New Aerosmith Article/Interviews

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2009/12/01/aerosmith-in-turmoil-inside-the-bands-40-year-war/

Eh, nothing really new there. Sounds like the band is really serious about finding a new lead singer though.

I like Perry's comments about going for a heavier sound like Rocks and Toys. It's too bad that Tyler is not on board. I don't think it will work without him.

Quote :

I don't think it will work without him.

Not as Aerosmith anyway...it's been too long with the same people to expect the same level of success...if they change their name they could still tour small theatres or something though...

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Quote :

I don't think it will work without him.

Not as Aerosmith anyway...it's been too long with the same people to expect the same level of success...if they change their name they could still tour small theatres or something though...

Sorta like what Priest did with Ripper. Or Motley with Corabi. Aerosmith could find a guy that maybe has a similiar sound as Steven (at least one that can do the songs justice) and play smaller venues. I don't see them changing the name though. They should, to preserve the legacy of the band, but they won't. The Aerosmith moniker is too well known and that alone will help sell tickets, despite who is in the band. They'll put out one album and do one tour with the "new guy" then patch things up with Steven and everything will be back to normal. This little episode will become a forgotten moment in time.

I could see that happening. Not saying it's good or bad, just probable.

Aerosmith & Trouble need to just hang it up. Both bands have signature vocalists that really aren't replaceable...and both bands are very close to their "use by" dates.

Protect your legacy, collect some royalties...and form a new band with a different name if you absolutely must continue recording.

Aerosmith with Steven Tyler will not work, few bands survive a vocalist change but when your vocalist is Steven Tyler it is not going to work, especially after a recording career that stretches back to 1973.

Mick Jagger is not replaceable in the Rolling Stones, Roger Daltry is not replaceable in The Who and I put Steven Tyler in the same league as those guys, he is much more than just a vocalist who is almost iconic.

manny wrote:

Aerosmith with Steven Tyler will not work, few bands survive a vocalist change but when your vocalist is Steven Tyler it is not going to work, especially after a recording career that stretches back to 1973.

Mick Jagger is not replaceable in the Rolling Stones, Roger Daltry is not replaceable in The Who and I put Steven Tyler in the same league as those guys, he is much more than just a vocalist who is almost iconic.

I see your point, but people said the same thing with Halford & Priest and that worked out fairly well at least for the 1st album and tour. Had Demolition had better songs, who knows where that might have gone? Same with Van Halen. How could you replace someone like David Lee Roth? Well, they did it and they had more hits with Sammy.

Who knows how this Aerosmith thing will work out, but it wouldn't surprise me if they tried a new singer.

In the grand scheme of things, once their career is looked at...Priest with Ripper will likely be a footnote...only Halford's participation actually makes it "Judas Priest".

Anything else is a better than average cover band.

detuned wrote:

In the grand scheme of things, once their career is looked at...Priest with Ripper will likely be a footnote...only Halford's participation actually makes it "Judas Priest".

Anything else is a better than average cover band.

For Aerosmith, yes. Speaking of "cover bands", Foreigner puts on one helluva show!