I have a been a huge Stones fan all my life (I am 53) and a mild ACDC fan in that time. Having said that I must say the ACDC gig in Melbourne last Saturday was one of the best concerts I have ever been to. And I've been to a few, including 6 Stones concerts. In my view the Stones could learn a lot from such a gig including (a) having a decent lead guitarist-Angus Young was brilliant. Malcom Young by the way is probably the second best rock and roll rythmn guitarist around and, well, Keith is well past his prime (b) injecting a level a passion and commitment into the gig commensurate with that shown by ACDC.

ozziestone, get ready for lots of flack for your comments.

On a personal note, I have probably listened to more AC/DC (cd's) than any other artist over the past 30 years, but sometimes (like now) I will go up to a year without putting on a CD. I have seen them live at least 15 times.

I don't mind flak! I am not suggesting (as some do) that ACDC are above, or anywhere near, the Stones on the ladder of the greatest rock bands ever. Frankly their music is far too monotonous for my taste. It's hard to imagine ACDC doing an unplugged gig!

Bring back Bon.

andyjs will be on this one. It's all a matter of personal taste I prefer a Stones show anyday but if someone prefers AC/DC power to them!

Hey AC/DC are cool...I do get a bit bored by the singer...seems to have one style of singing that can get a bit monotonous. But they are good! i love there new one. As for them vs. The Stones live. Sorry give me the stones in any incarnation live.

Quote
slew
andyjs will be on this one. It's all a matter of personal taste I prefer a Stones show anyday but if someone prefers AC/DC power to them!

Nothing more to add.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-18 09:25 by leteyer.

I think we had that one: The difference (after seeing both live in Germany)?: The Stones play 20 decent songs, AC/DC 2.

This thread again?

I am fan of both bands
ACDC gives the impression of a sincere band giving everything they have on stage

The Stones are more "naturally talented" and charismatic people. Mick and Keith are more "laid back", and even if Mick gives a lot of energy, but the result is different.

To put it shortly, the Stones are "aristocratic", ACDC are hardworking
Both are great to see live

[doctorstonesblog.blogspot.com]

The Stones have the best frontman and the best songs. Therefore, nothing beats the Stones' live shows.

Otherwise I like both bands.

yes, this thread again! AC/DC is a goos suport banf for the Stones. They are nice to open stones concerts,

Rock and roll shows are best when the guitar players actually play their instruments instead of posing.

Quote
Steven
Rock and roll shows are best when the guitar players actually play their instruments instead of posing.

correct, and as OzzieStones mentions having great guitarists definately helps with the sound. Gone are the days the Stones give a power punch of sound.

I'm with studiorambo - My AC/DC love stops when Bon stopped (sadly) - If You Want Blood has got to be one of the best live albums ever...

Quote
Steven
Rock and roll shows are best when the guitar players actually play their instruments instead of posing.

The Stones' guitar sound is still million times more powerful.

AcDc is okay but they don't even come close to The Stooges, let alone The Stones.

Hmmm, I'd say... The Who! Golden 1969-1972 era, of course.

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

Quote
Steven
Rock and roll shows are best when the guitar players actually play their instruments instead of posing.

correct, and as OzzieStones mentions having great guitarists definately helps with the sound. Gone are the days the Stones give a power punch of sound.

They are? Even on SAL Keith has the most powerful guitar sound in the world. Ah, you are talking about guitar solos, right? They don't make a rock'n'roll show alone, the songs and the swing do.

If you put personal taste aside, which is the only way to compare something like this, IMHO you can say that AC/DC still sounds very powerfull compared to the stones. Unfortunately, Keith and Ronnie are past there prime more than Angus and Malcom which ahows in concerts.

I love both though but I think AC/DC are overall more consistent these days then the stones.

Cheers,
Wuudy

To me, the Stones play in color, whereas AC/DC are in black & white. Jagger's voice is also much better than Brian Johnson's. Agree that Angus and Malcolm are tighter than tight and Angus is quite a showman - worth the price of admission alone.

I was never, ever an AC/DC fan. I chastised friends for listening to them back in college (many years ago when Back In Black came out). I have been a huge Stones fan since the early 70s.

That being said, I witnessed AC/CD blow the Stones off the stage when they shared the bill at the Sars show in Toronto. It was really no match. The power and energy and pacing of AC/DC really contrasted with how weak and disjointed the Stones had become onstage. The Stones opened with Start Me Up, which is probably one of their few hit songs that musically compares to an AC/DC song in it's simplicity. It was a huge letdown. No power. Keith and Ron sounded pathetic compared to the Youngs.

(On a side note, both original The Guess Who and Rush, who preceded AC/DC to the stage would have blown the Stones off the stage, too - the day really showcased how far the Stones have slipped as a live band)

I seem to recall that AC/DC was being criticized recently for not varyng their set list, at all--at least the Stones change it up throughout the tour.

And, in terms of "blowing" anyone away; that's what AC/DC does, the Stones aren't a heavy metal or guitar solo band...

I have seen AC/DC once, about 25 year ago, and the Stones about 25 times, so I guess I am a bit biased!



[this thread has gotten me in the mood to listen to an AC/DC show on sugarmegs, though--maybe i can find the Melbourne show that started this thread]

Did AC/DC blow this off the stage???

I like a lot ac-dc too, but you cannot compare the 2 singers.....
even if the stones are not changing setlists a lot, they are stll more generous
than ac-dc
verdict: I would go to see the stones 10 different times in the same tour, they always deliver something special ; with 1 time i would be ok with ac-dc.
but this is a stones fans website, i can easily imagine that an ac-dc fans forum
would not agree with me

Was at SARSfest myself and while Acdc did have a better show it had more to do with the crowd and time of day IMO. I'm not being a stones apologist at all but the 500,000 person crowd was baking in the sun all day. Acdc came on at the perfect time and everyone let all their energy out. The few hundred thousand closest to the stage had no chance for any food sinc ten in the morning, and being in college food was the last thing on my mind. But by the time the stones came on at 9 pm everyone was just sitting and watching the stones almost like some of the sixties concert footage you see as oposed to jumping up and down and singing every word. At the time I thought this didn't feel like a stones concert but in hindsight it was nice to see them like that. And I like both bands and acdc was awesome that day but that's my stones analysis. Oh yea and justin timberlake had a rough go at it.

"I must say the ACDC gig in Melbourne last Saturday was one of the best concerts I have ever been to"
I got a pre-DL-sample taste of some OZ 2010 shows and what struck me is how slow ACDC are these days. They REALLY drag! The wall-of-sound that comes from the P.A. his this but the aud tapes don't lie.

Different genre of rock. R&B vs Hard Rock.

Quote
Doc
I am fan of both bands
ACDC gives the impression of a sincere band giving everything they have on stage

The Stones are more "naturally talented" and charismatic people. Mick and Keith are more "laid back", and even if Mick gives a lot of energy, but the result is different.

To put it shortly, the Stones are "aristocratic", ACDC are hardworking
Both are great to see live

Agree 100%

Quote
dcba
"I must say the ACDC gig in Melbourne last Saturday was one of the best concerts I have ever been to"
I got a pre-DL-sample taste of some OZ 2010 shows and what struck me is how slow ACDC are these days. They REALLY drag! The wall-of-sound that comes from the P.A. his this but the aud tapes don't lie.

The songs are NOT slow. They are played at the correct tempo - as they were written. The problem ac/dc had from the mid 80s to early 90's was that they had replacement drummers who upped the tempo and screwed up the songs. Playing fast live is easy. Keeping the right tempo is the challenge. And since original drummer Phil Rudd has been back the boogie and the vibe have returned.

Hell of a rhythm section back in the day...