Tell Me :
Talk
I apologise to everybody for my bad english. I hope I can explain what I think/feel.
95 % of the people going to concerts don't care about Charlie Watts or Ronnie Wood.90 % don't care about Keith Richards.98 % have never ever heard of Brian Jones, Bill Wyman or Mick Taylor. 100 % just want to see Mick Jagger on stage.
Same with AC/DC - 95 % of the people just want to see Angus and his schoolboy pants. They don't care about Bon Scott, Brian Johnson, Phil Rudd or Malcom Young. They want Angus Young.
It's the same with other bands. If David Gilmour, who is not a founding member, decide to go on tour as "Pink Floyd", with no original members (let's forget juridical problems with Roger Waters), ticket would sell easily.
The point of view of a die-hard-fan is different to the point of view of consummers.
I know, but I don't think your estimates are right
Agreed. Thats way too high a number for Keith but the general point is correct, expanding on mine. But thats also why I didn't feel atip warranted a further response to such an idiotic comment.
Where, exactly are you getting these statistics? I wholeheartedly disagree w/ just about all of them
AC/DC is a totally different animal than the Stones....and both are a totally different animal than Pink Floyd. Comparing their situations etc. simply doesn't work (for me).
You would honestly go see something calling itself "The Rolling Stones" without Keith? I'd be too grossed out to attend and it would totally ruin any respect I had for Mick as a person.
I feel the same way about Charlie and Ron at this point...if it were 30 years ago, I would probably tolerate losing Charlie and/or Ron (but ONLY if the Stones continued to put out great albums/tours). But, at this point? No way.
The only reason the Stones continue(d) to be The Stones w/ the lineup changes is b/c they proved they could still make great music/tours....same w/ Post-Bon AC/DC (and Pink Floyd, IMO, but to a lesser extent).
Rock in a Hard Place Aerosmith and Chinese Democracy Gn'R could not produce quality music w/ the lineup changes, IMO...so, I would never go see either of these acts in that context.
IMO, the current version of Gn'R is pretty good, but it needs to prove it can make great music w/o Izzy (or Steven/Matt for that matter).
It is yet to be seen what Axl-DC can do. The tour was pretty good from what I heard, but without a quality album...well...it's just the Angus n' Axl Live Show, which may be good enough for some people to call it "AC/DC" (and that's fine), but not me. I'd prefer they call it A&A and do a bunch of covers etc...more out of respect for the band's history than anything else.
....and, I'm sorry...there is no Rolling Stones without Keith. They would've had to have lost him a long time ago AND put out lots of great albums/tours to prove their worth for me to tolerate such a thing.
In other words - if lineup changes happen, it's really about the music a "band" can produce w/ a new lineup (and how old they are...after 50+ years as a band and being in your 70s, it's time to hang it up if the lineup changes dramatically...IMO...stick to solo projects &/or banging your 30-year old girlfriend at that point)
We'll probably never know, as Brian, Phil and (possibly) Cliff are back in the fold..
good.
I'll see THAT AC/DC till they drop. Rock or Bust!
Stadium acts are an animal of their own kind. Most people who go to a stadium show see the band for the very 1st time. Most of them don't care who's onstage, who's drumming or who's playing the bass. They go to see a frontman : Mick Jagger or Angus Young. Okay Keith has a semi-frontman status.
Where Angus Young acted cleverly was to replace Brian with a guy with equal aura.
Queen replaced Freddie with a nobody, Angus hired Axl Rose which is a stroke of genius imo. Okay the 2% hardcore fans are disgusted by this by 98% of future AC/DC shows either don't care or are glad there's new blood in the band.
the original new singer in queen was paul rodgers, that's a nobody?
Agree 100% about Angus move w/ Axl being a smart move. Nothing else really "works" IMO, and that is b/c of Axl's aura. Well said. I'm hoping for an album, if Brian doesn't return. This would solidify that it is "New Blood" and a "New Lineup"....(ie. New Music).
As for Stadiums and Big Name Acts, I think most 1st Time People go for the name on the ticket - ie. the "Bucket List Concert."
Yes, they want to see the Frontman most of all...but, they want to SAY they saw "The Rolling Stones"...saying "I saw Mick Jagger" does not have 1/2 the appeal of "I saw the Rolling Stones" for Bucket-List Concert Goers...think about anybody you know who saw Chinese Democracy "Guns n' Roses"...it's hard to take them seriously saying "I saw Guns n' Roses" when some guy w/ a bucket on his head was playing the guitar.
Besides, I highly doubt "Mick Jagger & Random Band Dudes" can even sell out stadiums...especially at the prices The Stones ask for. Which would say something about what Bucket-Listers will/will not go to a stadium to "see."
(I could be wrong...did the She's the Boss tour even do stadiums?)
I still think that any Stones Fan worth their salt would barf at the idea of a Keith-less "Rolling Stones."
Honestly, I think many feel the same about Charlie/Ron at this point...30 years ago would probably be a different story, but at this age? I dunno. I think there is a thread about this very question, actually.
I, personally, will not go see the Stones w/o any of the Big Four at this point...and would NEVER see a Keith-less Stones (or a Perry-less Aerosmith or a Slash-less Gn'R)...never never never!! It's bad enough Izzy's not in the re-vamped Gn'R (which is why they need to prove they can actually write good music w/o Izzy, IMO).
That being said, if there is a new album, I would see Axl-DC for exactly the reason you state - Axl has aura and it would represent "New Blood" (and Angus is The Man). But, I'm not seeing "AC/DC w/ Some Dude as Frontman"...unless it is at a small club (and much, much cheaper).
and I'd still rather it be called "Angus + Some Dude" and they put out an album of original music (the way Slash & Myles K. do it)...shows you are serious about your band/music and not just cashing in on the Bucket List Gravy Train.
next to Freddie Mercury they are kinda nobodys (comment not to be taken literally or seriously...I'm just being a d__k...haha!).
I think it all came down to Brian's physical limitations. The amount of exertion required to sing in that vocal style, given his age and decades of heavy smoking, would have made it very difficult for him to just reel off random songs on any given night.
Looking back on it, that may be why their setlists have been so conservative over the last 20 years.
Thats what I assume is and has been the case. They did do it once (that year they played with the Stones in Toronto) and played a lot of those deep rarities but they were special shows. Brian has also sang stuff like Go Down in 1998 at least once. Why they even do it once is surprising to me but I assume it was his range. Just never seemed like the band cared. Maybe they were just doing it cause of him. That always just sort of seemed like the AC/DC way so I relished this retrospective type of show because I never thought I'd see it. That show I saw with Axl was fine as an "AC/DC" show but the setlist was to die for.
I wonder if they just stick to the hits to please the general fans and not the diehards? Any setlist is going to be about a 50/50 split of Bon/Brian songs. I would love to hear some deep album cuts from the Bon era but the majority of the crowd wouldn't know them.
However, their setlists are conservative even by their contemporaries' standards.
***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-08-14 20:13 by powerage78.
A few smokes a day are less harmful than a steady diet of soda and junk food.
I'm sure their waist size is ok and that's a major factor to assess one's health.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
LiveAtHidepark
()
Date: August 9, 2018 16:21
Quote
atipQuote
RollingFreakQuote
atipQuote
RollingFreakQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Ket
I had thought Brian Johnson was still in the band to record, he just was not able to perform live. Am I mistaken?
+ he has performed on stage after he quit the band as well..
...Angus Young does not AC/DC make...
I disagree. Angus Young DOES AC/DC make. He is the only member of the band who is a must. Yes, Malcolm is missed and Axl is a poor replacement for Brian, but Angus is the driving force. It's not like The Stones where each of the four are key. And vocals should have an Aussie/Brit accent, not to mention, Axl pretty much just screams.
Thats absolutely laughable. Especially when you wanna say they're not like the Stones. If you wanna get into that argument, the Stones are Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. Thats it. No one would give a flying @#$%& if Charlie or Ronnie weren't there. We would, the world in general would not as long as Mick and Keith are there and you know that. But, as we all know, Mick and Keith are NOT the Rolling Stones. They are a band, and it is more than one or two guys. It always has been. AC/DC is no different. Angus is fantastic, but if Angus were AC/DC he'd have dumped those shlubs years ago and taken all the money. He doesn't, because he's not as much without his other guys singing and writing the songs. And thats not taking anything away from him. To the idiotic general public, AC/DC is one guy, the same way the Stones are two guys to that same moronic public. But they know and we know its more than just that.
What I'm confused by is what the end game is here. Are they just recording a new album and not touring it? Are they recording and touring? Is Brian gonna record but Axl tours? Seems there's still a lot of questions, but for now I'm just happy the real band as much as possible is back together.
You contradict yourself and you don’t seem to be much of of a Stones’ fan. I would give a major flying f&@# if Charlie or Ronnie were gone. You make very little sense.
I apologise to everybody for my bad english. I hope I can explain what I think/feel.
95 % of the people going to concerts don't care about Charlie Watts or Ronnie Wood.90 % don't care about Keith Richards.98 % have never ever heard of Brian Jones, Bill Wyman or Mick Taylor. 100 % just want to see Mick Jagger on stage.
Same with AC/DC - 95 % of the people just want to see Angus and his schoolboy pants. They don't care about Bon Scott, Brian Johnson, Phil Rudd or Malcom Young. They want Angus Young.
It's the same with other bands. If David Gilmour, who is not a founding member, decide to go on tour as "Pink Floyd", with no original members (let's forget juridical problems with Roger Waters), ticket would sell easily.
The point of view of a die-hard-fan is different to the point of view of consummers.
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 9, 2018 16:23
Quote
LiveAtHideparkQuote
atipQuote
RollingFreakQuote
atipQuote
RollingFreakQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Ket
I had thought Brian Johnson was still in the band to record, he just was not able to perform live. Am I mistaken?
+ he has performed on stage after he quit the band as well..
...Angus Young does not AC/DC make...
I disagree. Angus Young DOES AC/DC make. He is the only member of the band who is a must. Yes, Malcolm is missed and Axl is a poor replacement for Brian, but Angus is the driving force. It's not like The Stones where each of the four are key. And vocals should have an Aussie/Brit accent, not to mention, Axl pretty much just screams.
Thats absolutely laughable. Especially when you wanna say they're not like the Stones. If you wanna get into that argument, the Stones are Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. Thats it. No one would give a flying @#$%& if Charlie or Ronnie weren't there. We would, the world in general would not as long as Mick and Keith are there and you know that. But, as we all know, Mick and Keith are NOT the Rolling Stones. They are a band, and it is more than one or two guys. It always has been. AC/DC is no different. Angus is fantastic, but if Angus were AC/DC he'd have dumped those shlubs years ago and taken all the money. He doesn't, because he's not as much without his other guys singing and writing the songs. And thats not taking anything away from him. To the idiotic general public, AC/DC is one guy, the same way the Stones are two guys to that same moronic public. But they know and we know its more than just that.
What I'm confused by is what the end game is here. Are they just recording a new album and not touring it? Are they recording and touring? Is Brian gonna record but Axl tours? Seems there's still a lot of questions, but for now I'm just happy the real band as much as possible is back together.
You contradict yourself and you don’t seem to be much of of a Stones’ fan. I would give a major flying f&@# if Charlie or Ronnie were gone. You make very little sense.
I apologise to everybody for my bad english. I hope I can explain what I think/feel.
95 % of the people going to concerts don't care about Charlie Watts or Ronnie Wood.90 % don't care about Keith Richards.98 % have never ever heard of Brian Jones, Bill Wyman or Mick Taylor. 100 % just want to see Mick Jagger on stage.
Same with AC/DC - 95 % of the people just want to see Angus and his schoolboy pants. They don't care about Bon Scott, Brian Johnson, Phil Rudd or Malcom Young. They want Angus Young.
It's the same with other bands. If David Gilmour, who is not a founding member, decide to go on tour as "Pink Floyd", with no original members (let's forget juridical problems with Roger Waters), ticket would sell easily.
The point of view of a die-hard-fan is different to the point of view of consummers.
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
LiveAtHidepark
()
Date: August 9, 2018 16:38
Dandelion, again, I'm talking about to people going to shows.
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 9, 2018 16:45
Quote
LiveAtHidepark
Dandelion, again, I'm talking about to people going to shows.
I know, but I don't think your estimates are right
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
keefriff99
()
Date: August 9, 2018 16:50
LiveAtHidepark makes a great point, and it's a point I've made in the past.
There are the visible personalities in a band, usually singers and guitarists, who casual fans recognize. They're usually more animated, give the interviews ,etc.
Drummers, bassists and rhythm guitarists who don't sing tend to blend into the background and don't get as much recognition. There are exceptions (Neil Peart, Steve Harris) but generally the rule holds.
Having said that, I don't think 90% don't care about Keith compared to Mick. I'd say it's more like 20-30% of fans ONLY think of Mick when they think of the Stones.
There are the visible personalities in a band, usually singers and guitarists, who casual fans recognize. They're usually more animated, give the interviews ,etc.
Drummers, bassists and rhythm guitarists who don't sing tend to blend into the background and don't get as much recognition. There are exceptions (Neil Peart, Steve Harris) but generally the rule holds.
Having said that, I don't think 90% don't care about Keith compared to Mick. I'd say it's more like 20-30% of fans ONLY think of Mick when they think of the Stones.
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
RollingFreak
()
Date: August 9, 2018 16:58
Quote
keefriff99
LiveAtHidepark makes a great point, and it's a point I've made in the past.
There are the visible personalities in a band, usually singers and guitarists, who casual fans recognize. They're usually more animated, give the interviews ,etc.
Drummers, bassists and rhythm guitarists who don't sing tend to blend into the background and don't get as much recognition. There are exceptions (Neil Peart, Steve Harris) but generally the rule holds.
Having said that, I don't think 90% don't care about Keith compared to Mick. I'd say it's more like 20-30% of fans ONLY think of Mick when they think of the Stones.
Agreed. Thats way too high a number for Keith but the general point is correct, expanding on mine. But thats also why I didn't feel atip warranted a further response to such an idiotic comment.
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
stickyfingers101
()
Date: August 9, 2018 17:40
Quote
LiveAtHideparkQuote
atipQuote
RollingFreakQuote
atipQuote
RollingFreakQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Ket
I had thought Brian Johnson was still in the band to record, he just was not able to perform live. Am I mistaken?
+ he has performed on stage after he quit the band as well..
...Angus Young does not AC/DC make...
I disagree. Angus Young DOES AC/DC make. He is the only member of the band who is a must. Yes, Malcolm is missed and Axl is a poor replacement for Brian, but Angus is the driving force. It's not like The Stones where each of the four are key. And vocals should have an Aussie/Brit accent, not to mention, Axl pretty much just screams.
Thats absolutely laughable. Especially when you wanna say they're not like the Stones. If you wanna get into that argument, the Stones are Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. Thats it. No one would give a flying @#$%& if Charlie or Ronnie weren't there. We would, the world in general would not as long as Mick and Keith are there and you know that. But, as we all know, Mick and Keith are NOT the Rolling Stones. They are a band, and it is more than one or two guys. It always has been. AC/DC is no different. Angus is fantastic, but if Angus were AC/DC he'd have dumped those shlubs years ago and taken all the money. He doesn't, because he's not as much without his other guys singing and writing the songs. And thats not taking anything away from him. To the idiotic general public, AC/DC is one guy, the same way the Stones are two guys to that same moronic public. But they know and we know its more than just that.
What I'm confused by is what the end game is here. Are they just recording a new album and not touring it? Are they recording and touring? Is Brian gonna record but Axl tours? Seems there's still a lot of questions, but for now I'm just happy the real band as much as possible is back together.
You contradict yourself and you don’t seem to be much of of a Stones’ fan. I would give a major flying f&@# if Charlie or Ronnie were gone. You make very little sense.
I apologise to everybody for my bad english. I hope I can explain what I think/feel.
95 % of the people going to concerts don't care about Charlie Watts or Ronnie Wood.90 % don't care about Keith Richards.98 % have never ever heard of Brian Jones, Bill Wyman or Mick Taylor. 100 % just want to see Mick Jagger on stage.
Same with AC/DC - 95 % of the people just want to see Angus and his schoolboy pants. They don't care about Bon Scott, Brian Johnson, Phil Rudd or Malcom Young. They want Angus Young.
It's the same with other bands. If David Gilmour, who is not a founding member, decide to go on tour as "Pink Floyd", with no original members (let's forget juridical problems with Roger Waters), ticket would sell easily.
The point of view of a die-hard-fan is different to the point of view of consummers.
Where, exactly are you getting these statistics? I wholeheartedly disagree w/ just about all of them
AC/DC is a totally different animal than the Stones....and both are a totally different animal than Pink Floyd. Comparing their situations etc. simply doesn't work (for me).
You would honestly go see something calling itself "The Rolling Stones" without Keith? I'd be too grossed out to attend and it would totally ruin any respect I had for Mick as a person.
I feel the same way about Charlie and Ron at this point...if it were 30 years ago, I would probably tolerate losing Charlie and/or Ron (but ONLY if the Stones continued to put out great albums/tours). But, at this point? No way.
The only reason the Stones continue(d) to be The Stones w/ the lineup changes is b/c they proved they could still make great music/tours....same w/ Post-Bon AC/DC (and Pink Floyd, IMO, but to a lesser extent).
Rock in a Hard Place Aerosmith and Chinese Democracy Gn'R could not produce quality music w/ the lineup changes, IMO...so, I would never go see either of these acts in that context.
IMO, the current version of Gn'R is pretty good, but it needs to prove it can make great music w/o Izzy (or Steven/Matt for that matter).
It is yet to be seen what Axl-DC can do. The tour was pretty good from what I heard, but without a quality album...well...it's just the Angus n' Axl Live Show, which may be good enough for some people to call it "AC/DC" (and that's fine), but not me. I'd prefer they call it A&A and do a bunch of covers etc...more out of respect for the band's history than anything else.
....and, I'm sorry...there is no Rolling Stones without Keith. They would've had to have lost him a long time ago AND put out lots of great albums/tours to prove their worth for me to tolerate such a thing.
In other words - if lineup changes happen, it's really about the music a "band" can produce w/ a new lineup (and how old they are...after 50+ years as a band and being in your 70s, it's time to hang it up if the lineup changes dramatically...IMO...stick to solo projects &/or banging your 30-year old girlfriend at that point)
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 9, 2018 17:49
Quote
stickyfingers101Quote
LiveAtHideparkQuote
atipQuote
RollingFreakQuote
atipQuote
RollingFreakQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Ket
I had thought Brian Johnson was still in the band to record, he just was not able to perform live. Am I mistaken?
+ he has performed on stage after he quit the band as well..
...Angus Young does not AC/DC make...
I disagree. Angus Young DOES AC/DC make. He is the only member of the band who is a must. Yes, Malcolm is missed and Axl is a poor replacement for Brian, but Angus is the driving force. It's not like The Stones where each of the four are key. And vocals should have an Aussie/Brit accent, not to mention, Axl pretty much just screams.
Thats absolutely laughable. Especially when you wanna say they're not like the Stones. If you wanna get into that argument, the Stones are Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. Thats it. No one would give a flying @#$%& if Charlie or Ronnie weren't there. We would, the world in general would not as long as Mick and Keith are there and you know that. But, as we all know, Mick and Keith are NOT the Rolling Stones. They are a band, and it is more than one or two guys. It always has been. AC/DC is no different. Angus is fantastic, but if Angus were AC/DC he'd have dumped those shlubs years ago and taken all the money. He doesn't, because he's not as much without his other guys singing and writing the songs. And thats not taking anything away from him. To the idiotic general public, AC/DC is one guy, the same way the Stones are two guys to that same moronic public. But they know and we know its more than just that.
What I'm confused by is what the end game is here. Are they just recording a new album and not touring it? Are they recording and touring? Is Brian gonna record but Axl tours? Seems there's still a lot of questions, but for now I'm just happy the real band as much as possible is back together.
You contradict yourself and you don’t seem to be much of of a Stones’ fan. I would give a major flying f&@# if Charlie or Ronnie were gone. You make very little sense.
I apologise to everybody for my bad english. I hope I can explain what I think/feel.
95 % of the people going to concerts don't care about Charlie Watts or Ronnie Wood.90 % don't care about Keith Richards.98 % have never ever heard of Brian Jones, Bill Wyman or Mick Taylor. 100 % just want to see Mick Jagger on stage.
Same with AC/DC - 95 % of the people just want to see Angus and his schoolboy pants. They don't care about Bon Scott, Brian Johnson, Phil Rudd or Malcom Young. They want Angus Young.
It's the same with other bands. If David Gilmour, who is not a founding member, decide to go on tour as "Pink Floyd", with no original members (let's forget juridical problems with Roger Waters), ticket would sell easily.
The point of view of a die-hard-fan is different to the point of view of consummers.
Where, exactly are you getting these statistics? I wholeheartedly disagree w/ just about all of them
AC/DC is a totally different animal than the Stones....and both are a totally different animal than Pink Floyd. Comparing their situations etc. simply doesn't work (for me).
You would honestly go see something calling itself "The Rolling Stones" without Keith? I'd be too grossed out to attend and it would totally ruin any respect I had for Mick as a person.
I feel the same way about Charlie and Ron at this point...if it were 30 years ago, I would probably tolerate losing Charlie and/or Ron (but ONLY if the Stones continued to put out great albums/tours). But, at this point? No way.
The only reason the Stones continue(d) to be The Stones w/ the lineup changes is b/c they proved they could still make great music/tours....same w/ Post-Bon AC/DC (and Pink Floyd, IMO, but to a lesser extent).
Rock in a Hard Place Aerosmith and Chinese Democracy Gn'R could not produce quality music w/ the lineup changes, IMO...so, I would never go see either of these acts in that context.
IMO, the current version of Gn'R is pretty good, but it needs to prove it can make great music w/o Izzy (or Steven/Matt for that matter).
It is yet to be seen what Axl-DC can do. The tour was pretty good from what I heard, but without a quality album...well...it's just the Angus n' Axl Live Show, which may be good enough for some people to call it "AC/DC" (and that's fine), but not me. I'd prefer they call it A&A and do a bunch of covers etc...more out of respect for the band's history than anything else.
....and, I'm sorry...there is no Rolling Stones without Keith. They would've had to have lost him a long time ago AND put out lots of great albums/tours to prove their worth for me to tolerate such a thing.
In other words - if lineup changes happen, it's really about the music a "band" can produce w/ a new lineup (and how old they are...after 50+ years as a band and being in your 70s, it's time to hang it up if the lineup changes dramatically...IMO...stick to solo projects &/or banging your 30-year old girlfriend at that point)
We'll probably never know, as Brian, Phil and (possibly) Cliff are back in the fold..
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
stickyfingers101
()
Date: August 9, 2018 18:10
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
stickyfingers101Quote
LiveAtHideparkQuote
atipQuote
RollingFreakQuote
atipQuote
RollingFreakQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Ket
I had thought Brian Johnson was still in the band to record, he just was not able to perform live. Am I mistaken?
+ he has performed on stage after he quit the band as well..
...Angus Young does not AC/DC make...
I disagree. Angus Young DOES AC/DC make. He is the only member of the band who is a must. Yes, Malcolm is missed and Axl is a poor replacement for Brian, but Angus is the driving force. It's not like The Stones where each of the four are key. And vocals should have an Aussie/Brit accent, not to mention, Axl pretty much just screams.
Thats absolutely laughable. Especially when you wanna say they're not like the Stones. If you wanna get into that argument, the Stones are Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. Thats it. No one would give a flying @#$%& if Charlie or Ronnie weren't there. We would, the world in general would not as long as Mick and Keith are there and you know that. But, as we all know, Mick and Keith are NOT the Rolling Stones. They are a band, and it is more than one or two guys. It always has been. AC/DC is no different. Angus is fantastic, but if Angus were AC/DC he'd have dumped those shlubs years ago and taken all the money. He doesn't, because he's not as much without his other guys singing and writing the songs. And thats not taking anything away from him. To the idiotic general public, AC/DC is one guy, the same way the Stones are two guys to that same moronic public. But they know and we know its more than just that.
What I'm confused by is what the end game is here. Are they just recording a new album and not touring it? Are they recording and touring? Is Brian gonna record but Axl tours? Seems there's still a lot of questions, but for now I'm just happy the real band as much as possible is back together.
You contradict yourself and you don’t seem to be much of of a Stones’ fan. I would give a major flying f&@# if Charlie or Ronnie were gone. You make very little sense.
I apologise to everybody for my bad english. I hope I can explain what I think/feel.
95 % of the people going to concerts don't care about Charlie Watts or Ronnie Wood.90 % don't care about Keith Richards.98 % have never ever heard of Brian Jones, Bill Wyman or Mick Taylor. 100 % just want to see Mick Jagger on stage.
Same with AC/DC - 95 % of the people just want to see Angus and his schoolboy pants. They don't care about Bon Scott, Brian Johnson, Phil Rudd or Malcom Young. They want Angus Young.
It's the same with other bands. If David Gilmour, who is not a founding member, decide to go on tour as "Pink Floyd", with no original members (let's forget juridical problems with Roger Waters), ticket would sell easily.
The point of view of a die-hard-fan is different to the point of view of consummers.
Where, exactly are you getting these statistics? I wholeheartedly disagree w/ just about all of them
AC/DC is a totally different animal than the Stones....and both are a totally different animal than Pink Floyd. Comparing their situations etc. simply doesn't work (for me).
You would honestly go see something calling itself "The Rolling Stones" without Keith? I'd be too grossed out to attend and it would totally ruin any respect I had for Mick as a person.
I feel the same way about Charlie and Ron at this point...if it were 30 years ago, I would probably tolerate losing Charlie and/or Ron (but ONLY if the Stones continued to put out great albums/tours). But, at this point? No way.
The only reason the Stones continue(d) to be The Stones w/ the lineup changes is b/c they proved they could still make great music/tours....same w/ Post-Bon AC/DC (and Pink Floyd, IMO, but to a lesser extent).
Rock in a Hard Place Aerosmith and Chinese Democracy Gn'R could not produce quality music w/ the lineup changes, IMO...so, I would never go see either of these acts in that context.
IMO, the current version of Gn'R is pretty good, but it needs to prove it can make great music w/o Izzy (or Steven/Matt for that matter).
It is yet to be seen what Axl-DC can do. The tour was pretty good from what I heard, but without a quality album...well...it's just the Angus n' Axl Live Show, which may be good enough for some people to call it "AC/DC" (and that's fine), but not me. I'd prefer they call it A&A and do a bunch of covers etc...more out of respect for the band's history than anything else.
....and, I'm sorry...there is no Rolling Stones without Keith. They would've had to have lost him a long time ago AND put out lots of great albums/tours to prove their worth for me to tolerate such a thing.
In other words - if lineup changes happen, it's really about the music a "band" can produce w/ a new lineup (and how old they are...after 50+ years as a band and being in your 70s, it's time to hang it up if the lineup changes dramatically...IMO...stick to solo projects &/or banging your 30-year old girlfriend at that point)
We'll probably never know, as Brian, Phil and (possibly) Cliff are back in the fold..
good.
I'll see THAT AC/DC till they drop. Rock or Bust!
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: August 9, 2018 18:23
Quote
stickyfingers101
AC/DC is a totally different animal than the Stones....and both are a totally different animal than Pink Floyd. Comparing their situations etc. simply doesn't work (for me).
Stadium acts are an animal of their own kind. Most people who go to a stadium show see the band for the very 1st time. Most of them don't care who's onstage, who's drumming or who's playing the bass. They go to see a frontman : Mick Jagger or Angus Young. Okay Keith has a semi-frontman status.
Where Angus Young acted cleverly was to replace Brian with a guy with equal aura.
Queen replaced Freddie with a nobody, Angus hired Axl Rose which is a stroke of genius imo. Okay the 2% hardcore fans are disgusted by this by 98% of future AC/DC shows either don't care or are glad there's new blood in the band.
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
keefriffhard4life
()
Date: August 9, 2018 18:49
Quote
dcbaQuote
stickyfingers101
AC/DC is a totally different animal than the Stones....and both are a totally different animal than Pink Floyd. Comparing their situations etc. simply doesn't work (for me).
Stadium acts are an animal of their own kind. Most people who go to a stadium show see the band for the very 1st time. Most of them don't care who's onstage, who's drumming or who's playing the bass. They go to see a frontman : Mick Jagger or Angus Young. Okay Keith has a semi-frontman status.
Where Angus Young acted cleverly was to replace Brian with a guy with equal aura.
Queen replaced Freddie with a nobody, Angus hired Axl Rose which is a stroke of genius imo. Okay the 2% hardcore fans are disgusted by this by 98% of future AC/DC shows either don't care or are glad there's new blood in the band.
the original new singer in queen was paul rodgers, that's a nobody?
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
stickyfingers101
()
Date: August 9, 2018 19:27
Quote
dcbaQuote
stickyfingers101
AC/DC is a totally different animal than the Stones....and both are a totally different animal than Pink Floyd. Comparing their situations etc. simply doesn't work (for me).
Stadium acts are an animal of their own kind. Most people who go to a stadium show see the band for the very 1st time. Most of them don't care who's onstage, who's drumming or who's playing the bass. They go to see a frontman : Mick Jagger or Angus Young. Okay Keith has a semi-frontman status.
Where Angus Young acted cleverly was to replace Brian with a guy with equal aura.
Queen replaced Freddie with a nobody, Angus hired Axl Rose which is a stroke of genius imo. Okay the 2% hardcore fans are disgusted by this by 98% of future AC/DC shows either don't care or are glad there's new blood in the band.
Agree 100% about Angus move w/ Axl being a smart move. Nothing else really "works" IMO, and that is b/c of Axl's aura. Well said. I'm hoping for an album, if Brian doesn't return. This would solidify that it is "New Blood" and a "New Lineup"....(ie. New Music).
As for Stadiums and Big Name Acts, I think most 1st Time People go for the name on the ticket - ie. the "Bucket List Concert."
Yes, they want to see the Frontman most of all...but, they want to SAY they saw "The Rolling Stones"...saying "I saw Mick Jagger" does not have 1/2 the appeal of "I saw the Rolling Stones" for Bucket-List Concert Goers...think about anybody you know who saw Chinese Democracy "Guns n' Roses"...it's hard to take them seriously saying "I saw Guns n' Roses" when some guy w/ a bucket on his head was playing the guitar.
Besides, I highly doubt "Mick Jagger & Random Band Dudes" can even sell out stadiums...especially at the prices The Stones ask for. Which would say something about what Bucket-Listers will/will not go to a stadium to "see."
(I could be wrong...did the She's the Boss tour even do stadiums?)
I still think that any Stones Fan worth their salt would barf at the idea of a Keith-less "Rolling Stones."
Honestly, I think many feel the same about Charlie/Ron at this point...30 years ago would probably be a different story, but at this age? I dunno. I think there is a thread about this very question, actually.
I, personally, will not go see the Stones w/o any of the Big Four at this point...and would NEVER see a Keith-less Stones (or a Perry-less Aerosmith or a Slash-less Gn'R)...never never never!! It's bad enough Izzy's not in the re-vamped Gn'R (which is why they need to prove they can actually write good music w/o Izzy, IMO).
That being said, if there is a new album, I would see Axl-DC for exactly the reason you state - Axl has aura and it would represent "New Blood" (and Angus is The Man). But, I'm not seeing "AC/DC w/ Some Dude as Frontman"...unless it is at a small club (and much, much cheaper).
and I'd still rather it be called "Angus + Some Dude" and they put out an album of original music (the way Slash & Myles K. do it)...shows you are serious about your band/music and not just cashing in on the Bucket List Gravy Train.
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
keefriff99
()
Date: August 9, 2018 19:28
I think he's referring to Adam Lambert...but he's not exactly a "nobody" either.Quote
keefriffhard4lifeQuote
dcbaQuote
stickyfingers101
AC/DC is a totally different animal than the Stones....and both are a totally different animal than Pink Floyd. Comparing their situations etc. simply doesn't work (for me).
Stadium acts are an animal of their own kind. Most people who go to a stadium show see the band for the very 1st time. Most of them don't care who's onstage, who's drumming or who's playing the bass. They go to see a frontman : Mick Jagger or Angus Young. Okay Keith has a semi-frontman status.
Where Angus Young acted cleverly was to replace Brian with a guy with equal aura.
Queen replaced Freddie with a nobody, Angus hired Axl Rose which is a stroke of genius imo. Okay the 2% hardcore fans are disgusted by this by 98% of future AC/DC shows either don't care or are glad there's new blood in the band.
the original new singer in queen was paul rodgers, that's a nobody?
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
stickyfingers101
()
Date: August 9, 2018 19:36
Quote
keefriff99I think he's referring to Adam Lambert...but he's not exactly a "nobody" either.Quote
keefriffhard4lifeQuote
dcbaQuote
stickyfingers101
AC/DC is a totally different animal than the Stones....and both are a totally different animal than Pink Floyd. Comparing their situations etc. simply doesn't work (for me).
Stadium acts are an animal of their own kind. Most people who go to a stadium show see the band for the very 1st time. Most of them don't care who's onstage, who's drumming or who's playing the bass. They go to see a frontman : Mick Jagger or Angus Young. Okay Keith has a semi-frontman status.
Where Angus Young acted cleverly was to replace Brian with a guy with equal aura.
Queen replaced Freddie with a nobody, Angus hired Axl Rose which is a stroke of genius imo. Okay the 2% hardcore fans are disgusted by this by 98% of future AC/DC shows either don't care or are glad there's new blood in the band.
the original new singer in queen was paul rodgers, that's a nobody?
next to Freddie Mercury they are kinda nobodys (comment not to be taken literally or seriously...I'm just being a d__k...haha!).
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
powerage78
()
Date: August 9, 2018 19:37
New album.
Then new Tour.
Thanks AC/DC
***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie
Then new Tour.
Thanks AC/DC
***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
spikenyc
()
Date: August 10, 2018 19:31
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
Cristiano Radtke
()
Date: August 10, 2018 20:59
"It’s time for some rock ‘n roll, as we release an AC/DC stamp pack, in honour of the band’s 45th anniversary. AC/DC are Australian rock royalty and our most successful musical export, with the 1979 album Highway to Hell propelling the band to international fame. AC/DC were inducted into the inaugural ARIA Hall of Fame in 1988, and into the American Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2003.
This electrifying AC/DC stamp pack features 20 Map of Australia stamps from the Love the Celebrate stamp issue, together with cover images of the band’s most successful albums in the stamp tabs."
[shop.auspost.com.au]
This electrifying AC/DC stamp pack features 20 Map of Australia stamps from the Love the Celebrate stamp issue, together with cover images of the band’s most successful albums in the stamp tabs."
[shop.auspost.com.au]
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
DGA35
()
Date: August 10, 2018 21:06
Steve Newton has posted another pic showing Angus and Stevie Young outside Warehouse Studio having a smoke. Now we need to see who is playing bass! I'm hoping we get a pic of Cliff!
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
keefriff99
()
Date: August 11, 2018 00:14
I have to say that Angus seemed really energized by Axl. He sang a bunch of Bon-era songs that AC/DC have never performed, or haven't performed in decades (Live Wire, Touch Too Much, Riff Raff), the set lists got a lot longer, and Axl was hitting high notes in the original key that Brian can't anymore.
But...does that really matter? Any band with aging members could theoretically go out and find a 20- or 30-something year old musician with more nimble fingers, faster drum chops, or healthier vocal cords...that's not really the point.
I want to see the STONES, as creaky as they are, gnarled fingers, sore backs, slow tempos, and all. If I wanted perfection, I'd go see a cover band. Same with AC/DC.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-08-11 00:16 by keefriff99.
But...does that really matter? Any band with aging members could theoretically go out and find a 20- or 30-something year old musician with more nimble fingers, faster drum chops, or healthier vocal cords...that's not really the point.
I want to see the STONES, as creaky as they are, gnarled fingers, sore backs, slow tempos, and all. If I wanted perfection, I'd go see a cover band. Same with AC/DC.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-08-11 00:16 by keefriff99.
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
RollingFreak
()
Date: August 11, 2018 09:14
The Axl thing for the last tour was exactly what they needed. Whatever happened with Brian, they had to finish the tour, or I understood why they felt compelled to. Axl was a big name, which is what you need to replace Brian, and like him or not, he did an excellent job. It made for a unique show just to finish a tour that had already started. As a longtime fan, it was mind blowing to be seeing Angus playing stuff like Rock N Roll Damnation and If You Want Blood. I never thought I'd see that, and Axl killed it and Angus seemed totally reinvigorated. Kinda makes you wonder why they never really did that normally. The change was exactly what they needed.
Having said that, going longer than one tour, the luster wears off and I just plain don't think its right. Get back to being AC/DC with the people we know.
Having said that, going longer than one tour, the luster wears off and I just plain don't think its right. Get back to being AC/DC with the people we know.
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
keefriff99
()
Date: August 11, 2018 10:14
Why didn't they play older and more varied songs normally?Quote
RollingFreak
The Axl thing for the last tour was exactly what they needed. Whatever happened with Brian, they had to finish the tour, or I understood why they felt compelled to. Axl was a big name, which is what you need to replace Brian, and like him or not, he did an excellent job. It made for a unique show just to finish a tour that had already started. As a longtime fan, it was mind blowing to be seeing Angus playing stuff like Rock N Roll Damnation and If You Want Blood. I never thought I'd see that, and Axl killed it and Angus seemed totally reinvigorated. Kinda makes you wonder why they never really did that normally. The change was exactly what they needed.
Having said that, going longer than one tour, the luster wears off and I just plain don't think its right. Get back to being AC/DC with the people we know.
I think it all came down to Brian's physical limitations. The amount of exertion required to sing in that vocal style, given his age and decades of heavy smoking, would have made it very difficult for him to just reel off random songs on any given night.
Looking back on it, that may be why their setlists have been so conservative over the last 20 years.
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
RollingFreak
()
Date: August 11, 2018 16:50
Quote
keefriff99Why didn't they play older and more varied songs normally?Quote
RollingFreak
The Axl thing for the last tour was exactly what they needed. Whatever happened with Brian, they had to finish the tour, or I understood why they felt compelled to. Axl was a big name, which is what you need to replace Brian, and like him or not, he did an excellent job. It made for a unique show just to finish a tour that had already started. As a longtime fan, it was mind blowing to be seeing Angus playing stuff like Rock N Roll Damnation and If You Want Blood. I never thought I'd see that, and Axl killed it and Angus seemed totally reinvigorated. Kinda makes you wonder why they never really did that normally. The change was exactly what they needed.
Having said that, going longer than one tour, the luster wears off and I just plain don't think its right. Get back to being AC/DC with the people we know.
I think it all came down to Brian's physical limitations. The amount of exertion required to sing in that vocal style, given his age and decades of heavy smoking, would have made it very difficult for him to just reel off random songs on any given night.
Looking back on it, that may be why their setlists have been so conservative over the last 20 years.
Thats what I assume is and has been the case. They did do it once (that year they played with the Stones in Toronto) and played a lot of those deep rarities but they were special shows. Brian has also sang stuff like Go Down in 1998 at least once. Why they even do it once is surprising to me but I assume it was his range. Just never seemed like the band cared. Maybe they were just doing it cause of him. That always just sort of seemed like the AC/DC way so I relished this retrospective type of show because I never thought I'd see it. That show I saw with Axl was fine as an "AC/DC" show but the setlist was to die for.
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
DGA35
()
Date: August 11, 2018 20:50
Quote
keefriff99Why didn't they play older and more varied songs normally?Quote
RollingFreak
The Axl thing for the last tour was exactly what they needed. Whatever happened with Brian, they had to finish the tour, or I understood why they felt compelled to. Axl was a big name, which is what you need to replace Brian, and like him or not, he did an excellent job. It made for a unique show just to finish a tour that had already started. As a longtime fan, it was mind blowing to be seeing Angus playing stuff like Rock N Roll Damnation and If You Want Blood. I never thought I'd see that, and Axl killed it and Angus seemed totally reinvigorated. Kinda makes you wonder why they never really did that normally. The change was exactly what they needed.
Having said that, going longer than one tour, the luster wears off and I just plain don't think its right. Get back to being AC/DC with the people we know.
I think it all came down to Brian's physical limitations. The amount of exertion required to sing in that vocal style, given his age and decades of heavy smoking, would have made it very difficult for him to just reel off random songs on any given night.
Looking back on it, that may be why their setlists have been so conservative over the last 20 years.
I wonder if they just stick to the hits to please the general fans and not the diehards? Any setlist is going to be about a 50/50 split of Bon/Brian songs. I would love to hear some deep album cuts from the Bon era but the majority of the crowd wouldn't know them.
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
keefriffhard4life
()
Date: August 11, 2018 21:26
i still have no clue why the song "moneytalks" hasn't been played in decades. it was one of the bands more popular tunes
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
keefriff99
()
Date: August 11, 2018 21:29
There's definitely that too...AC/DC has toured so infrequently over the last 30 years (1990, 1995, 2000, 2008, 2014) that they've said in interviews they mostly stick to greatest hits sets to please the widest number of fans, which of course isn't unusual for older bands.Quote
DGA35Quote
keefriff99Why didn't they play older and more varied songs normally?Quote
RollingFreak
The Axl thing for the last tour was exactly what they needed. Whatever happened with Brian, they had to finish the tour, or I understood why they felt compelled to. Axl was a big name, which is what you need to replace Brian, and like him or not, he did an excellent job. It made for a unique show just to finish a tour that had already started. As a longtime fan, it was mind blowing to be seeing Angus playing stuff like Rock N Roll Damnation and If You Want Blood. I never thought I'd see that, and Axl killed it and Angus seemed totally reinvigorated. Kinda makes you wonder why they never really did that normally. The change was exactly what they needed.
Having said that, going longer than one tour, the luster wears off and I just plain don't think its right. Get back to being AC/DC with the people we know.
I think it all came down to Brian's physical limitations. The amount of exertion required to sing in that vocal style, given his age and decades of heavy smoking, would have made it very difficult for him to just reel off random songs on any given night.
Looking back on it, that may be why their setlists have been so conservative over the last 20 years.
I wonder if they just stick to the hits to please the general fans and not the diehards? Any setlist is going to be about a 50/50 split of Bon/Brian songs. I would love to hear some deep album cuts from the Bon era but the majority of the crowd wouldn't know them.
However, their setlists are conservative even by their contemporaries' standards.
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
RollingFreak
()
Date: August 11, 2018 23:08
The thing with AC/DC setlists is they write themselves. I understand they are one of those bands where they have about 10 songs they HAVE to play. I wish that wasn't the case but I get it. Honestly, its similar to the Stones. HALF the setlist is stuff you just need to have there:
Thunderstruck (Honky Tonk Women)
Shoot To Thrill (Sympathy For The Devil)
Back In Black (Paint It Black)
Dirty Deeds (Gimme Shelter)
Hells Bells (Brown Sugar)
Whole Lotta Rosie (Start Me Up)
You Shook Me All Night Long (Satisfaction)
TNT (Jumpin Jack Flash)
Let There Be Rock (Its Only Rock N Roll)
Highway To Hell (One Keith song)
For Those About To Rock (Two Keith song)
Thats 11 songs that are basically must plays. They could probably drop 2 for a tour but I get why they don't. Add that in with a new album which they are ALWAYS touring and there's another 5 or 6. It only leaves you with room for like 2 or 3 rarities. And even then its usually an old standby (Hell Ain't A Bad Place To Be, Shot Down In Flames, etc). With this Axl tour, they extended the show by about 20 minutes and it helped. But there are just some bands that get caught in that trap. They also play stadiums, and if you're gonna do that you have to go the hits route usually. And people leave happy. Tom Petty was another guy that did that. Half of the show was hits (granted, I appreciated that it was always different hits each tour cause he had so many), 5 from your new album, and then some deep cuts. Its a tried and true formula, its just sometimes hardest on longtime fans that every tour is similar besides the new songs.
Thunderstruck (Honky Tonk Women)
Shoot To Thrill (Sympathy For The Devil)
Back In Black (Paint It Black)
Dirty Deeds (Gimme Shelter)
Hells Bells (Brown Sugar)
Whole Lotta Rosie (Start Me Up)
You Shook Me All Night Long (Satisfaction)
TNT (Jumpin Jack Flash)
Let There Be Rock (Its Only Rock N Roll)
Highway To Hell (One Keith song)
For Those About To Rock (Two Keith song)
Thats 11 songs that are basically must plays. They could probably drop 2 for a tour but I get why they don't. Add that in with a new album which they are ALWAYS touring and there's another 5 or 6. It only leaves you with room for like 2 or 3 rarities. And even then its usually an old standby (Hell Ain't A Bad Place To Be, Shot Down In Flames, etc). With this Axl tour, they extended the show by about 20 minutes and it helped. But there are just some bands that get caught in that trap. They also play stadiums, and if you're gonna do that you have to go the hits route usually. And people leave happy. Tom Petty was another guy that did that. Half of the show was hits (granted, I appreciated that it was always different hits each tour cause he had so many), 5 from your new album, and then some deep cuts. Its a tried and true formula, its just sometimes hardest on longtime fans that every tour is similar besides the new songs.
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
powerage78
()
Date: August 14, 2018 20:11
***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-08-14 20:13 by powerage78.
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
Cristiano Radtke
()
Date: August 14, 2018 20:12
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
keefriff99
()
Date: August 14, 2018 20:26
Wow! I haven't seen Brian without his hat on in years.
Phil looks 100% better...eyes are nice and clear. Good to see.
I can't believe how these guys smoke. I wish they'd give it up but no point hectoring them at this point.
Phil looks 100% better...eyes are nice and clear. Good to see.
I can't believe how these guys smoke. I wish they'd give it up but no point hectoring them at this point.
Re: OT: AC/DC latest news and more - now with Axl Rose
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: August 14, 2018 21:35
Quote
keefriff99
I can't believe how these guys smoke.
A few smokes a day are less harmful than a steady diet of soda and junk food.
I'm sure their waist size is ok and that's a major factor to assess one's health.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
chpoutre , deardoctor , doubledoor , ds1984 , hot stuff , jmd , letitloose6 , mickv , NilsHolgersson , retired_dog , RollingFreak , wiredallnight
Guests:
1311
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10