Forum
AC/DCs last tour
If the STONES can tour for what 50 A100 years why cant AC/DC and they have only been around what 30 some years.And if they wantdo it like the BEATLES did quit touring and still make music and videos.Touring takes a lot out of you anyway.HighWay ToHell tells the story.GEORGE HARRISON of the BEATLES said it destroyed their nervous systems.
The Stones ARE not AC/DC. And when AC/DC want it that way. You canīt do anything.
AC/DC is AC/DC and the Rolling Stones is the Rolling Stones. AC/DC toured solidly for nearly twenty years, and on off for another ten. Now see the Stones do the type of material AC/DC does, and put on the type of show AC/DC does and see if they are half as good as they are now.
I never said they were.AC/DC is a Rock -N-Roll Hall of Fame band.They have the fame or strong enough popularity to make music and make the choice when they want to tour or not too. but as a fan I would love too see them live again.
I know what you mean...I've heard nothing but good opinions on their more recent stops here in Atlanta. (Razor's Edge and Ballbreaker) I heard that in 1996 here in Atlanta, when Angus came out on stage for the start of the show, this one guy (who was probably drunk) busted a hole in the wall big enough to sleep in. This is coming from a teacher of mine, who's seen like three hundred concerts in his life and his hearing shows it...his number, not mine. Now, if 1990's AC/DC had that type of buzz, imagine the 1970's.
ac/dc still sounds great but they don't have the energy that they used to, which is expected. but i'd still love to see them.
Not to rain on the parade... but what does the RNR HOF have to do with anything? Have you seen some of the inductees? Ricky Nelson? Dion? Simon and Garfunkel (folk yes, pop yes... Rock???) Ruth Brown Al Green Bee Gees The Staple Singers Bonnie Raitt The Moonglows The Flamingos And all of those made it in BEFORE AC/DC even though AC/DC is one of the top 4 ALL TIME record sales in the US Now if they want to call it the "Recording Artists HOF" or the Music HOF... A lot of those singers listed, while influential or popular I would not classify as Rock N Roll
Not in the Hall of Fame Alice Cooper KISS Rush Judas Priest Iron Maiden ...The list goes on and on In the Hall of Fame for ROCK AND ROLL Madonna ...Enough said AC/DC RULE of course but the Hall of Lame is nothing more than Rolling Stone magazine's Jann Wenner's "private club" for his beloved pals generally speaking.
I really didn't mean to piss over the whole HOF thing, well... maybe a little. There SHOULD be a legit HOF for rock bands... not just a cornucopia of favorites, chic, pop, folk, etc. Generationally there are some changes, where as the Beatles may have been somewhat Rock N Roll in the 60s, the bar/sound needs to progress IMO. I can see AC/DC, The Who, Stones, Metallica, Zepplin, Alice Cooper, Kiss. Judas Priest, hell even Queen for that matter, but the Madonnas, Simon and Garfunkels, and Bee Gees are Pop/Folk and NOT Rock n Roll. All things considered... I would rather go see geriatric Aussies pounding it out the way AC/DC does than the Stones. I really don't know how these guys still produce at such a high level... I am just glad the do... Can we please get a tour... I am seriously Jonesing over here...
Hey dlaskey I know Apr16 has been awhile but I hope you can read this one day. The Beatles were more than somewhatin music.If not for them rock music would have took A 180 degree nose dive into the dirt.They came along when rock music was almost dead.and revived it.Angus and Mal can tell you. Their fans!!!!!!
Just not right... Lost the long post, but what ever. I think you are totally off Wesley, with your assertion on Rock being almost dead and the Beatles giving it a 180. Look at the early 60s and you have Clapton doing things with The Yard Birds and the Blues Breakers... You have the Rolling Stones starting to tour in 1964 in the US without a hit and being the "anti-beatles" You have Pete Townshend smashing his first guitar in 1964... and if anything, you have people like Buddy Guy, Elmore James, Muddy Waters and BB King pushing the blues, and if you want an undervalued contributor to Rock, look to Buddy Guy. By the mid 60s, you have Cream, Jimi Hendrix and others making the scene as well as the Doors, etc. Not to say that the Beatles were not an influence, but their Music is more of the basis for Pop music today than guitar driving Rock. My comments were not bashing the Beatles, but rather pointing out that the classification of Rock and Roll back then, "Chubby Checker", "Chuck Berry", "Jan and Dean" etc... would be more in the realm of POP today. Rock would have emerged WITHOUT the Beatles, purely for the fact that artists like Buddy Guy, Clapton, The Who and the Stones were ALREADY in their formative period and they were being influenced by the blues a lot more. Jimmy Page and Jeff Beck were also going through their formative time period in the early 60s. Not coincidentally, as Clapton was leaving the Yard Birds, Jimmy Page was joining them. So for Rock N Roll... Satisfaction or "Drive My Car"? "Paint it Black" or "Eleanor Rigby"? "Yellow Submarine"? Taxman? What about "Sunshine of Your Love" or "Brave Ulysses" vs :"Little Help from my Friends", "Fixing a Hole", When I am 64?" "A day in the Life" might be the only thing that comes close. Again, not saying the Beatles were not influential, but most people forget that Clapton was coming around the same period, the core of Led Zepplin was forming, The Stones and Who if anything were trying to be the "anti-Beatles" and you have Townshend smashing guitars in 1964...
And you have TheBeatles with the first ever guitar feedback in 1964 with I FILL FINE. And TheBeatles were friends with everyone you mentionedof.And TheBeatles not a guitar driving rock band. wake up man!!!!!!!!!!
And I don't know if you realize it or not but Clapton and The Yardbirds and Blues Breakers who made no formal recordings came after the Beatles and Cream did not make it on the scene until 1966 4 years after the Beatles, after the British invvasion, with the Beatles leading the way, along came the Who and the Stones who did a breakthrough cover version of I wanna Be your Man a Lennon and McCartney orginial. It had became clear to the Stones writing their own songs was the only way to obtain the fame they desired,something the Beatles already mastered.
Wow. Son. Step away from the Crack pipe. And that is not meant as a jab at you, but seriously... the point in question is not whether the Beatles were influential, but your assertion that WITHOUT the Beatles, Rock N Roll would not have shaped up the way it did. You state that Rock was taking a 180 degree dive in the dirt and the Beatles resurrected rock. Sorry. That is not the way it is, especially with the BLUES foundation of Rock and Roll, and THE BLUES proceeded the Beatles by ALMOST 40 YEARS. Hell... The Stones and CLAPTON covered Robert Johnson. Shesh... Robert Johnson WAS making music BEFORE EITHER Lennon or McCartney's PARENTS WERE BORN. Yardbirds were formed in 1963... They were making their Blues-based rock BEFORE the Beatles first album came out. Buddy Guy was starting to rock out the blues in the 50s building off of Muddy Waters, John Lee Hooker, and the Chicago Blues explosion. This core would later go on to influence Clapton, Guy, Stevie Ray Vaughn, and hmmm... Jimi Hendrix... And Hendrix alone is probably more of the foundation of Rock N Roll at least what would be classified as Rock today than the Beatles. Also if you want to take a further look at history... You have the Beach Boys forming in 1961... They, like the Beatles are examples of Rock N Roll music then, that is POP music today. The 50s also saw Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, and yeah... Richie Valens who was almost 4 years dead before the Beatles were anything let alone there first album. That is not even to mention Elvis Presley... Heartbreak Hotel, Hound dog, Don't Be Cruel, Blue Suede Shoes, Shake RAttle and Roll, All Shook Up, Jailhouse Rock all were recorded in the 50s. And you still forget to acknowledge that the same time the Beatles were getting going... The Stones were doing their thing, touring at the same time, and were setting themselves up as the "anti-Beatles" The Stones already were forming their sound and their identity, and they too were BLUES based. When you look to ACDC, especially their early music... it is BLUES BASED ROCK. And yeah... From some of the earliest AC/DC... and "Baby Please Don't Go"... Muddy Waters recorded it May of 1953. The Beatles may have influenced the WAY some people made music, the way some people approached sound, etc... but Rock and Roll was rooted in the Blues long before the mop-tops ever sang a note
ah fuggit!!, i say tomato you say tomatoe, who gives a flyin crap what came first,as far as i can see "pop","rock","metal" etc are all tags put on MUSIC because they need to categorize and shoehorn music into little boxes, as for the RnR HOF,all well and good,but what does it actually mean to anybody?,you think the "winners" put more creedence on an accolade than they do on the support of their fans?, Dont think so. Personallyspeaking I couldnt care less if a tune is blues,reds,greens or pinks, if it strikes a chord and moves me in any way,its a good tune, be it AC/DC,Dylan,Rammstein,Big Bill Broonzy,The Carter Family or the friggin Sice Girls. You wanna label it,go ahead,but for me its MUSIC. Re the AC/DC tour, if its their last so be it,Ive seen em enuff times thanks to the generosity of the guys in the band choosing to tour and for that i am thankful,they never owed me anything ,but im glad that Malcolm powered his band through the decades and made some good tunes(and some BAD ones) through the years.So if this is the swan song for the band, GOOD ON YA FELLAS,AND THANK YOU,I FOR ONE ENJOYED SOUNDTRACK YOU PLAYED FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS OF MY LIFE. dave
THANK YOU daclarob for ending this. This is A site on AC/DC not the history of ROCK N ROLL.Besides my CRACK PIPE is out and needs to be fired up again.AH thats better.
I have one more thing to say about this subject before I run out of crack. dlasskey how about checking on the Beatles history from 57 when John and Paul first met until 63 with first British album release and tell me what you find.And Thats the end of this for me.
Thank god we have finished with the most popular Boy Band out there and are back to ROCK. Muddy Waters, Buddy Guy and Elvis were all going strong in the 50s. Rock and Roll was not dying, despite your assertions. "If not for them [BEATLES] rock music would have took A 180 degree nose dive into the dirt." I still laugh at that. ACDC still rocks hard today
Yes and you better be happy that boy band came to the states or your favorites right now would be frankie avalon and the 4 seasons instead of AC/DC.If not for the 50s no 60s or 70s 80s and dont forget the blues.and dont forget to fill that crack pipe.Its been fun dlaskey Ihoped you were cussing by now but Igive up. I had a great time. IM looking forward to DCS new disc.Hope its sooner than expeced for release.
Man, you are so deluded... The rock of The Who, Rolling Stones, Clapton, AC/DC, Led Zeplin, The Doors, etc came OUT OF THE BLUES, not the Beatles. Unfortunately groups like the Fab Five let to the creation of other similar "trash" trying to create the same energy like Backstreet Boys, N Synch, and all the rest of the crap. I will take my roots in Muddy Waters, BB King, and Buddy Guy as well as the hard boozin Johnny Cash and Elvis. They all came BEFORE the beatles and almost all OUTLASTED the beatles. "If not for them [BEATLES] rock music would have took A 180 degree nose dive into the dirt." - Wesley Lail. Hehehehe That still cracks me up. I suppose you also never knew Genesis had another singer before Phil Collins.
Sorry man but you are a DAY TRIPPER man .DAY TRIPPER YEA.
I bet you didn't know Paul McCartney spent a week with Johnny Cash at his home, that was one of the Beatles favorite artisit Johnny Cash along with Buck Owens and Carl Perkins. Get Back Jo jo get back to where you once belong.
Ah... you are making my point. There were plenty of rock, country, blues and pop artists that came before the Beatles and were already defining their sound, as well as were the formation of the sound of groups to come that had their origins more closely tied to them than the Beatles. The Who - "Maximum R&B" The Rolling Stones - "The anti-Beatles" etc. As well as without the Beach Boys, who preceeded the Beatles by years, you would not have had Sgt Peppers which was a response to Pet Sounds. You have Elvis who was the one who got Lennon to start playing guitar because of Heartbreak Hotel. These people and groups were around and growing BEFORE the Beatles and to say without the Beatles Rock N Roll would have died is assinine. Respecting or liking someone's music has NOTHING to do with the core of music as a whole. Because some of ACDC's members likes the Beatles, does not mean that the Beatles were the foundation of their music, if anything, they have more than admitted that it came out of the rhythm and blues scene with was the foundation of the Stones, Who, Hendrix, etc. as well as when I look artists like Clapton, Stevie Ray Vaughn, the Who... I see them doing more collaborations with the Blues such as Buddy Guy, Muddy Waters, Albert King, et al. That is not to say that Clapton has never done things with McCartney, Lennon, or Harrison, but you definitely will see Clapton, SRV, Buddy, Muddy and Albert sharing the stage 99% more together than and of the Flop Tops. Point being, The Blues and R&B influences existed before the Beatles, and many of the transitioning artists who helped for part of the core for the rock n roll scene today were emerging on their own REGARDLESS of the pop sensation that was the beatles.
I admire your love for TheBlues.Have you ever heard Yer Blues off The Beatles White Album.Killer Stuff Man.Theirs another great version on R.N.R circus.
Not really necessarily a love for a blues, though I do like it, as much as we just disagree on the roots of Rock and say the potential impact of artists. It was funny last night I had seen a thread on Hendrix, started youtubing different versions of "The Sky is Crying" and had seen a great performance by him from '69. The thread of posters there was quite humorous, and there was a debate as to whether John Mayer is a "Guitar God", and you really just saw such a plethora of opinions from Hendrix's version sucking and SRV's being more passionate, to Mayer being more technical a player, etc... Seriously. Check it out and your head will spin from some of the opinions. For me... I discovered the Blues backwards. When I was a kid, I was more of a pop listener. Never listened to Back in Black when it came out, was more into never J Giels, Beach Boys, Eagles, Police, Thorogood, and even yes, the Beatles. As I got later into my teens, I had seen Eric Clapton on the August Tour with Robert Cray opening up and Phil Collins on Drums, Philigans, and Nathan East. My draw at that time was actually more of Phil Collins. I started growing into Clapton, digging back into his roots, as well as from Thorogood, started wondering who John Lee Hooker was. Clapton later got me into Robert Johnson, and from there, later got into Buddy Guy and "Damn Right I got the Blues" years laters because of the little blurb that Clapton had given on the album. Daclarob makes an excellent point that it is all music, and classifications are mainly for putting records in certain bins, but where this whole thing sort of became a pissing match and a bit of a rant on my part is just having started out on the Pop end of rock, or what I thought of as rock at the time, working way back into the blues, and then seeing the influences, started seeing the lineage of tunes like Love in Vain, Crossroads, and definitely "Sky is Crying" and "Little Wing". My first version of Sky was Thorogood and Little Wing was STING! Egad! So when this thread started and you look at the Rock N Roll HOF, there are some glaring omissions as well as inclusions that make you scratch your head. The Declarob again, it is all music, and if you like it that should be enough. Time does changes things... I am sure the parents who freaked at Buddy Holly and that racket would have heart attacks with Marilyn Manson, Anthrax, Ozzy, etc... but by the same token Rock seems to be a nebulous term at times, and when you look at the maturation years in the late 60s through the 70s, is what was classified "Rock N Roll" then, more of Pop now. Is Madonna a Rock star or a Pop star? Michael Jackson? Dire Straits? So the point that started this discourse... if you plopped the Beatles on the radio today, would they be considered Rock N Roll or more of a pop. Their legacy genera is Classic Rock, Oldies, etc... But when you look at Eleanor Rigby, Yellow Submarine, Help, Love Me Do, Can't Buy Me Love... Where would you find those songs on the dial today. If the Beatles were touring, who would be opening up for them? There is no right and wrong, and definitely will be a great difference in opinions for sure. Bands and artists will always always learn from different artists in their niche as well as outside, which is a good thing because it should evolve but the more it does, you also will see returns to the foundations again and again. And to the bizarre discussion of John Mayer as a "Guitar God"... If people are in awe of him 40 years from now, then maybe so. There are certain people who are way ahead of their times and create an impact which ripples that are felt long after the initial exposure. I like SRV's Sky better... and that is sort of personal to me because I was at his 2nd to last show out at Alpine Valley and the song takes me back there... But re-hearing Hendrix's take from some 20 years or so before... Some funk, some soul, but definitely an amazing piece and such power and such a far step outside what others had done. A far different piece from the Elmore James piece only 9 years earlier.
Its been fun and a pleasure to talk toyou.keep in touch. WES