Forum
IYWB and the authenticity of "Rosie"
If you take a close listen to the version of "whole lotta Rosie" found on "If you want Blood" and then take a close listen to the studio version of "Rosie" found on "Let there be Rock" you'll find that they are very similar in production quality. Just that the IYWB version sounds sped-up and to add; it sounds like it's a alternate take from the studio with canned crowd noise added. Great version non-the-less. But I've always wondered what the version from the actualy "glasgow" concert sounded like. Anyone here ever listen to the ac/dc bootleg "Ranger Rock"? Or has anyone heard the un-edited recording of the glaswegian concert? Love to hear it if it can be found. I'm not conviced that the official "Rosie" on IYWB is authentic live AC/DC. Just doesn't match up with the versions they were doing in concert at the time.
Interesting post with a touch of conspiracy theory. It wouldn't the first live album ever released that wasn't actually completely live (I'm looking at you, Kiss Alive 1 and 2!). On the other hand, AC/DC were, and are, a tight band who hew 99.9999% close to their studio recordings on almost all live shows, Jailbreak and BoogieMan excepted, so it might just be that they had played Rosie so many times by that point that it might as well have come from hard drive. If you think about it, things haven't changed all that much (or at all) with the band's live shows, so that alone may kill your "conspiracy"...
I've always thought it was touched up too, Either way it's an awesome version. It just sounds Studio,but like RnRDamnation said most bands a;ways touch their Live Albums Up. The fact is the band play so well live it can be hard to tell if they "dubbed it" or not. You Shook Me All Night Long from Detroit '83 sounds like it was dubbed as well,but I hear people swear it's 100% live all the time. Who knows,except the band and their mixers
Naw...I think I'm on to something here. Will someone please post the unedited 1978 glasgow show (April 30, 1978). I guarantee that "Rosie" from IYWB is a studio recording with canned crowd noise. It's just too different from any "Rosie" they had done live until IYWB or anytime after. Maybe it was a technical difficulty , a broken string a forgotten lyric could've been anything. One of these days I'll find it and show you haha. PS, it sounds exactly the same (production wise) as Let there be Rock (the studio album) only sped-up.
I doubt that AC/DC has ever actually had to "touch up" their live tracks (like KISS or Judas Priest) but I doubt that the IYWB "Rosie" is actually live.
They've done it before.... It's pretty well known that Live At Donington's DVD release was touched up a lot. Also,there is no "un-touched" version Glasgow out at the moment,and there will probably never be one. So we can't compare them.
There's a bootleg called "Ranger Rock"...I'm not sure, but I think it may be an untouched "glasgow" concert.
well.... flickofthethunderdeeds, You Shook Me All Night Long from Detroit '83 is indeed the band live, but with the studio Brian. Yes, that's right, the band's live performance with Brian dubbed in. And for the topic at hand, I doubt this to be possible. But maybe some parts yes, I don't know. And not just some bands touch up their live albums, almost all of them do! Just look at "Live at Donington".
"well.... flickofthethunderdeeds, You Shook Me All Night Long from Detroit '83 is indeed the band live, but with the studio Brian. Yes, that's right, the band's live performance with Brian dubbed in." __________________________________________________________ I know...lol. That was what I meant,but I wasn't clear so fair enough.
We're any of Bon's live vocal tracks retouched or redone in the studio?
No, The only time Bon's stuff has ever been questioned is on If You Want Blood. Him and Brian both are great live,the only time it's ever been touched up is on a "Live Album" Sony is to blame for Donington,the original versions sounded much better.
Personally I've always favored Bon's live stuff over Brian's. I'm not putting shit on Brian (by any means) but Bon seemed to have the ability to hit his notes accurately, regardless of what shape his vocal cords were in. I think Bon had blown his voice a few times already and knew damn well how to recover from it, and even perform despite. Either way, I think Brian's vocal cords went after the FTATR tour. I think he picked up on Bon's trail during the 1990-91 tour. His voice kicked arse on that tour and he seemed to know how to recover really well. Lastly, my socks were completely blown off for the Toronto Rocks thing in 2003. He was fucking great!
Personally I've always favored Bon's live stuff over Brian's. I'm not putting shit on Brian (by any means) but Bon seemed to have the ability to hit his notes accurately, regardless of what shape his vocal cords were in. I think Bon had blown his voice a few times already and knew damn well how to recover from it, and even perform despite. Either way, I think Brian's vocal cords went after the FTATR tour. I think he picked up on Bon's trail during the 1990-91 tour. His voice kicked arse on that tour and he seemed to know how to recover really well. Lastly, my socks were completely blown off for the Toronto Rocks thing in 2003. He was fucking great!
Both are a master of their craft,Brain has had his share of rough spots as has Bon,I think they both knew how to recover,Brian is just older than Bon is all. I mean,Bon died in his prime, Brian joined the band in his prime. Hard to compare an older Brian with younger Bon.
Flick's above post is very well worded and I could not think of any other way of summing things up as he did. Both Bon and Brian each have their strengths which gave the band the glory and fame, however each also had their weaknesses: Bon passed on at a young age and with Brian coming into the band after Bon died, he had some big shoes to fill which most likely put stress on him. Also, his voice over the last couple of tours has also been a strain due to him getting older which you can hear on some of his concerts. The one sentence which holds true and sums it up precisely is what Flick stated: "Bon died in his prime, Brian joined the band in his prime." Very touching post Flick, IMHO :)
Thank you jspr96, That's how I always think of it when someone does the whole "Bon V.S. Brian" stuff. I mean,it's totally not fair,we never got to see Bon age,so we don't know how his voice would have held up,it could have, and most likely would have, changed like Brian's did. I've always thought Brian's voice was awesome,but many people think it has sucked since 1983. He's never sounded terrible,just different than Back In Black.Everyone has to compare his current voice to Back In Black,which was him at the top of his game. How can you get any better than that?...the answer, You can't. Brian did so well trying to impress the Youngs and everyone on Back In Black he made it almost impossible to follow.Which is why For Those About To Rock,a fantastic album that really doesn't get enough praise, is over looked by both critics and the band themselves. Except for the title track,they seem to ingore it along with everything else from the 80's. The only way you could do a Bon V.S. Brian type thing would be like have Bon from 1977/1978 against Brian from Geordie or the 1980 Brian. Bon sounded great in '79 don't get me wrong,Highway To Hell is one of,if not his finest performance,but Live his voice was indeed showing signs of wear.They toured a lot so that may be the case,but listen closely to Hell Ain't A Bad Place To Be From 1977 and Compare it to 1979. Bon Singing Hell Ain't A Bad Place To Be From '77 now compare to: Bon Singing Hell Ain't A Bad Place To Be In 1979 There isn't a HUGE difference,but it does give an idea of how much it had changed in just 2 years. Of course there were times in '79 he sounded FANTASTIC too, like at the Hammersmith Odeon: Bon's voice changed and would have continued changing had he not passed away in 1980. _________________________________________________________ So...yeah,Bon and Brian comparisons aren't fair unless it's both a Young Bon and Brian. Enough of my rambling bullshit, Sorry for the lengthy post everyone, LOL XD -Cheers
I agree with all of you LOL. Except that Bon was born in 1946 and brian was born in 1947. They could not have picked a better singer than Brian to fill Bon's shoes. Mind you, I think the reason I like Bon's style better is probably (a) due to his sense of timing (actually, Bon had perfect timing, listen for yourself) and (b) Bon had that integral 50s rock influenced style...Damn, I loved the way he sung. I think by Bon's experience and the sheer length of years he was active, he was a more experienced and seasoned singer. He'd learned all of the tricks in the book and knew how to be a "proper" singer. Damn, listening to the link (up there ^^) from the LTBR the movie just makes me want to be a lead singer haha. Damn Bon was cool!
I know that Bon and Brian are a year apart.... That's exactly WHY I made the points I made. LOL Bon was 33 when he died,Brian was 33 when he joined AC/DC. Comparing Brian to Bon anytime after 1980 and it's pointless. and Yes, Brian is and was the perfect choice to replace Bon. I also would love to be a lead singer, haha
I think that now that Brian has embraced his crooner/blues growl, he sounds better than ever. Just listen to any Bon-era tracks (especially High Voltage and Hell Ain't a Bad Place to Be) from the last McTour.
Brian sounded excellent this Tour,except for the scripted Banter, he was perfect. Still think they should've thrown Ballbreaker in,so he could have given his voice a real work out. "You Are A!! Ball-Break-A!!"
As i've said sometime ago, i prefer Brian in 90-92 era. I don't have a preferred era for Bon, everything is fine in any era.