For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Well said! Brian obviously had some issues with his hearing, but it was exaggerated and used as an excuse to sack him.Quote
RollingFreak
Brian was not kicked out for an ear problem. Maybe at the time but it was not the permenant thing they implied. They obviously wanted him out, we don't know why. From his abrupt and rather rude farewell, as well as their joint press announcements of it, he's not coming back. You either live with the lie they told or you don't support them anymore. Its sad, but 100% we all know there's more to that Brian Johnson thing but neither of them are saying it. Its not what they said it was though, Brian is quite clearly fine and for some reason they wanted him out. Or else he'd be back.
As soon as Brian was gone, the setlists got longer and more varied. They added in a bunch of Bon-era tunes that haven't been played in decades.Quote
powerage78
Brian apparently wanted less touring even since the Black Ice Tour. It must have been quite warm when he said to Angus that he could no longer ensure the end of the tour. Angus did not like it at all.
I love Brian but I do not think we'll see him again on stage with AC/DC. I hope I'm wrong but the page is turned Imo.
That's a great point. Axl did a kickass job vocally, but he's such a volatile, sulky personality that the joy of Brian-era AC/DC wasn't onstage anymore. Brian is a naturally upbeat and gregarious performer, and that got lost when Axl was onstage, even if the vocals were greatly improved.Quote
Hairball
Wish they would get someone other than Axl...he carries so much baggage it's hard to overlook and takes away all the joy.
Several bands have found great new singers that were in tribute bands...I'm sure there's plenty out there who would be ready and willing to let it rock!
I doubt Brian wants to be publicly associated with Phil after what he did. Supposedly they're still friendly (according to Phil, for what that's worth) but Brian is pretty clean-cut.Quote
DGA35
Wouldn't it be ironic if Brian went on tour with Phil Rudd!
Well I'm serious! I think Phil has cleaned up his act, but he's always been a weird guy. I really don't think anyone in AC/DC wants to be associated with him unfortunately, even though he's such a kickass drummer.Quote
powerage78
Quote
RollingFreak
I'm a fan of original bands. The fact that in 3 years time AC/DC lost 4 of its 5 classic era members that they had for over 30 years was extremely sad. Thats old age, its how it goes, but at that point I say you fold the band. When Malcolm left, I get it, you had an album, you wanted to tour it and you kept the replacement in the family. But from there it should have been a farewell tour, at their age. When Phil got caught for killing a guy it became "ok, thats insane, but I guess you get a different drummer and go out." When you lose Brian, thats just too much. Add on that then Cliff said this tour was his last, you lost every member and AC/DC is not Angus even though I was impressed by him. Its a band! Tour as Angus but do not dilute the AC/DC brand, that they did such a good job NOT diluting for 40 years. That was my complaint, and obviously the one of many longtime fans. End with dignity, not replacement members.
Having said that, the only plus side to this tour and the reason I had to go was I'm a massive GNR fan so I had to see Axl, but more importantly I love those Bon songs. Brian left and whether it was a gimmick to get fans like me or because they really wanted to play those songs and Brian couldn't, they added like every song I had wanted to hear from decades and never thought I would. Smart move, at least for me, I HAD to go. I couldn't miss them playing Rock And Roll Damnation, Riff Raff, If You Want Blood, Live Wire, High Voltage, Sin City. It was just too good. I'm happy it happened once though. It was a fitting farewell, even if you basically through Brian under the bus midtour. You saved yourselves with that song selection. But end it now and don't become a parody. AC/DC CAN go on with just Angus and that name, but by all means we all know they shouldn't.
Quote
keefriff99
Angus is the face of the band. The schoolboy outfit gimmick was truly a brilliant idea and the fact that it still works onstage as a 60 year old is a testament to that.
But Malcolm's rhythm guitar has always been the foundation of the band. Rock Or Bust worked because I think they still had some unused Malcolm riffs to build songs around, and Stevie played using Mal's equipment.
But four years removed from Malcolm, Phil and Cliff leaving? That's not AC/DC.
Quote
RollingFreak
Axl should have toured as Axl Rose for 15 years, Angus should tour as Angus Young from now on. We all know that.
Two theories, probably related: Slash and Duff claim they were forced to sign it over before a show one night or Axl refused to go on. Axl doesn't really deny that, but usually throws out that they were on too many drugs at the time and it was safer in his hands. There was always things they needed sign offs for. Axl couldn't put out DVDs without Slash signing off on the Guns songs and Slash couldn't do the same. But Axl was legally allowed to tour as Guns as sole owner. I guess the DVD thing was more publishing and the name thing was more brand/ he's also the only one that never left so by default he gets it.Quote
dcbaQuote
RollingFreak
Axl should have toured as Axl Rose for 15 years, Angus should tour as Angus Young from now on. We all know that.
We all know that but they think in corporate terms : a band name is a brand and it's worth dozens (hundred?) of million dollar.
Why did Axl manage to be the sole owner of the name/brand "Guns and Roses"?
Quote
RollingFreakTwo theories, probably related: Slash and Duff claim they were forced to sign it over before a show one night or Axl refused to go on. Axl doesn't really deny that, but usually throws out that they were on too many drugs at the time and it was safer in his hands. There was always things they needed sign offs for. Axl couldn't put out DVDs without Slash signing off on the Guns songs and Slash couldn't do the same. But Axl was legally allowed to tour as Guns as sole owner. I guess the DVD thing was more publishing and the name thing was more brand/ he's also the only one that never left so by default he gets it.Quote
dcbaQuote
RollingFreak
Axl should have toured as Axl Rose for 15 years, Angus should tour as Angus Young from now on. We all know that.
We all know that but they think in corporate terms : a band name is a brand and it's worth dozens (hundred?) of million dollar.
Why did Axl manage to be the sole owner of the name/brand "Guns and Roses"?