The New Cars" or "Creedence Clearwater Revisited" or "Jefferson Starship". Maybe "Airosmyth".

Is Sammy Hagar available?

Aerosmith got clean and then became contrived and really annoying, a caricature of themselves.

I'll take wasted and heavy Aerosmith any time.

Tyler is a freak of nature now who has lost all sense of reality.

AmazinTim: Almost as revolting as the Swank

Aerosmith has sucked for at least 33 years.

1/3 of a century of suckage, preceded by 4 or 5 years of awesomeness.

(still ahead of Rod Stewart - 10 months of awesomeness followed by 38 years of suckage)

AngelFan63: No No No... Look what happened to Journey. Since they jettisoned Steve Perry, they only play casinos & fairs.

Never EVER get rid of a lead singer that identifies the band.

BTW.. might be a good idea to call it a day with the band as well.

/sigh

Pretty much this.

Who else thinks there should be a mandatory retirement age for "Rock 'n' Rollers"?

The Fark in me would say 30, although there are a handful of rockers who have put out some decent stuff after that age... but definitely the returns seriously diminish as the years go by.

milowitz: AngelFan63: No No No... Look what happened to Journey. Since they jettisoned Steve Perry, they only play casinos & fairs.

Never EVER get rid of a lead singer that identifies the band.

BTW.. might be a good idea to call it a day with the band as well.


/sigh

Pretty much this.

It could still work. Iron Maiden stormed on after Paul Di'Anno was booted.

Besides, Steve Perry had such an enormous ego that he fired half of Journey. Would you want to stay around him after that kind of attitude?

AmazinTim: Almost as revolting as the Swank

Yeah, you're right, she's hideous. I'll go ahead and take her off your hands, just as a personal favor.

Jazz Odyssey? (new window)

"Hi guys, I'm from Boston, and have experience replacing singers in hard-rock bands. Guys? Hello?"

1stgenwhtrash 2009-11-06 12:42:21 PM
Jazz Odyssey? (new window)

Not funny.

The new guy from the Joe Perry Project would replace Steven just fine.

And the article fails for negativity about the best album Aerosmith has come out with since Pump

So long as they keep touring and play the classics, i'm ok. From what I hear, they still put on one heck of a show.

I allways thought that the latest Jefferson Airplane band should be called "The Jeffersons"

Take away the horn section, protools, outside writers and producers. Toss them in an analogue studio. Give them 16 tracks to work with and all the drugs / booze they want. Then maybe they will produce an album that I want to hear.

My aunt is friends with Joey Kramer's mother.

whatever happened to growing old with grace
and dying with dignity?

take your millions and get out of my face
with your crappy corporate rock schtick

radioman_: My aunt is friends with Joey Kramer's mother.

Aerosmith achieved all the greatness they could muster with "Rocks".

Beginning to end, top to bottom, a classic that sets the standard that all other hard rock albums should be held to.

"Nobody's Fault" was so far ahead of it's time that it only gained acceptance as rocker-wannabe after rocker-wannabe masturbated to it. While KISS and the New York Dolls can be heard through all the bad hair bands that came after, Aerosmith "Rocks" shines through in just about every great rock n' roll record from 78 - present.

Sadly, they shot their wad totally and imploded during "Night In The Ruts". I don't care how many hits they had after that, these guys will always be first and foremost a 70's band to me.

MiamiBlues: Aerosmith has sucked for at least 33 years.

1/3 of a century of suckage, preceded by 4 or 5 years of awesomeness.

(still ahead of Rod Stewart - 10 months of awesomeness followed by 38 years of suckage)

I completely agree with you, but have you noticed that the best album sales are when they really sucked? Unfortunately that happens with many bands.

KaisertheCoyote: So long as they keep touring and play the classics, i'm ok. From what I hear, they still put on one heck of a show.

I've seen them twice in the last 15 years or so and my husband went with me for one of the concerts - he doesn't even care for them but was still amazed by the show. They're worth seeing.