Forum
Music Distribution Guru on AC/DC's Non-Digital Distribution
A brilliant rant against the greed of the record companies re: AC/DC's new album. Also includes info on why it didn't matter that The Eagles sold their last album exclusively through Wal-Mart: it was culturally irrelevant, no one cared. http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/thelefsetzletter/6325/not-selling-on-itunes
Well, let me see, if AC/DC were on iTunes, how much you want to bet songs like "You Shook Me All Night Long" would get a million downloads while songs like "Sink The Pink" and "Ride On" would get none. AC/DC didn't need to make this album either. They could've just as easily coasted on the Sony reissues. Also, The Eagles last record was made on their own label, same with the Garth Brooks reissues. AC/DC aren't trying to do what everyone else is doing, they are trying to do something different. Besides, they know that the fans will buy this record because they know how their fans are. They weren't making this record to make new fans, they were making it for the fans that already have the other albums. But he brings up the fact that a lot of CDs have only one or two good cuts, AC/DC at their worst have only had two or three bad cuts. As far as royalties, I've heard artists (especially indie artists who are selling their stuff on iTunes) get even worse royalties off of downloads. The reason Garth Brooks won't allow his music on iTunes is because he wants his albums to be appreciated as an album, like he intended. AC/DC probably have the same mindset.
"Well, let me see..." It is hard to see when you are blind... "AC/DC aren't trying to do what everyone else is doing, they are trying to do something different." Yes, that's it. That's it exactly. By sticking with the Model T of music distribution, AC/DC are rebels. Mavericks even. Sorry. I must have missed that. I think they should have shown their maverick streak back in 1981 when cassettes started becoming the medium of choice and saying, "No, we don't sell cassettes. We're a record and 8-track band." And they would have really shown what bad-ass-revolutionaries-not-doing-what-everyone-else-is-doing by saying, "Fuck CDs! Vinyl and 8-tracks are where we're at." I don't know how I missed that whole maverick streak to the boys. Like I said, it's hard to see when you are blind.
And please see some of my previous postings about AC/DC claiming they are an album band. Summary: If they want to be recognized as an ALBUM band, then they should start playing ALBUMS at their shows, not just a select few SINGLES from each new album (and each old one) each tour. Ask David Gilmour and Roger Waters. They know what it is to be an ALBUM band.
Um, it's hard to play albums at their shows when each fan basically has his own idea of how the setlist should be put together. They already have a fan base, they don't need to make any more records to keep that fan base. They are just making this record for the fans...not for the masses.
No it's not hard to play albums at shows. You start with Hells Bells and you end with RnR Ain't Noise Pollution. Then you're an ALBUM band. Ask Metallica. They did it with Master of Puppets not too long ago. Otherwise, you just release singles. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't claim to be an album band otherwise.
what they mean my 'album band' is that they make a solid album, they dont make 1 good song,let it be their single, and then put filler material on the rest of their album. in Angus' words "we dont make 10 singles we make,you know, a good album". that has nothing to with playing a whole album live. AC/DC probably never will. but if you want it so bad, go check out the tribute bands who do.
what is meant (i believe) with the "album band" a few postings ago it was mentioned to go ask Roger Waters and David Gilmour of Pink Floyd. When they were on The Wall tour in select cities the band would do the entire album for the concert, many of the shows werent able to do this, but the album "Is There Anybody Out There" is The Wall live, its a very good and real feeling live album though The Wall is one of my least favorite Pink Floyd albums
If AC/DC were to do their most popular album live, it'd be a concert consisting of 10 songs, all from Back In Black. And AC/DC just have too many popular songs that the fans love live to think about doing something like that. PS; In the early days, like before the Powerage and Highway To Hell albums, they actually performed a great variety of songs live. Each show was like hearing a completely different setlist at times. But after Powerage, they knew what went over well with the fans live, and went with it. They know what works for them, and they stick to it. They perform Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap a lot, but only performed Ride On once. ONCE.
There are a few good points and a lot of bad points in the debate above. I think we can all agree that cliff made a good point with the following: what they mean my 'album band' is that they make a solid album, they dont make 1 good song,let it be their single, and then put filler material on the rest of their album. in Angus' words "we dont make 10 singles we make,you know, a good album". I feel that point was true, once. I don't think it's true anymore. I think that at some point (not long after Back in Black, actually), AC/DC kind of lost it and stopped making solid albums. Whether it was pressure from the record companies, the loss of Bon, too much pressure on Brian to live up to the myth of AC/DC which was created the minute Bon died or all or none of the above, they lost a lot more than their sense of humour and forgot how to be an album band. Hardcore fans such as everyone on this site (including myself) will (and have) revised history to say that their 80s output is not as bad as we may have originally thought, but if we take a brief shot of reality before going back to our the pleasant soma of our delusions, we all know and quietly admit to ourselves that all of these albums are really only so-so and have a hell of a lot of filler on them (Go Zone anybody? How about Deep in the Hole, Stand Up or Hell or High Water?) to prop up a few good singles (Sink the Pink, Guns for Hire, Nervous Shakedown, etc). So let me clarify: 1. When I challenge AC/DC to play their whole albums live, I challenge them to back up their claims that they are an album band and prove to us that all of those songs on each album are freakin’ awesome and not just filler. Really, the last 25 years of AC/DC albums have done little to convince me that they do anything more than write singles for record companies and then fill the rest of the record to pad it out. 2. While it would be cool to hear AC/DC play the complete “Fly on the Wall” or “High Voltage” albums live a la Metallica or Pink Floyd for a second set or something, they don’t even have to do that. 3. They could just do a Rolling Stones/David Bowie thing and start pulling obscure songs out of their asses, as they have been doing the last few tours. However, they’ve been very limited the last few tours and I would love to see them with the confidence to take risks and play songs from albums beyond the Bon Scott and Back in Black classics, like songs from the 1983-1988 period. And not Heatseeker and That’s the Way, either, but This Means War and Send for the Man, not to mention later period stuff like “The Furor” and “Mistress for Christmas.” Many advanced, experienced bands such as those I’ve named above are wholly capable of having rotating set lists – I’m pretty sure Mal and Ang have the talent and the capabilities to whip their band into shape to sing these songs. Brian and Cliff even seemed to have hinted at a desire to do this, with them playing “Giving the Dog a Bone” live during the “Classic Rock Cares” tour and Cliff saying that he wants to play “Live Wire” again. We can only hope that “It’s a Long Way to the Top” is also a song Cliff wants to play live, too. This is not an impossible task. 4. The band has nothing to lose and everything to gain from doing this. Hardcore fans would cream their jeans, casual fans would be exposed to more of their back catalog and each show would be a new and exciting experience for both the band and the fans, as the band would see which song they never expected to would be a big hit with fans. If AC/DC has lost anything since the death of Bon (beyond their sense of humour), it is their sense and ability to take a risk. Only now they are rock legends, total icons – they have the total and complete freedom to take any risk they want, but until 2001, they have been very, very conservative and lacking in risk. So there’s no reason they cannot take a risk and rotate and mix up their set-list. It’s a win-win situation for everybody. I expect rebuttals from many out there. Travis – you are a good kid, you’re obviously not stupid, but you’re pretty quick to defend the band even when my points make perfect, logical, non hurtful sense. Once you’re able to see that, you will be able to debate on a much higher level. Also, I find it hard to believe that you do not want to hear AC/DC play more of their back catalog. As a hardcore fan, I’m sure you’d love to hear them play some of your more obscure faves, even if they only do it once on the whole tour. Remember how exciting it was to hear that AC/DC played “Ride On” in France, just that one time? Others out there immediately take the band’s side without thinking things through. I had one response which read, “Not gonna happen.” This is the response of someone who blindly accepts authority and forgets that, as a fan – especially a fan making comments on a message board which I’m sure AC/DC’s marketing contingent is more than aware of – you have a little bit of power to influence events. Malcolm may run AC/DC as a benevolent tyranny, but he still knows where the money is coming from and if enough fans think something is a pretty good idea that can still provide a lot of profit for the band, something could happen. There is nothing wrong with providing a bit of fan dissent for the band. It’s the yes-men that kill an empire by failing to provide a bit of honesty and critical truth about the actions and decisions (or lack thereof) of the emperor, while with the dissenters the emperor is at least getting some critical perspective as to how his actions affect the people. Regarding my original post of AC/DC’s denial of digital reality, in the 10 years it takes them to record their next album (if there is to be one), CDs will disappear and the band will catch up to 2008 by doing a digital release. Until then, I’ll just have to take my CD and rip it to my computer.
excellent points , notangus. i agree with about all of them. yes AC/DC did lose their sense of humor after Bon died. their 80s and a lot of 90's stuff wasnt as solid as the Bon material. though i still disagree with the online sales. as Travis said, Well, let me see, if AC/DC were on iTunes, how much you want to bet songs like "You Shook Me All Night Long" would get a million downloads while songs like "Sink The Pink" and "Ride On" would get none. most of AC/DCs albums have had some filler (though a lot better than other bands), they want their album released as a whole album. My guess to them is whats the point of making 15 songs but only having one song,say 'rock n roll train' being bought. AC/DC has not been proven as a 'one hit wonder' or a pure singles band but they also havent been known for making 100% pure albums. (in my opinion they've come pretty close) like i said, they want their albums sold as albums, not as singles.
Brian probably doesn't want to do "It's A Long Way To The Top" and "Live Wire" has only been done once or twice with him. But as for "Ride On", it's too much of a show stopper. People have come to expect a certain thing from an AC/DC concert, hard, fast, sweatin' rock & roll. Ride On just doesn't deliver there. (Not saying it isn't a good song). Cliff (username, not Williams) said it right when he said "What's the point of making 15 songs but only having one...being bought?" Maybe we will see them pull some more obscure cuts out this tour, who knows? With the possibility being that this may be the last tour, they might try something different. Hell, Phil even tried Who Made Who once... But as for CDs fading away. I think iTunes will fade away before CDs will...it's even possible to buy new releases on vinyl...so CDs aren't even close to dead yet. Out of curiosity, I looked up Metallica's black album on iTunes, the most popular track is Enter Sandman, while a few of the tracks aren't even "popular"...would you want to see something like that come out of Back In Black?
Because i think that indirectly you were referring to me let me say this. You have made a contradiction. You say that you want to hear whole albums,right? On the other hand you say that at the 80-90 period they have done a lot of fillers. So let me ask you, do you want to hear the whole Fly on the wall album? How will you fill if in your country they played Fly on the wall and Heatseeker and you heard that in the next show they did Back in black and Powerage? I think this is very selfish, you want to get the albums you like to be played for you and you forget that there are millions of fans that will go with a worried face when they don't hear Hells Bells, For those about to Rock, Whole lotta rosie, Let there be rock etc. Think about a kid in Greece that have never seen AC/DC and it hears all the Heatseeker album. Will this be nice for him? Metallica$h that you mention did this on their good album. Supposedly they played the whole St.Anger?..Hm?.. You want AC/DC to play they 4-5 mega albums or you want all the albums? You want to take a risk and see a Flick of the switch show or you want to be prepared to enjoy an awesome AC/DC show+ some surprises? So like i said it ain't gonna happen.And i don't want to happen. AC/DC is not your local average band that will do your willing. So (and i'm sorry for the tone of my voice, well, writing but you attacked me), you have two choices: 1)Wake up 2)Keep dreaming Cheers.
1. I never said I only wanted to hear only my favorite albums live. I'd be thrilled to hear any of the "filler" albums live even if they played "Powerage" live the next night for another crowd. 2. AC/DC are your local average band. They are not rebels, they are not badasses, they are basically corporate whores at this point. If you genuinely believe that AC/DC is indie, rebel or badass at this point, I've got some votes in Florida and Ohio to sell you.
Just as a followup, Travis, in what way is Ride On a showstopper? I also don't remember saying that I think AC/DC should play it every show, but I still don't understand how it's a showstopper. I saw Oasis recently and they played hard and dirty rock and roll and then, for five minutes, Noel came out with an acoustic guitar and did an amazing version of Don't Look Back in Anger. Then, guess what? The show kept going. It didn't grind to a halt. Now, if you're arguing that AC/DC are too old and dinosaur-ish to get momentum going again after pulling a slow blues song like Ride On into the middle of a set, well that's just your perception, isn't it? It's really too bad you have such a low opinion on the band's capabilities, considering their age, or at least that's what is implied in your statement.
What I meant by Ride On being a showstopper, it's not like the other songs they play live. It's the only song of it's type AC/DC's recorded. And Oasis isn't like AC/DC, to them and their fans an acoustic number might be normal. AC/DC is known for their hard rock, a song like Ride On, on occasion, would be cool, especially if they did it in Scotland or Australia, but not every night. But like Sapator pointed out, what you said about them not playing albums is a contradiction. Also, have you thought that Phil might not want to play the stuff that Simon played on because he feels more comfortable playing songs he drummed on? The only song he's played live regularly that he didn't record in the studio was Thunderstruck. And Brian's voice just can't do every song live...now as far as the rest of the band, they could probably do any song out of the catalog and then some, but Simon Wright's drumming style would clash with Phil's and Brian's voice has changed in 20+ years.
I just realized that the whole argue is nonsense. To me AC/DC should do what they do To you they should not. But the final call is up to them and we know what they will probably do. Now i can be a rebel for many things but not to protest against AC/DC, i respect them for what they gave me and if they decide to do albums then i'll respect that too. And about the local band. AC/DC at this point i strongly think that they just want to make music for the fans and they don't go into corporate stuff. They have enough money and they are not corporate whores.And what band does not want or wanted the money?But there are level of what a band can do for them (the money: See Metallica$h, the story of a whore band, in panavision) .And is it not you that you said that they will gain fans n stuff doing the albums.So you basically urge them to do the albums by saying to them that they will make more money this way? No i don't want no votes, your election is the stupidest think on the planet and most of your recent presidents are complete as$holes.So i'll pass.
i agree AC/DC arent perfect, they've made some mistakes. but they sure as hell aint corporate whores.
Angus and Brian appeared this morning on the Howard Stern show. One of the interesting things about the interview was that it was revealed Wal Mart has guaranteed 3 million cds sold. Essentially, Wal Mart has bought 3mil copies of Black Ice (non returnable). This is most surely why they made this deal with them and with different covers might sell a few more copies to fans who have to have everything. That said, Brian stated that it was a win for the fans, as Wal Mart will sell the CD at a very low price. I really don't give a crap about all that, as I will buy one copy of the CD, will not buy the new edition of No Bull, and will save my money for the forthcoming tour. Also, we are living in a Capitalist society (unless you're posting from a communist country) so if you have money to burn, then, by all means, buy everything you want. Regarding the forthcoming tour, I must agree with notangus's titanic post above in saying that the band should take risks this tour and pull out songs from their vast catalogue and make each show special. I can do without The Jack, High Voltage, Let There Be Rock, Bad Boy Boogie, Back In Black, For Those About To Rock and other classics that have been played to death. How playing It's A Long Way To The Top, Cold Hearted Man, Go Down, Overdose, Give Me A Bullet, Gond Shootin, Touch Too Much, Ride On, What Do You Do For Money, Let Me Put My Love Into You, Spellbound, Landslide, This House is On Fire and I could go on and on. I'm not saying all of these in one show. I'm saying for them to take out some of the obvious and stick in some of the not so obvious. They might even do a few announced specialty shows, like Dio did a few years back whey he did the entire Holy Diver album. Play the Whole Powerage Album, the Whole Highway To Hell Album, The Whole Back In Black Album. What the F do they have to lose?
Viper let me remind you that we are talking about AC/DC here and not metallica$h or Dio. Well whatever, they will not play albums so i will not talk about it again.
I want to hear all the songs viper just posted. Regarding "It's a Long Way to the Top (If Ya Wanna Rock n' Roll)" I think Brian at some point said that he didn't want to perform it in respect of Bonny. To him, that's a song that only Bon Scott can do I guess. As for Live Wire, Brian screwed up the lyrics during one of the sets, and I think that is why there isn't really any official video or track of him singing it. I have my ticket to the Saturday Chicago show November 1st and while it would be cool to see the casual fans I'm bringing with, know most of their songs, I am selfish and want to hear stuff from Flick, Fly, Stiff, and most of all Powerage and obscure stuff from LTBR like Go Down, Overdose and Hell Ain't a Bad Place to Be (although they have performed it on recent releases of DVDs). To be truthful I don't want to hear TNT, Back in Black and a few others, as a diehard AC/DC fan, I want to be rewarded like many of us here on the site, and get songs the band rarely, if ever plays live. As already said, they need to take a risk or two and what do they have to lose? Honestly?