For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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.
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.
Quote
LiveAtHidepark
Dandelion, again, I'm talking about to people going to shows.
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.
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.
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)
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..
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).
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote
keefriff99
I can't believe how these guys smoke.