Talk:AC/DC/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Cover Album

Just my opinion but I think it'd be a good idea to mention that members of several different bands are working together on an AC/DC cover album, perhaps you could make a section about influence, since something like that, shows just how influential they are in the business.204.193.202.182 (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Dave Evans

Can someone please check the recent edits to Dave Evans (singer)? The edits made by Mosey1 (talk · contribs) are apparently made by Mr. Evans himself, and while they fixed some obvious inaccuracies and added some useful content, I'm not sure that all the info added is accurate and NPOV. I might be wrong, but the article seems to lean towards a certain POV now, and some statements need a source. For instance, was Mr. Evans a founding member of the band? Or is it Ok to refer to opinion of Angus as "malicious", while the NPOV rules require that the wiki article should not assume any position and just present the opinions of both sides? A checkup by knowledgeable editors would be good. Grandmaster (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

200 million album sales?

ok, i think it should be changed from 150 to 200 million albums sales, because I found this: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/22/1066631502999.html , this indicates that they have sold more than 200 million, and it's by far the most reliable source ; The Sydney Morning Herald(and it's Austrian btw) should i change it or not ? i know there are other sources that say they have sold 150 million, but i personally think it should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dim386 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Remove dave evans

I removed Dave evans from the former members section of the info box and list of former members list. This is because he was removed from the second row of the template and also since he is a little too minor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.187.115 (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

ACDC is a British/Australian band. Their background is very similar to that of the Bee Gee's. The Bee Gee's are not claimed as Australian on the Wikipedia site.

Its timely to correct the Wikipedia ACDC article to read "British/Australian". However the edit rights have been locked off to prevent this.These are the places where ACDC members were born.

Angus Young - (Scotland) Malcolm Young-Scotland Ronald Belford (Bon) Scott-Scotland Simon Wright-England Brian Johnson-England Phil Rudd-Australia Cliff Williams-England www.answerbag.com/q_view/14468 http://nndb.net/people/511/000024439/ Whether some who were not Australian by birth became citizens of Australia later on. . .who knows? check the website for quote scotish ancestry --kea 04:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Comments Add a comment... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiltedscottishkiwigrant (talk • contribs) 04:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

8 out of 10 current and former members are of British origin

Why is this not mentioned anywhere in the article? Surely the fact that the vast majority of the members are British would be something to take note of?

8 of them were born and raised in Britain with British parents. The 2 Australian members were booted from the band. AC/DC only stayed in Australia for a couple of years before relocating to the UK. They draw on British bands for influence.

Surely this is a British band? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.13.210 (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read the discussion in archive 3, the article currently has 50 odd sources which say the band is Australian. Global tv in this article from March 4, 2008 calls them an Australian band. The difference is that the band formed in Australia, first album release was in Australia, the fact that current members are Brittish nationals doesnt change the origins of the band. Gnangarra 14:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Simply because the band formed in Australia doesn't mean that the band itself is Australian. Surely the nationality of the band plays at least SOME part in determining the origins of the band, considering that NONE of them actually originate from Australia. Considering that AC/DC's origins are more strongly British, it would be a good idea to mention this.

As for sources, you have each member's wikipedia page. None of them are Australian, bar the 2 that were kicked out. This is definitely not an Australian band we're talking about here.

Case in point, Kirk Hammet was born in America, that doesn't change the fact that he isn't American. No American blood in him whatsoever. Kylie Minogue's half British, should we gloss over that as well then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.53.40 (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Kirk Hammett isn't American? WHAT?!?!! "No American blood in him"? He is American, one is American by birth. Where did you get the intellectually warped, and baffling idea that he is not American? It's these kind of comments from ill informed editors that cause problems in the first place.(24.62.126.170 (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

ah, looking back at archive 3, it seems all the users had come to a reasonable agreement... until you, Gnangarra, came in and caused a huge argument.

Consider the sources you're referring to. People referring to AC/DC as Australian because they know no better; many of them haven't got in-depth knowledge of the background of each member. With wikipedia we definitely do. Please read some of the comments again; one stated that, while 2 members are 100% Australian, many more are 100% British. Even disregarding the Young brothers, who only LIVED in Australia but are not Australian, surely that is enough to list this as a British-Australian band?

Here's another example. Fleetwood Mac, some members British some American. Listed as a British-American band, disregarding where they actually formed and where they released their original music.

Razorlight. Some members British some members Swedish. Listed as a British-Swedish band in origin, disregarding the fact that they were FORMED in the UK and released their first albums in the UK before anywhere else.

And then we come to AC/DC. some members Australian, vast majority are British. Listed as an Australian band ONLY.

That is not fair, nor is it accurate. Your argument seems be based solely on the ignorance of the general media, and you are totally disregarding the nationality of the vast majority of the band.

We have the wikipedia pages citing that 8 out of the 10 members are British, and even if you disagree with the fact that the Young brothers are British the majority is STILL British and MORE than enough to list this as a British-Australian band!

I propose what previous members have proposed - write a paragraph at the beginning explaining the situation, and list this as a British-Australian band. Can't say fairer than that; other bands that I've listed have been given this fair treatment, and the only reason this band has not had the same fair treatment seems to be Australians not willing to let go of what they percieve as their greatest contribution to music.

There is no good argument for listing this band purely as Australian. At the very least it is British-Australian; you can't disregard the nationality of all the members simply because they formed somewhere else! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.53.40 (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not we think the Australian designation is entirely accurate, Wikipedia's policy is to only re-publish that which has already been published by multiple, reliable, third-party sources. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. If you think the band should be listed here as "British" or "British-Australian", then please dig up some reliable sources that have called it such. Thanks. — Satori Son 17:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely the fact that the wikipedia pages of each band member point out that each member is British should be enough? That's not "original research", that's a fact highlighted by other wikipedia pages.

Also, you've just highlighted a major flaw of wikipedia, which is a large part of why wikipedia isn't that credible. You're going on what other sources have stated without any in-depth research; not only that but each source is WRONG. That's not an opinion, it is a FACT that this is not an Australian band! They are a British band which once had an Australian in the line-up, who was eventually booted from the band.

The fact is, they're more British and Australian, and it is far more accurate to describe them as the former instead of the latter. All this page is doing is perpetuating a critical misconception made by the general public. Each band member's wikipedia page is evidence, containing reliable sources proving that almost all band members in the band's history are British. That is evidence, therefore it should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.53.40 (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I can only assume you did not carefully read the official policy at WP:NOR. Please do so, paying explicit attention to the section entitled "Synthesis of published material which advances a position", because that is exactly what you are trying to do.

You may indeed be correct in your analysis and conclusion, but unless you find multiple, reliable sources that clearly state "AC/DC is a British band", you are out of luck. — Satori Son 21:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Do the Youngs have British passports? We don't know. So where's the "proof" of British nationality? Rudd (still IN the band by the way) and Mark Evans are Australian, no question, as were almost all the original guys who were briefly members. Johnson and Williams are British, no question. The Youngs, Scott and Dave Evans were naturalised Australians, probably with Australian passports or dual nationality. The Youngs didn't live in the UK beyond childhood so it is not certain in any way that they claim British citizenship. Sounds like British/Australian is the most sensible description. I suggest this is clarified in the opening paragraph. A British band? Absolutely no way, and you've got zero chance of getting a cite for that.

As for the band itself as an individual entity, it unquestionably originated in Australia. Band origins are irrespective of individual band members' nationality. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable. Considering that there is a mix of nationalities in the band - and that the nationality of some band members is debatable - it seems reasonable to do what you're proposing.

If anyone feels they could give the explanation of the band's origins justice in the opening paragraph then I implore you to do so, as I personally don't feel that I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.14.190 (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at explaining the nationality debate in the lead paragraph, while trying not to go over the top with exactly who's Australian, who's British etc. Hopefully it will satisfy most people who had issues with this subject. If anyone has any further suggestions or problems, it would be better to talk here rather than start reverting again. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, you probably should not have changed it back to "British-Australian" without clear consensus. Asking others to not revert when you have just done so is somewhat poor form. — Satori Son 14:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Poor form or not, what the article now says agrees with everyone who's made a comment here. If that's not consensus, I don't know what is. Band origin is clearly stated as Australian, with a mix of nationalities among the members. People were never going to agree on a particular line to take, so the best thing is just to accommodate everyone within the realms of what's verifiable and non-OR. Maybe you're just attempting to prolong the drama? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So instead of addressing the fundamental policy problem here, you flippantly brush it aside and personally attack me as a drama monger. Nice...

Since no one has been able to find reliable sources that refer to the band as anything other than "Australian", I have fixed it again. (By the way, I am not Australian or British.) WP:NOR and WP:V are non-negotiable, official policies of the project, and we can't ignore the rules "just to accommodate everyone". — Satori Son 17:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Considerably less flippant than your high-and-mighty "with respect" and "poor form" comments, and indeed, your "nice..." comment. If you want people to treat you with respect, you might start thinking about earning it. If you think my comment was a personal attack, then perhaps you need to get out more. The part of my edit which you reverted is the part I'm least interested in, to be honest. The explanation about members' nationality is more important. To say that describing AC/DC as a British/Australian band is WP:OR is laughable - it is as clear as day that the members themselves are not, in the main, Australian. Furthermore, this fact is not in any way arguable and as such, does not need a cite. Yes, most sources state that "the band are Australian", but this is an extremely woolly concept, and it is patently not true per se. The article clearly states band origin as "Sydney Australia" - no-one is denying it. Why is this particular (utterly abstract) point of "band nationality" the ONLY thing you're interested in applying WP:V to? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If we are to continue with the bizarre obsession with applying an abstract nationality to something which, in this case, does not have an easily-definable nationality, then I think it's important to clarify the complex situation regarding the origins of the band itself, and the band members' nationalities. As it stands, the first line still describes the band as "Australian" for those people who believe this kind of thing to be important, but this is enlarged upon in the rest of the first paragraph. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH yes members of the band are from the UK but that doesnt change the origin of the Band. The sourcing for the article says its an Australian band as said in this discussion provide sources that call the band Brittish. This article went through WP:FAC and the issue wasnt raised. Gnangarra 18:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You've lost me. No-one changed or challenged the description of the origins of the band, and I have always said the band originated in Australia. I have also never said that the band was British. What is being done here is the application of a nationality to a band, which is an abstract concept. It says AC/DC are an Australian band, which is a misleading statement, however sourced. That said, I am not advocating the removal of that statement, just the clarification that despite that statement, it is the band origin that is Australian, not the band members. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of the part of the leading paragraph concerning the nationalities of the members - none of this is OR - the birthplaces are SOURCED in the cite provided. It is considerably better sourced than other portions of this article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be time to clarify what it is you're trying to say. Are you two agreeing with each other or what? Does anybody actually want it to say "Australian band"? So much stuff is getting reverted that I am losing the flow. Let's just clarify what we want to be sourced and what we think isn't necessary, bearing in mind I can provide sources for all the band members' birthplaces, the fact that after Rudd left the band in '83 there were no Australian-born members, AND if anyone so chooses, I can provide a cite (Classic Rock magazine) that says AC/DC are a British band, not that I agree with it personally. It's make your mind up time. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That line you added is inappropriate for the lead where we're trying to sum up their thirty year career and impact. There is no need to include a dialogue of the band members nationalities (unreliably sourced too). In any case, "rock band formed in Sydney, Australia" is enough. indopug (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I was simply attempting to avoid all the vandalism surrounding the nationality of the band by clarifying contentious issues within the lead, where the problems were taking place. That vandalism will undoubtedly continue. The lead is diabolical and too long - it is chock-full of stuff that shouldn't be in the lead, including synthesised argument and relative trivia like minor lineup changes. The source I used in the opening paragraph was a provisional one, awaiting comment from the people who were moaning - as I say, I can provide decent cites for anything regarding AC/DC, including stuff that isn't even true. Between the three of you, you seem to WP:OWN the article, so it's all yours. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Bon Scott emigrated to Australia when he was five or something. FFS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.223.139 (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on, they're an Australian band. Who cares where they (previously) came from. I hate this wikipedia/ethnopedia b------s Hakluyt bean (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

They are considered Australian because at the time they formed they were all part of the then immigration population in western Sydney, plus today Angus Young told Australian 60min [Dirty Deeds] that they should still be considered an Australian band because the aussie roughness was an integral part of the bands development (and jokingly said that no other countries would want them!) The school uniform is from Ashfield Boys High School in Sydney so, while the band members are certainly British born and now most live there today, the identity of the band is definitely Australian Chuckarg33 (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The Young's moved to Australia a full 10 years before forming AC/DC. I think this places them fully into the "Australian" band. Besides, Angus spends most of his time in Sydney and The Netherlands, others US, should we make it a Holland-Scottish-Australian-American band? No? Sounds crazy eh? Should we make almost all New Zeland bands Australian just because after success a whole lot of them move to Australia? No? Are all the UK Actors who moved to Hollywood because that's where the work is not UK actors anymore? Stupid argument is stupid. Check Angus's own wiki page. It states he lives between his home in Sydney Australia and The Netherlands. So he moved here while a young teen, became a naturalised Australian, started a band here, lives here yet is apparently Brittish? 118.208.79.112 (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a case of giving the Aussies one thing to be proud of to be honest --Tukogbani (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Australia has many things to be proud of. Wikipedia is not a place for immaturity, Tukogbani. And FYI, typing derogatory comments is a surefire way to get yourself reported. Gilly of III (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This debate is no surprise to many Kiwi's. Some of New Zealands most iconic rock bands (Mi-Sex, Dragon, Split Enz, DD Smash, Swingers, Ray Columbus and the Invaders, Gin, Crowded House)continue to be claimed by Australians - just read the Wikipedia debate about Dragon and Crowded House. So its no surprise to read that the Brits are a little peeved at AC/DC being referred to as an Australian band. The Bee Gee's were also a British band. So delight in your homegrown bands like Daddy Cool, Hoodoo Guru's, Aussie Crawl - they are/were outstanding Australian bands. Its all about the country of origin vs where they recorded first. I'd encourage the Australians that insist on claiming foriegn nationals as their own to celebrate the artist first and then get a little anxious that they were not born in Australia. Wikipedia would be consistent by publishing the same type of opening entry they agreed to for Kiwi bands Dragon and Crowded House - New Zealand/Australian - we can live with that. This sort of debate is easily resolved by Wikipedia consistently publishing the place of birth for each band member alongside the city of origin of the band. This is accurate data and easily validated.(kiwi) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiltedscottishkiwigrant (talk • contribs) 03:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

AC/DC is an Australian band, as it was formed in Australia, had multiple Australian-only albums, and continues to release albums first in Australia then globally. It was formed by those who had been living in Australia for a long time. Just because they receive inspiration from British bands, that doesn't make them British. If AC/DC is British, then The Beatles are American, and everyone knows that's not true. Ozkidzez91 (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Site worthy of inclusion

http://acdcnews.com Good site for updated AC/DC news and rumors. Usually more current than ACDC.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.227.209 (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WP does not link to blogs. I will remove it if it has not been already. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Since when does WP not link to blogs? I see blogs all over WP. Where is the precise rule that says that WP can't link a site on Blogger? 71.122.32.84 (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please point out the blogs you "see all over WP"? How do we know your blog is reliable and that it contains accurate information? indopug (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Who said it was my blog? All one has to do to find a blog on WP is to look up nearly any well known person and you'll see that many of them have their personal blogs listed as external links. Is there something you can point out to on http://acdcnews.com that is innacurate? For that matter, how do we know wikipedia is reliable and contains accurate information? Many reputable researchers regularly say it does not. 71.122.32.84 (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

But that isn't AC/DC's personal blog is it? And yes, Wikipedia is not reliable. indopug (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not a personal blog. My point was that blogs are obviously allowed on WP. 71.122.32.84 (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No. See #12 at Link to be avoided. indopug (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That rule is irrelevant in this case as AC/DC News is not a Wiki. 71.122.32.84 (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I meant number eleven. indopug (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the author of AC/DC News is a recognized authority on that band since he's obviously been writing about the band for years and years if you look through his personal links. 71.122.32.84 (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Recognised" means that independent third-party reliable sources have identified him as an authority on the subject. Doesn't matter what he writes about himself on his own blog. indopug (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So Mark Cuban's musings on Bill O'Reilly are somehow "recognized" as "reliable" http://www.blogmaverick.com/2008/04/07/bill-o-reilly-why-wont-you-support-the-movie-fighting-for-li/ yet AC/DC News doesn't qualify? I think you're missing the big picture. What other expert on AC/DC has had a longer running history of writing about AC/DC on the web? Let me know and let's put that link on Wikipedia. 71.122.32.84 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not American, so I don't get the point of that Cuban/O'Reilly comparison you made. Really sorry Wikipedia policy doesn't allow your blog to be added though. indopug (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, it's not my blog. Second, how about answering my question on what other web expert has more authority on AC/DC? Third, regardless of what nationality you are, a quick internet search would show you that Mark Cuban is the owner of a professional basketball team which gives him no "recognized" authority to comment on political pundits like Bill O'Reilly (whom you can also look up). 71.122.32.84 (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We are on Wikipedia. We don't need a "quick internet search". I figured out who the people were, but couldn't quite figure what Cuban was trying to say on his blog and the context of the whole incident. If I knew that then maybe I could tell you why that blog was included. indopug (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't know any web-experts on AC/DC; unless if you consider the likes of Rolling Stone or Allmusic websites (not experts, but reliable sources). indopug (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well if you're going to avoid answering my questions, there's no sense in discussing this topic any further with you. I don't know why you're so biased against http://acdcnews.com (a site you've probably barely even looked at) but just quoting some vague rule about blogs (which is obviously not uniformly enforced on WP) seems to me to be a very poor editing decision. Also, I wouldn't consider Rolling Stone or All Music to be reliable sources on AC/DC. They're for pop music fans at best. I thought WP wanted expert info here? Finally, if you don't know any experts on AC/DC, what are you doing editing their page? 71.122.32.84 (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) It is not a vague rule about blogs; it is clearly stated that blogs are to be avoided. Even if it is not uniformly enforced, it is still a WP policy. I enforce it when I come across it, and it seems that Indopug does as well. Links to blogs will be removed from the page. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is vague. Otherwise, there would be no blog links posted on WP. 71.122.32.84 (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of the rule being vague. It's more that WP is overrun with vandals and spammers, and the worthy editors are many places overpowered. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

He decided to go ahead and add his blog anyway. indopug (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Was fixed by Anger22. As clearly stated above, this website is not a suitable external link for Wikipedia. — Satori Son 17:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I put the MySpace page since there's now a special way to put them in, making it okay.Sposato (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Rock n roll"

While the fans might call them rock n roll, shouldn't we point out that AC/DC is far from rock n roll? The lack of a walking bass line and that kinda thing? Seriphyn (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

AC/DC is most certainly rock 'n' roll. The beats, rhythms, and song structures are all based on the great rock songs of the 50's and 60's. 71.122.32.84 (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Former members in the info box

I recently added Dave Evans and two other former members of AC/DC in the info box as former members, but they were taken off the next day. While no albums were released with their names in the credits, they were still apart of the band, and if not all of them, atleast Dave, because he was the first AC/DC lead singer, whether any of us liked it or not. BBFootBallr54 (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

Pretty much every other edit to the article is vandalism, is it eligible for semi-protection? indopug (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the vandalism has tapered off. If it picks up again, I'll semi-protect it (and if I'm not around, please file a request at WP:RPP). — Satori Son 17:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

AC/DC in Rock Band

The band licensed the song Let There Be Rock for the upcoming game Rock Band 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brig35 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

New Album title

It was revealed on ultimate-guitar.com that the new album title is "Black Ice" Here is the url, http://ultimate-guitar.com/news/upcoming_releases/acdc_confirms_new_album_title.html The release date has also been confirmed here, http://ultimate-guitar.com/news/upcoming_releases/acdc_new_album_release_date.html The album will be followed by a world tour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.89.106 (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Waiting for a reliable source, i.e. one of the band's official websites, or the record company site. Anything else is "some guy who knows" or "a reliable insider" who has informed one of the music news sites. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

band picture with the current lineup

shouldn't there a band picture with the current group lineup? bon scott has been dead for almost 30 years, and i'm thinking there should be a picture with the current lineup on the page. Doctoracdc72 (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can find one that's free use, please add it. I doubt anyone will argue :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I put up the picture of them performing in support of the Black Ice album (the same one that is on this article and is near the "recent events" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arollins (talk • contribs) 20:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Heavy Metal

I propose that this term be removed from the band's genres as well as all other references to the term. The text of the CD inlay to "The Razors Edge" cites Angus Young's irritation at having been named a Heavy Metal band, with Heavy Metal having largely being associated with the less than desirable Hair Metal as well as the Gay Metal which was emerging from 1990 onwards. His own perception of his band was purely Rock and Roll, which explains why throughout the years, their msic evolved very little: it simply never needed to, and the respect that people have for them is out of this world. I consider it unfair fair to hold a term that the band clearly find an insult. I believe that "Hard Rock" should suffice for that field. Evlekis (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a subject that's already been discussed. The term is referenced in the article from reliable sources. Lemmy doesn't think that Motorhead is a heavy metal band either. And Robert Plant never liked the term describing Led Zeppelin. But that's still what they are. Wikipedia is based on the weight of citations. And in this article the way the term is used is fully supported by the added references. I think they are a rock and roll band. But editor opinion doesn't count, only reliable sources. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, there was always conflict between the musicians and the journalists concerning classification of the music. In general, the journalists who are writing about the rock music are not neccesarilly the experts with academic education. It's not clever to follow writtings of any of them, without, at least, minimum of criticism. AC/DC were pure 100% rock'n'roll band as well as Motorhead. Rock'n'roll with more gasoline than the average, that's all. More guitar overdrive, but typical boogie/r'n'r riffs and passages, based on pure blues pentatonic scales - total rock and roll. Led Zeppelin or Deep Purple were hard rock, not heavy metal. Thick sound, step out of pentatonics, orchestral arrangements with almost no limits, based on wide area, from folk to classic music. Black Sabbath is considered to be the first real heavy metal band. Ozzy was always proud of this classification. Fuzz distortion guitar sound, obscure atmosphere, limited arrangements. And all those bands that followed Ozzy were on the same HM trace, the most known and the most comercial Iron Maiden (80's) and Metallica (90's). An journalist who is in love with Madonna or Beyonce can write that the Rolling Stones are HM. It's his pop or r'n'b point of view. I'm a musician and I really hate those critics of arts. Ten bears, brain storms and then classification. They feel so good about it, they're so reliable :) Zenanarh (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

??? Black Sabbath were a blues band that didn't play heavy metal until they heard Led Zeppelin do it first. If you tried to add the above post into any music article on Wikipedia it would be reverted for violationg WP:NOR and contradicting many references from reliable sources. Wikipedia isn't based on personal opinions. Especially incorrect ones. It's based on verifiable references. And referenced content can't be removed unless it's outweighed/outnumbered by relaible sources stating the contrary. No editor opinions required. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, buddy, no need to WP:XY me. Don't worry I didn't want to change anything. See what you've written about BS or what what I have. It's always like that ;) Zenanarh (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This subject is a horse that's been beaten to death way too many times. Editors want to delete it. Reliable sources keep it in. No need to ooze anymore or on the topic. Libs (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

My question is only, how can a "source" suggest that a band is or is not HM? People have their own opinions and the whole phenomenon of musical genre is entirely subjective. It's the song in the end of the day and not the artist: take a look at other musical acts and you'll find that the longer they have/had been active, the bigger the list of genres. Bands stretch from synth pop to industrial rock to new wave to soft rock etc. Atleast ACDC are not a "let's reinvent ourselves to stay on top and in the press like U2" type of band, yes they evolve but they never derail like some "pop" artists. Remember, it's one thing for the plebs to label someone "Heavy Metal" and have it accepted, but totally a different thing when a key band member (Angus Young) has declared the term a complete insult. Precisely who is contributing to the article?? Fans of ACDC or REM?? Evlekis (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what makes ACDC Heavy Metal. There's nothing metal about them. There's nothing Metal about Glam either... Poison is Hard Rock, maybe Glam Rock but certainly not Metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.62.83.205 (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because you listen to what is labelled as Heavy Metal today does not mean the bands you mentioned aren't. You don't need cookie monster vocals and double kick abuse to be heavy metal dude. 118.208.79.112 (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I know the whole definition has been done to death here, but Wikipedia should not referencing Encyclopædia Britannica as its primary source of the definition. Encyclopædia Britannica is not considered to be a primary source, nor is it an expert publication. What have some of the specialist publications such as Rolling Stone defined the band as? Whats up skip (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

References for name of new album

Hello. I noticed there is some recently added info about the name of the new album, when I checked the reference the web site looked like some kind of forum. Is this a valid reference for a wikipedia article even though the information might be correct. Adam (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. The reference is a blog, which I am disinclined to treat as a RS. I will remove the sentence and ref; if someone feels that it is a RS, please discuss here before reverting me. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

HDDVD vs Blu-ray

I think No Bull is being released on Blu-ray, as that is the only format you can preorder it on amazon, also, HDDVD is dead, why would they exclusively release it on that? 24.65.42.159 (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Spelling

Thats not how you spell their name! its AC (lightning bolt) DC! GOD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.192.145 (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

very true - should be AC⚡DC—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.235.20 (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your "lightning bolt" just looks like an empty block to me. I think we need to keep the slash. Not everyone has the Squealer TT Font loaded.  ;-) --Bark (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Help!

Somebody vandlized the AC/DC article and I can't undo what has been done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.9.145 (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me. I tried to fix a vandalism that was there and went back to a version that screwed the infobox up. Thanks, and again, I'm so sorry. Halofan333 (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing Heavy Metal is vandalizim?

Ok a person comes in and vandlized the AC/DC article by removing the photo of AC/DC and writes above it "Joey is Amazing" and no one does a damn thing about it. While I correctly edit the page by removing that and the label "Heavy Metal". And than I get ridculed and labled a vandalist. Oh just arrest me great Heavy Metal police, I have done wrong. Really what is this world coming too? I know this site is based on resources but yet it even states that the band only labels themselves as a rock band and down right hate the "heavy metal" label. And that alot of album reveiwers would falsely label them as heavy metal (which is also the resource to the label on the article). AC/DC is not, I'm sorry, a heavy metal band! Period! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.9.145 (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleting referenced content is vandalism. Deleting references is vandalism. Hope this helps. The Real Libs-speak politely 08:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by westvoja 12:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So if somebody writes their name in the article or outright vandalises the page without removing "reference content" then it's NOT consitered vandalism? How stupid is that! You know damn well that the page is called "AC/DC" so when somebody changes the taxobox from saying "AC/DC" to "Joey is Amazing" then it is NOT VANDALISM? What the HELL!!! But when I respect the bands right to not be called a heavy metal band then I'M THE VANDALIST? I don't give a rat's ASS if there is a reference stating AC/DC is a heavy metal band, they are wrong. It is not a strong reference to use an article by a reviwer. If you want to know the genera of music they are you go to their website or their record company's website. Even stores do not place AC/DC in the heavy metal section.

This argument is a perpetual one. The AC/DC articles state the term "heavy metal" not because the band are HM; we all know they're not. The term is there because a number of "reliable" sources say that they're HM. It doesn't matter if all those sources are wrong, it's weight of numbers. That's one of the flaws of Wikipedia - the majority of "reliable" opinion wins the day, even in cases such as this, where "reliable" opinion is clearly wrong, for reasons outlined elsewhere on this page. If enough self-appointed music know-alls in the music review business decided that AC/DC were a hip-hop act, then it would go in the infobox. Sad but true. Fitting artists into musical genres is a totally subjective thing, and is one of the overlooked instances of personal opinion being passed off as fact on Wikipedia. Not editor opinion, but the opinion of musically ignorant reviewers and headline writers. Personally, I'd like to see all musical genre classifications removed, not that there's any chance of that, of course. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I say that we should define genres based on consensus (putting polls on the discussion page), not listening to "reliable" sources. 24.87.89.217 (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It is WP policy to go off of RS, not just consensus. We can't all agree on the sky being green instead of blue and make it so. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case, we have sources saying the sky is green. We all know it's blue and we can't say so. In this case, Wikipedia's policy of following "reliable sources" makes Wikipedia itself a regurgitator of false information. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

So what do you suggest we do? Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think removing genres from infoboxes was a great idea. Genres are wholly subjective and should have no place there. Other than that, we are stuck with the view of the RS, regardless of whether it's wrong or right. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How would we go about doing this? I assume we can't change that policy based on this article alone. And even if it isn't in the infobox, we'd still be discussing genres in the article itself, right? I don't think it would be good to make no mention at all of what genre a band is. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes, the reliable sources are just plain stupid, so then it's completely warranted to disregard them. 24.87.89.217 (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. This has been exhaustively discussed, and one anon mouthing off isn't going to change the matter. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not infalliable in subjective matters where they are overwhelmingly outnumbered by individuals who disagree. In that case, they sould be ignored; as reliable sources are only needed in non-subjective matters. I think that in this case, a few hundred music reviewers shouldn't have more weight than hundreds of millions of people who disagree, and the band itself. I say that in this case, the band's opinion should trump the opinions of reviewers. Anyway, I've never been to a music store that puts AC/DC in the "metal" category. That alone should be enough to nullify all of the reliable sources. If it's not, then Wikipedia is not an appropriate source for any information as their policy doesn't support reflecting the truth but the opinions of the select elite who get to be called reliable sources. If that doesn't satisfy you, I'll find as many reliable sources as possible that say that AC/DC isn't metal. 24.87.89.217 (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think if you found a sufficient number of RS specifically stating that they are not heavy metal, it would at least be worth discussing, whereas now, as valid as your point may be, removing referenced genres from the infobox is vandalism. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I still think that each RS should, in matters of opinion, only have the same weight as 100,000 people who disagree. Therefore, the reliable sources are beaten 1000:1, and are moot. 24.87.89.217 (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If you honestly think that, the thing to do is to get an account, and start a discussion about the reliability policy. This isn't the place to fight the entire policy on RS. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I prefer not to have a name attatched to me. Let's just have the discussion here. 24.87.89.217 (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Without an account, you won't be seen as a serious editor, but that decision is yours to make. But, this is not the place to have a discussion about policy. The RS policy is not up for discussion here, and until you come up with a number of RS that state "AC/DC are not heavy metal because...", I will no longer continue this thread with you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed a flaw in the RS policy. The heavy metal or hard rock thing is mentioned in the heavy metal music article. I'll quote the bit about AC/DC...

AC/DC, which debuted with High Voltage in 1975, is a prime example. The 1983 Rolling Stone encyclopedia entry begins, "Australian heavy-metal band AC/DC..."[76] Rock historian Clinton Walker writes, "Calling AC/DC a heavy metal band in the seventies was as inaccurate as it is today.... [They] were a rock'n'roll band that just happened to be heavy enough for metal."[77] The issue is not only one of shifting definitions, but also a persistent distinction between musical style and audience identification: Ian Christe describes how the band "became the stepping-stone that led huge numbers of hard rock fans into heavy metal perdition."[78]"

If we mention the genre debate in the article, yet call them both a hard rock and a heavy metal band in the infobox, it loses all credibility. I have another example which is very similar to this one... Slipknot were pegged as Nu Metal by every critic in the late 90's/early 2000's mainly due to the time they broke into mainstreamm. Their bassist said in an interview that they are NOT nu metal and that "[he's] been listening to Metal for 20 years, I know what type of music we're playing". This doesn't seem to matter as there are hundreds of sources stating they are nu metal. Another example somewhat similar to this is when I tried to get speed metal in the infobox on Lamb of God's album Sacrament because in the documentary about the album, drummer Chris Adler calls them a speed metal band on several occassions. Apparently the bands own opinion cannot be used as a source, it can only be mentioned as their opinion in the article. Yet, a critics opinion can. It appears that Wikipedia believes that critics know more about the music that a band is playing than the band itself. Do we have any solutions to this problem?122.57.30.224 (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

ACDC played both Hard Rock and Heavy Metal. The same goes for Sabbath, Zeppelin, and Deep Purple, though with to a lesser extent in Sabbath's case. While songs like "Highway to Hell" aren't Metal (though close), songs like "Thunderstruck" and "Hell's Bells" most certainly are Metal. (Albert Mond (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

Yes, but there's a difference between Metal and Heavy Metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozkidzez91 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If You Want Blood You've Got It

Added that album to the list. It's live but it's also known by name. I wasted erm, valuable internet seconds wondering where the heck it was after arriving at this page following a search for a song, finding the song article but no mention of the version that appears on that album, then coming here and not seeing the album... grrr. Added link to If you want blood on the song page too. Maybe all the live albums should be on the list in this article. Hakluyt bean (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Live albums, compilations and EPs are not detailed here. There is a separate discography page that details the band's releases. Only studio albums are included here (and in every other music page that is done right) The Real Libs-speak politely 01:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bagpipes

76.22.214.58 (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else see a problem with the fact that the clip of 'It's a Long Way to the Top', which is labeled with text denoting how the song features bagpipes, does not actually feature said bagpipes?

Just a thought.

It's a fair point. If the caption is going to mention the bagpipes, it might be worth including a clip of part of the song that does actually feature the bagpipes. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I please note...

That Malcolm Young and Cliff Williams do more than just guitar work? They should also be credited with backing vocals on the albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.72.10 (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Why no refs in infobox?

The hidden source message advises not to use footnotes/references in the infobox. But I can't find any manual of style/guidelines on the Wikipedia namespace suggesting that. Why? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

--that;s generally a consensus issue, between previous editors. Most often this is because the terms used in the infoox can be internal linked to articles that already use references. (Its an attempt to avoid redundancy.) 70.61.247.31 (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Australian/International versions of albums

Is there any particular reason why they are seperate? They should be merged with the coinciding releases. All the articles involved are no more than start class, so it would improve quality. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 09:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Merging makes sense, and it's easy to include the different covers, track listings etc. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've merged the articles for Dirty Deeds and LTBR, which are just slightly different versions of the same article in different markets. However, I've left the two High Voltage variants as they are - the second is really a version of TNT with a different cover and title, but follows a long tradition of debut repackages to introduce recording artists in other territories (such as Japan (album), which is similar to Tin Drum (album)). ProhibitOnions ^(T) 08:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead image

I'm curious as to why the image I uploaded is suddenly being used as the lead image. Sure, it's a more recent image of the band, but the other was so much better. Mine is too far back, slightly out of focus, and doesn't show the band very well. I basically only uploaded it to show what the set for the Black Ice tour looked like. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Back In Black: 131 Weeks in Top 10?

This is wrong. It spent just 45 weeks in the *Top 40* of Billboards Top LP & Tapes List (now the Top 200) according to Joel Whitburn's Top 40 Album guides. It's possible that the AC/DC webpage is mistakenly citing the Catalogue Chart, which is so recent that it's pretty meaningless. There's nothing impressive about the 45 weeks in the Top 40. Hundreds of albums have spent 60+ weeks in the Top 40. Many albums have spent 45+ weeks in the *Top 10*. So someone should edit this Toshiaki1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC).

Edit

{{editprotected}} In the Black Ice Section, please remove or change the image. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Got it, as well as the .ogg file in the previous section. Skier Dude (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I can explain that one. The title of the image is "ACDC - Toronto November 7,2008.JPG". However, someone (most likely using a script and not checking their edits carefully enough) keeps changing the dash to &nbsp—, which renders the image useless. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 06:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

AC/DC meaning on sewing machine tag

Article History section states: "which indicates that the electricity is being converted from alternating current (wall outlet) to direct current (sewing machine"

Sewing machine doesn't convert the AC wall current to DC. The tag on the sewing machine "AC/DC" means that the motor will run on either AC or DC current.

Rayjmo (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)rayjmo

I'm not sure you're right it doesn't convert one to the other, but it is correct that the machine will work when connected to either. I edited the article to reflect this.

Narrow Mind (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, it's almost certainly is back-pedalling for the slang interpretation (google "ac/dc bisexual") after they went big time. 96.243.13.36 (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Out of date

The Black Ice Section is out of date--71.59.65.226 (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Legacy

Does anyobody else find it strange that AC/DC doesn't have a legacy section? They have influenced plenty of bands and deserve one —Preceding unsigned comment added by Just Carmine (talk • contribs) 22:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

--unecessary as every musical style is influenced in one way or another by predecessors... and many musicians are legacy bearers. (Now if their legacy was extremely notworthy.. such as it led to a cure of cancer, or put an end to world hunger, or aided the cause of Civil Rights then it should be noted... but otherwise their legacy is just as equivicable to Madonna.) Legacy and notability do not mean the same thing. Without ACDC you wouldn't have Tenacious D, but without Elton John you wouldn't have ACDC, and without Bethoven, there might not have been any hard playing musical styles at all, such as eccentric piano playing and forced guitar (after all a piano is actually a string instrument.) 70.61.247.31 (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Songs

I think that a few of AC/DC's spng need a page for them selves-The Jack to be one of themIt's Me :) O Yea its me.. Washington95 (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Bon Scott - cremated not buried

Bon Scott was not buried at Fremantle Cemetery. His body was cremated. He has a small remembrance plaque next to an entrance dedicated to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wavydavy68 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

AC/DC should not be classified as metal music

The band members themselves have been quoted in saying they don't like it when people call them a metal band because that is not what they feel they truly are. Why don't we pay our respects to one of the greatest rock n' roll bands in history and not include "metal" in the genre info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.119.64 (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

good point they are not metal. Ishmaelblues (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Because several sources say that they are. And apparently, wikipedia doesn't care about the truth.

Check it out: WP:V Annoying, huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.228.129 (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

AC/DC's Name

Angus and Malcome didnt the name from a vacuum they found it from one of there sisters sewing machines. so someone please edit and change the page , thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancake9563 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a reference for this information. Where did you see that, or how do you know? Wikipedia needs to verify information and cite a reference to put it in an article. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Angus confirms this in this Australian interview at 1:35 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWzxawDQ_jk. Can this please be edited. (Dfor2797 (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC))

Changed to sewing machine using the source of the "Band Name Origins" website as evidence, although many, many other source confirm this. Probably just a typo that caused the "vacuum" reference because I find no evidence for it. But its fixed now. Bryanpeterson (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The name officially refers to types electrical current, but evangelicals claim its real meaning is "Anti-Christ/Devil's Child". It sounds asinine, but it may be worth mentioning as long as it's clearly labeled as an unfounded allegation, as it's in pretty wide circulation.

74.170.46.35 (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The underlying link that the flash reference goes to is this http://acdc.com/acdc101/php/essay.php?decade=70&page=1 Hald (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As stated at the begining of this post, the name originated from a label on a sewing machine belonging to Malcolm's and Angus' sister Margaret - not a vacuum cleaner. Dfor2797 cites (above) a youtube interview with Angus. I will cite the ABC (Australia) production "Its a long way to the top" (a history of Australian rock and roll) which states that the name came from the sister's sewing machine. I will also cite the official website <http://acdc.com/history/bio.php> which states "from the back of a sewing machine owned by their sister, Margaret." (and apparently in contradiction of the article at <http://acdc.com/acdc101/php/essay.php?decade=70&page=1>. Ajarntingtong (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Cameras at the concerts

I would like to take some pictures for this article at the up and coming AC/DC concerts in Sydney and Melbourne. I am actually at the front for 2 of the Sydney concerts and one concert in Melbourne. Just wondering if anyone knows if you are allowed to take cameras into these events. Adam (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

They got the idea for the name ac dc from Angus' and Malcom's sister's sewing machine, not a vaccum cleaner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.247.182 (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That is true but it does not answer my question . Adam (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wondering why this comment was posted under this topic? Unsigned too >_> Ozkidzez91 (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Layout

Could somebody firgure out why I'm getting a horizontal scrollbar on this article and why the sound boxes chop letters off words? I suck at page formatting. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

AC/DC Tours?

Why is there no article and link to a page that list all of AC/DC's tour info? Also there are only articles from Flick of the Switch tour, to Black Ice tour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.177.47 (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Six fair-use sound files too many

Hi, sorry to be a nuisance, but WP:NFCC requires minimal use and that reference be made in the text to features, musical or auditory, of the files, so they're integrated "educationally". Can someone please deal with both issues? Probably three or four files would be safer, and text needs to be written. Tony (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The band has 2 distinct eras with Bon Scott and Brian Johnson. Most of the files do nothing for the article. I suggest keeping only two sound files. The "It's a long Way" file and the "Back in Black" file are both significant. The rest can be removed. GripTheHusk (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, no other posts, so I'm bringing this more in line with WP's copyright policy by removing the other four files (they still don't adequately nest into descriptive text about the sound, but this is a start. If anyone objects, please DO NOT REVERT, but take it up at WT:NFC, linking to this subsection. Tony (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Nationality confusion... Again!

I'm still confused, are these really an Australian band? Are they a British band? Are they an Anglo-Australian band? Are they a British band formed in Australia? Are they a Australia band that relocated to the UK? was australia a stepping stone to them? Is Brian Johnson Australian? Are the Young's Australian? how Many british/Aussie Members are there? Is there any proof of the band itself claiming them to be british or aussie? --Tukogbani (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This never got discussed because an argument was provoked, set off from where we started? --Tukogbani (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I removed the side discussion about ettiquette. O_o And they are an Australian band who eventually moved to the U.K.

It wasn't irrelevant at the time. I've moved it to my talk page, since it's still relevant to me. The discussion itself has been had before. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

But HOW are they Australian? The nationality of an awesome band or musician is frequently argued on Wikipedia when there are two or more possibilities. But looking at the current and former members, I can only find one current member and one former member who are Australian. The rest are English, Scottish and Welsh. Can't get much more British than that. So, my question is, how are they an Australian band? How can this be backed up with verifiable sources? If it can't be, then perhaps we need to take a pragmatic approach and either remove any nationality from the band (as it's unverifiable) or take the approach that the members are mostly British, so it's a British band. I'm happy with either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.35.235 (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Do we really have to have this discussion every week? The Youngs are Australian citizens, and so was Bon Scott. The band formed in Australia with five Australian citizens. Yes, some members were born in the UK but birthplace doesn't always determine nationality. Reliable sources are everywhere on the internet. Why do people insist on this concept of "born in the UK = British"? It's warped. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how the late Bon Scott's nationality comes into play here. Brian Johnson is the lead vocalist not Scott, and Johnson is not Australian. (24.62.126.170 (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

Past members' nationalities are also relevant. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Four of the five members are British-born - only the drummer was born in Australia ... how are they an Australian band and not British, or least British/Australian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.126.179 (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, the country you are born in is not necessarily the country of which you are a citizen. The Youngs are Australian citizens, as well as Rudd. Mark Evans and Bon Scott were also Australian, and the band was formed in Australia by a group of Australians. The "British/Australian" argument has also been made before and consensus was against it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Backtracks

There is a pending announcement from the band that there is a new release called Backtracks. It may either be a compilation or boxed set. More info will be available Tuesday. It should be released in November. When we have the facts, then they can be added here. FotoPhest (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• There is information about backtracks at acdcrocks.com and backtracks P.o.o.r.P.h.o.t.o.r.e.m.o.v.i.l.s.t. (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The name of the band

Malcolm and Angus Young developed the idea for the band's name after seeing the initialism "AC/DC" on a vacuum cleaner.

Why is this line here, when ALL of the sources by AC/DC members themselves refer to the "sewing machine" rather than a "vacuum cleaner"? ...as in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPa5n8YqtNU (the reference point is at 6:54) AND ALSO, it was their sister Margaret (then Margaret Young, now Margaret Horsburg) who refferred the name AC/DC to the band. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

AC/DC is

Hurrah! Now if this article can get it right, perhaps, Genesis and U2 articles can say "X is a band" and not "X are a band". I mean, if you were talking about a Multinational petrol organisation, you wouldn't say "Exxon-Mobil are a company", now would you? Just because a mistake is repeated again and again does make the error right. 164.36.44.4 (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"X is a band" is American English, "X are a band" is British English. Both are correct Racklever (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the Australian usage is? The article may need to be adjusted accordingly. The usual form is to say "X is an American band" and "Y are a British band". I've a feeling Australians use the British formation, but I'm not sure.GideonF (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Australians do use the British form. This comes up every time an American editor comes along believing that their way is the only way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(I'm an American) But, serious question, how can one say "The band are...." when "band" is obviously singular? "The band is..." while "the bandS are...". If an African American is the topic of an article, we don't insist on writing "We be goin'" just because a particular group favors some colloquialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.14.2 (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC) I would add that I do understand the distinction be a collective noun and a noun of multitude. Ex: 1. The jury consists of twelve persons (collective noun - singular). 2. The jury were divided in their opinions (noun of multitude - plural).

However, this doesn't seem to be a case of that. I see plural conjugation even when it is obvious that we are speaking of the band as a collective. Ex: 1. The band ARE considering whether to break up. (obviously we are talking about the members individually) 2) The band IS popular. (obviously referring to the collective) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.14.2 (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's slightly different when the subject is "the band". In British English, it's acceptable to take either the singular or the plural form of the verb. So use whatever seems most appropriate. But with band names, the verb always takes the plural. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone say STV *are* a Scottish Television Company? Would anoyone say Transport for London *are* an organisation? Would anyone say "Wikipedia are a multilingual, Web-based, free-content encyclopedia project based mostly on anonymous contributions"? I would say that Wikipedia allows dumbing down, and allows an minority of people to cite things are correct when they plainly is not.164.36.44.4 (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Let's take it a step further - let's have the person who changed "is" to "are" go through every article on Wikipedia and change every relevant "is" to "are". See how many people agree with the matter then. 164.36.44.4 (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian MoS (British En) [1] says Bands take a plural verb. So as per WP:BrE, an article about a Brit band should use plural. --Alastair Rae (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

164, if you don't understand a grammar point of your own language, then that is no-one's problem but your own. Furthermore, it is not your place to be adding "citation needed" tags to other people's comments. Who do you think you are? It might be worth going away and reading some Wiki guidelines. Every relevant "is" has already been changed to "are" - moreover, the vast majority of them were correct in the first place, having been written by people with a good grasp of grammar. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The citations were a bit over the top, so I apologise for that. However, you have rather made things personal with comments about my knowledge of grammar. I was commenting on the issue, not the people arguing their case. As to "all" "is" occurances having been changed to "are" , read below. That's just from British bands starting with numbers or the letter A.

10cc is an English art rock band; 28 Costumes, also known as the Cossies, is a Liverpool band; 4hero is an electronic music band from Dollis Hill, North West London; 52nd Street was an English jazz-funk band formed in Manchester in late 1980; Advantage - formerly Grown at Home - is a British ska punk band; Amazing Blondel is an English acoustic progressive folk band;

All yours. 164.36.44.4 (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you were the one pushing your point, rather aggressively, despite the fact you were wrong. As for the grammar errors in the band articles you pointed out, I'll get on to them. Maybe you'd like to help. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Having been through 70 or 80 band articles, I've only found about 10% to be wrong, so I don't think it's huge problem. I'll keep correcting them when I see them though. Obviously some people keep changing them back so, without having every British band article on my watchlist, some will sneak through. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

POV?

He became a member of the Easybeats, Australia's most successful band of the 1960s.

Shouldn't that be "neutralized"? Astronominov 13:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Depends whether it's based on fact or not, if it's based on austrailian record sales of the 1960s then no, it should stay, as it would be correct, however, if they weren't any higher selling than other bands in austrailia, well, get rid of it. Mcjm4796 (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Edited it to "He became a member of the Easybeats, one of Australia's most successful bands of the 1960s." until evidence proves the original author of that statement right. Muttdog (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Fan Zine!?

One of the most fanboyish band articles on Wikipedia....--115.167.84.73 (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Care to back that up with examples? It is a featured article so plenty of people disagree with your sentiment. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed dead link

Removed dead link to Billboard, replaced with Musicmight (Rockdetector) link. --Florentyna (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sister in law/Clarification and Consistency between related articles...

Margaret Horseburg (then Margaret Young)... is Angus and Malcom's older sister, not their sister in law, as it is written on the Angus Young article... I am changing the article to reflect this by deleting the "in-law" tag after sister, not only for accuracy, but also for consistency between articles. Thanks, 208.119.72.6 (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Metal

People keep taking out the description as Heavy Metal. This has to be resolved properly. Resolving it doesn't mean that we need to decide whether they are or are not heavy metal. It means that we need to decide how to write about it and what references to use. Encyclopaedia Britannica is not a good reference as it is a tertiary source but there will certainly be plenty of references saying both that the band are, and are not, Heavy Metal. We need to explain this. The issue is already covered quite well in the Heavy metal music article. I suggest we approach it in a similar way. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. I mean, they're certainly debated, but the people removing the tag are just run of the mill Wiki vandals. (Albert Mond (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

AC/DC are definately a metal band. Just because every '70s metal band now has the label of "Classic rock"(yes even Sabbath are often seen as just a general rock band by the public), it doesn't mean that they weren't metal. Rockgenre (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. In that case, all we need is a better reference for it which we can use too supplement the EB one. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Orkay. AllMusic's AC/DC page, Rolling Stone, and here's a 1982 article from The Ledger. I don't think we really need to use all of these to back up the claim (the people editing it out wouldn't care, anyway) but they're fine sources. (Albert Mond (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

They definitely weren't metal, and aren't. I don't think that's even debatable. But it's not about that, but providing a decent source. The unfair thing is that there are lots of sources to say a band is a particular genre, but you never get sources to say they're not. So it's skewed. In my view, the whole genre thing is way too subjective. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think otherwise. AC/DC definitely had (and has) metal songs, and they clearly had enough to be considered such in the 1970s and 1980s. I'm not saying that music journalists are always spot on, or even that they were spot on about AC/DC. I'm saying with absolute conviction that it is debatable, and besides the mainstream music journalists, and most mainstream music historians (as far as I know) there are very much musical reference points one could use in a debate to defend AC/DC's metalness. (Albert Mond (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

We'll agree to disagree then, but they certainly weren't considered metal in the 70s - I'd like to see a contemporary reference for that one. They just weren't bracketed with Sabbath and Priest etc at that time. It's a retrospective tag, made even more ludicrous by the fact that what constitutes metal changes with time. There are even 70s references to them being punk, but we're not advocating that, are we? The thing is, these journos are self-appointed experts with one opinion each, and any amount of "musical knowledge" doesn't change that. One opinion is one opinion - theirs, yours, mine, anyone's. Yet, obscurely, theirs count and no-one else's does. The band themselves passionately refute the metal tag, which seems to count for nothing here, oddly. Some hack working on a music mag says they're metal, then suddenly it's a fact worthy of an encyclopedia. It's nonsensical. It's not even like metal is clearly defined. Ten definitions of metal will be ten different definitions. That is not debatable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A quick search through Google's News Archives brings up two results from the 1970s which seemingly associate AC/DC with heavy metal music. Unfortunately, these are PayperView, so I can't confirm this. However, here's an article from 1980, and here are a bunch more. AC/DC was still fairly big in 1980 as far as I know, so I'd hardly say "heavy metal" is being used entirely in retrospect, here. "Punk" was also used on Grand Funk, and I expect many other hard rock bands. If "heavy metal" was being thrown around, "punk" was bouncing off the walls. The band also refutes "hard rock," and prefers to simply be called "rock n' roll." I think it's just ludicrous to act like there's no difference between what AC/DC does, and what Buddy Holly did. Deep Purple members have also rejected the "heavy metal" tag (and more soundly the "classic rock" tag, as "classic rock" is not a genre). A lot of people consider AC/DC metal. I also disagree on metal not being clearly defined. Sure, there's some subjectivity to it, but if someone goes out and says Sabbath isn't metal, they are wrong. No exceptions. The thing is, a lot of people just choose to ignore it when a band is following all the rules of heavy metal, but is from the wrong time, or the wrong place, or they don't like said band. The part where it becomes subjective, in my opinion, is in how much metal a band must release to be "metal" enough. (Albert Mond (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

Those articles described the band as a lot of other things as well, plus all those sources are American. I'm wondering if metal meant something slightly different in the US, since most of the heavier "metal" of the 70s were British. Not sure about that. You'll never find AC/DC in the metal section in the UK, to my knowledge. If it's ludicrous to suggest that Buddy Holly was the same genre as AC/DC, it's also ludicrous to suggest that AC/DC and Black Sabbath are the same genre. They share nothing musically but volume, and given that Sabbath are squarely metal, it's logical to grade AC/DC as something other than metal, rather than to pretend Sabbath are something else. A lot of people do consider AC/DC metal. A lot of people don't. So why should those in favour get their way? Sure Sabbath are metal, but some bands fall neatly into these ill-defined genres, and some like AC/DC do not. I'd like to know which of the "rules of heavy metal" AC/DC follow. In fact, I'd like to see where the rules of heavy metal are laid down. Or any other genre. The whole thing is utterly unencyclopedic. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, heavy metal has no real definable sound. Think about how wide the spectrum is for bands cited under the term. Do Bon Jovi(even though I never considered them a metal band) sound anything like Naplam Death? Do Iron Maiden sound like Faith No More? There really is no set of rules as far as this music goes. Rockgenre (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite. So if it's indefinable, why are we putting bands in categories that we can't define? One opinion: Bon Jovi aren't metal at all as you rightly say; Napalm Death are whatever subgenre of metal that involves grunting and being weird; FNM are that funky type of 90s metal, while only Iron Maiden are squarely and unarguably heavy metal. But then that's just my view. Seems to be that heavy metal is at least as wide a coverall genre as pop is, and about as accurate and helpful. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There are tons of genres with subgenres. Napalm Death is death metal and grindcore. Faith No More is alternative metal. Iron Maiden is NWOBHM style heavy metal. What these three (and possibly Bon Jovi, though I don't consider them metal, either) have in common is that they are effectively branches of the metal tree. They don't sound like heavy metal did a decade or two before them, not because the core definition metal itself has changed, but because they came a decade or two later. (Albert Mond (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

American metal was hardly any less heavy than British metal. I'm not sure what a "metal" section is about. What is in UK metal sections? Do they stock a lot of older stuff, or just the big names of the newer stuff (such as Metallica, Cannibal Corpse, Gorgoroth, etc)? A band can have multiple genres associated with them, and AC/DC very clearly did more hard/heavy rock stuff than they did metal stuff. Are you implying that Buddy Holly was as 'hard' as AC/DC on some level? I think that on everything but mood, AC/DC had more in common with Sabbath. I say that because AC/DC, lyrically, followed a more traditional "party" style, while Sabbath were almost always dark lyrically. However, both have hard rock in common. If I were going to compare AC/DC to any '70s metal band, it'd probably be Judas Priest. The difference here is that AC/DC don't seem to take themselves as seriously. Of course, I'll acknowledge that AC/DC had less "metal" material than Priest. It's not logical to say that AC/DC is not metal on the basis that Sabbath is. Sabbath wasn't the only metal band in the '70s and '80s, and there are certainly differences in different bands. The reason those in favour get their way is because the music journalists consider AC/DC a metal band, and to be perfectly honest, calling AC/DC metal is hardly ridiculous in a modern context, or a traditional context. As easy as it is to scoff at the journalists, they are professionals, represent much of mainstream thought, and most do know what they're doing. It would be unencyclopedic not to include "heavy metal" in the tags when both the people who dedicate their careers to music, and much of the public are in agreement that AC/DC was relevant to the heavy metal genre. If we can assume that metal is a louder, more aggressive, more menacing, evolution of hard rock, then some of AC/DC's material falls into this category. As the article implies, AC/DC is more hard rock than heavy metal. However, a band can have more than one genre, as the article also shows.(Albert Mond (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

I would best describe AC/DC as a blues progressive hard rock band. I have a reference for that (well for the blues and hard rock part anyway), though I can't remember specifically which page or chapter; "Why AC/DC Matters" by Anthony Bozza. I do not in my mind classify them as metal; in my opinion AC/DC is a band that plays rythm and blues chords and "melodies", for lack of a better term, within their chosen paradigm of song performance, no matter how hard/soft or dynamic their songs are, they have always been "rock and roll." After all Angus Young has often attributed his inspiration to Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis. But if anything they are more stylistically inclined to play blues and jazz sounds, although at a dynamic range, then they are to play metal. One thing that seperates AC/DC from metal is that of consistency. Metal is experimentational (Albert above me sort of stated that in a round about way by mentioning Judas Priest), originating from the same rooted-styles as AC/DC (i.e. Jazz, Folk, and Blues), but becoming infused with punk-rock and now alternative. AC/DC has always been rock and roll; there is no infusion of any sub-genre; except for those (primarily rythm and blues) that they had been infused with from their very start in 1974. However this is my opinion, but there are good quotes in the book that I presented here, that I believe brings a new insight into the metal vs. classic rock label for AC/DC. I don't think Bozza states anything about the metal label directly, but he does mention the primary influences that the band had/has; two of which I mentioned above. Thanks, ( Wolfpeaceful) Oh and by the way Albert, "AC/DC" never cared about being serious... conformity was never an issue they desired to pursue.) I'm Bisexually biased... get over it! 16:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

While on subject of Priest and AC/DC, might I say that | Even Rob Halford considers AC/DC a metal band. Rockgenre (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

AlbertMond, yes, I was referring to the metal section in record stores, which in the UK, tend to stock newer bands like those you mentioned, plus Sabbath and a few selected older bands. No AC/DC or Led Zep. Of course I'm not implying that Buddy Holly was as hard as AC/DC, though what AC/DC were doing in the beginning was little more than slightly-rocked up Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry stuff. A comparison between AC/DC and Judas Priest is interesting, as I don't really see any similarities at all. Priest were much darker lyrically, a significant feature of heavy metal, plus there were the long instrumental sections within songs, theatrical vocals and a progressive, experimental musical style. As Wolfpeaceful pointed out, Priest took on influences from all quarters, as all heavy metal bands do - there is a strong experimental vein in the music of Priest, Sabbath, Maiden, all that stuff. AC/DC were doing nothing but heavy expansions on the Chuck Berry / Rolling Stones theme throughout the 70s, and are doing basically that even today. Three or four minute songs with a basic blues structure, verses and choruses, solo in the middle. Rock 'n' roll. No instrumentals, no ballads, no epics, no technological wizardry, no lyrical imagery - all of which are features of heavy metal. They've never experimented for five minutes, and there's no influence whatsoever from any other genre but blues and rock 'n' roll. Heavy sound does not equal heavy metal. Metal is a more distinct genre than just loud guitars and beefy amps. Aside from the music, most metal bands like Judas Priest look like heavy metal bands. There's an image that's upheld throughout. The image was a later thing, coming in basically with the NWOBHM movement, featuring the typical metal clothes and experimental visual vibe. AC/DC always looked, and still look like five blokes from down the pub - jeans and t-shirts, rather like the very similar Status Quo. No-one ever says they're metal and they're every bit as heavy as AC/DC. Even Sabbath experimented with their clothes back in the 70s - it's a feature of metal.

Music journos do what they do. Some do it well, some don't. But I've yet to see someone define heavy metal in a specific way, and then explain how both AC/DC and bands like Slayer and Napalm Death all fit into it together. Instead of casually slapping the metal tag on to AC/DC, how about trying to justify it? They don't seem to do that conclusively and use metal as a convenient catch-all term for noisy bands. If that's the case, then heavy metal is a totally useless woolly term, and we should be concentrating on the earlier-mentioned subgenres. What subgenre of heavy metal do people think AC/DC are? I'd also like to know which part of AC/DC's catalogue can be described as heavy metal, and more importantly, why? Where does their music depart from being hard rock and become heavy metal, and where's the evidence for it?

I'd like to say I agree with Wolfpeaceful's post, and I'll add that if AC/DC's opinion of their genre is not particularly important, then neither is Rob Halford's. Legend that he is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not a band was influenced by the past generation of metal, it doesn't change whether that group is or aren't metal. Take Motorhead, a band who like AC/DC didn't care for the label, too took most of there influence for Berry, Little Richard, etc.

As for metal's wide defintion why don't we compare metal to punk for a second. Do pop punk bands like Green Day sound at all similar to hardcore bands like Bad Brains? And emo bands like Fugazi didn't appear to have any roots in punk ancestors like The Ramones, Stooges, New York Dolls, etc. It's evolution that these styles get wider, which is why in my opinion AC/DC are definately a metal band. AC/DC don't have to be some kind of noisy extreme, with a singer who quit his day job on Sesame street to be metal. Rockgenre (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you've really understood the points I made. I'm not talking about influence from other metal bands, I'm talking about what makes a band metal. Yes, Motorhead took influence from Berry and Little Richard etc, but it's barely recognisable given the pysch rock influence they took as well, and the progression from Hawkwind. Motorhead's sound did develop towards thrash as well. AC/DC took no other influence than rock 'n' roll and 60s pop rock bands like the Stones and the Who, and did not develop a progression towards anything else.

I don't know anything about punk, to be honest. I wouldn't know Bad Brains from Fugazi from anything else. What is a total non-sequitur is your conclusion that because genres get wider, then AC/DC are metal. Explain why AC/DC are metal. What characteristics of metal (characteristics not found in hard rock bands) do they uphold? Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you mentioned them taking a majority of their sound from the Stones, Berry, etc., but what I'm saying it that despite those influences their sound has heavier. What makes them metal you ask? Four words: "They are loud enough." It's just that simple. Bands that are just a hard rock acts would be more along the lines of Ten Years After, The Black Crowes, James Gang, etc. And let's not forgot how many metal bands have basically copied the AC/DC formula(see Accept.) Rockgenre (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c x2) This was exactly the criteria I believed you were using. Turning up the volume does not constitute turning into metal. A loud band is not per se a metal band. That's rubbish. Where is the evidence for that? Heavy metal is miles more complicated that just being loud. Taking a rock 'n' roll formula and making it louder and heavier just makes you heavy rock. Metal is intrinsically a different formula altogether. Rock + more volume does NOT = metal. That's hard rock 1.01. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Why don't I ask you your definition of metal? What are the first bands that come into your mind when you hear the term? And what do you believe on what would make a band qualify for the label of a heavy metal act? Rockgenre (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I've touched upon it already in previous posts - metal is a style, a progressive style of music which is indeed characterised by loud volume, but also by dark lyrical themes, heavily distorted instruments and vocals, a highly technical approach to song structure often with fast and complicated rhythms and harmonies, often accompanied by midsong changes in tempo and sometimes long instrumental sections with long structured soloing. Examples of bands that concentrate hard on all that stuff - Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Metallica, Megadeth, (any number of thrash acts), Uriah Heep, Lucifer's Friend, Pentagram, Anthrax etc. Bands that don't - AC/DC, particularly under Bon Scott, fail under most of those criteria. Bon Jovi / Europe / Warrant etc - too soft, too formulaic and non-progressive. Cream and other blues bands that just made blues a bit louder. Hendrix was more metal. Metal is a style of music, not just any other given style with the volume turned up. Under that criteria, almost all bands have produced heavy metal at times, including Fleetwood Mac, Status Quo, Captain Beefheart, Taste, Focus and other clearly non-metal acts. Even the Beatles and the Stones have been loud; pop-rock bands like Big Star and Fountains of Wayne can be very loud, but no-one says they're metal. It's not just about volume, it has to be style and musical structure among other things as well. I realise the standard definition seems to be "loud music" but that's an incredibly weak, subjective definition. Bretonbanquet (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't heavy rock heavy metal if it's just down to volume? Heavy rock is loud. Name a band you'd describe as heavy rock and explain why they're heavy rock and not heavy metal. Where does heavy rock become loud enough to be called heavy metal? 10 on a Marshall amp? Bretonbanquet (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I agree with the groups you mentioned as metal, but now shall we compare AC/DC and Zep(while on subject bands you don't consider metal)? Let's take Uriah Heep against Zeppelin, do you honestly think think that "Sweet Lorraine" is heavier than "Communication Breakdown"? I would certainly see Zep as the heavier band in this case. And lets compare LF to our group of strapping, young, Australian lads(not that I'm trying to single out bands that John Lawton has been in). I personally consider "Back in Black" heavier than "In the Time of Job When Mammon Was a Yippie." Bottom line is that opinions vary. Also, you mentioned Megadeth. Dave Mustaine has identified AC/DC as metal numerous times and in particular the Bon's time in the band. Rockgenre (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Heep vs Zep? Right, you pick a trippy Heep track and put it up against a moderately heavy Zep song. So compare "Gypsy" [2] to "Thank You" or half of Led Zeppelin 3 while they were fannying about in the countryside being okey-folky. "Gypsy" is heavier than anything Zep ever did. Anyone can find a soft track from any 70s metal band. Sabbath wrote at least a dozen tracks that were nowhere near metal but no-one questions the band's metal credentials. Heep's "Bird of Prey" was the template for half of Judas Priest's back catalogue, right down to the Halfordesque vocals - later metal bands sounded exactly like this. [3]. Re: LF and AC/DC - it's not just about the heaviness, that's what you don't get. How about "Ride the Sky"? [4] clearly more metal than AC/DC, particularly with Bon Scott. AC/DC came via the blues-rock route and never left it - Chuck Berry, the Stones, the Who etc. So did bands like Cream and Free. Free made blues as heavy as anything else available in the late 60s. What I think of as heavy metal came more directly from stuff like Arthur Brown in the 60s [5] and this very heavy track by Gun in '69 [6] heavier than anything Zep did, with no obvious blues influence. Add Zep, Sabbath, Deep Purple, Heep, Atomic Rooster, stuff like Leafhound [7] and Lucifer's Friend, and you get the progression into the 70s that produced Priest and Maiden and the rest. The blues and boogie rock bands like AC/DC and Status Quo were definitely an influence too, but they were a different style altogether, it's really that simple and it's right there in the music. Frankly I think it's rather obvious. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. First off, to Wolf, I'd hardly say AC/DC weren't "experimental" by the standards you used. To be perfectly honest, while there certainly was experimentation in first wave metal, it wasn't very experimental by '70s standards, or today's for that matter. Yes, it covered some new ground, but in the presence of prog and psyche any experimentation would have been completely dwarfed, especially considering that most of the biggest groups with the metal label at the time (such as Sabbath, Zeppelin, and -early on- Grand Funk Railroad) were very much in a blues vein, above all other non-rock influences. In addition AC/DC did (perhaps to a lesser extent) cover some unusual ground with certain songs. I wouldn't really say songs like Thunderstruck, Hell's Bells, and other heavier AC/DC songs fit into a traditional blues-based rock 'n' roll mold. Finally, I'm aware that AC/DC didn't intend to be a really serious group.(Albert Mond (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

What did the other metal bands experiment with besides jazz, r&b, and hard rock? (Also, please don't cut my posts in half)(Albert Mond (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

In response to Breton, I did mention (I believe) that Priest was darker lyrically. Alright, maybe I didn't, I'm not entirely sure. However, I disagree with your implied notion that metal is inherently dark, and I'd also like to say that metal is much more defined by a sound than a type of lyrics. If Electric Funeral weren't about nuclear holocaust, or anything in that vein, it would still be a metal song. Same really goes for Paranoid. There are even specific genres of metal which lean towards subjects that aren't necessarily "dark" (lyrically or musically) such as power metal and glam metal. I don't think influences are all that important when the product does not sound entirely like the influence. How many of AC/DC's influences screamed like Brian Johnson? AC/DC's format wasn't really as standardized as you're saying, either. You can look at what I said to Wolf for more on that. The 'metal' image was hardly a later thing. Sabbath, BOC, Alice Cooper, Uriah Heep, KISS and even proto-metal groups like Coven all had a 'metal' dress style. That AC/DC didn't really says little for the music, and I'd like to repeat that they didn't like being called 'hard rock' or 'heavy metal,' anyway. They were obviously playing hard rock, and according to most, were playing metal. How they dress means very little. On that note, there are contemporary bands who do consider themselves metal who don't conform to a traditional heavy metal style. "Status Quo. No-one ever says they're metal and they're every bit as heavy as AC/DC." Can you give me a heavy Status Quo song to back that up? (Albert Mond (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC))

I hold the view that metal is generally dark, and I don't think it's debatable. Dark lyrical themes are clearly intertwined with the music and are a connected part of it, which is exactly why Electric Funeral is about a nuclear holocaust instead of being about a happy family trip to the beach. I struggle to differentiate between power metal and other types of metal, it seems very indistinct. Some so-called glam metal isn't really metal at all, in my view, (Van Halen??) but that's another story. Your point about influences seems very misguided to me - unless something sounds exactly like its influence then the influence isn't important? There were plenty of blues screamers who were able to give Brian Johnson a run for his money, like Howling Wolf for instance. Johnson screamed with his pre-AC/DC glam rock band anyway, he just screams. AC/DC did very little to the blues rock dynamic as purveyed by their influences other than to increase the volume and beef up their methods. The style itself remained the same. I haven't seen this quote where the band say they're not hard rock. Re: Status Quo - I can pluck any from the early 70s, such as "Little Lady" (1974) [8] or "Paper Plane" (1972) [9] - a very hard boogie rock that never touched heavy metal. And no-one thinks that it did. Call SQ heavy metal over here and you'd be laughed out of the room. We look at them much like I suspect Americans view Lynyrd Skynyrd or ZZ Top. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You're missing my point in your first sentence. I said that if Electric Funeral had happy lyrics, it would still be a metal song. Dark or menacing musical tone is much, much, much more important to metal than the lyrics are (though not necessary in some metal). This is same with the vast majority of genres. Music defines it, not lyrics. Power metal has uplifting music with an aggressive heavy metal technique, I'd say. I do know I have no trouble telling what is and isn't power metal most of the time. Van Halen wasn't ever glam metal, and it's rare that I hear someone associate them with it. Their early stuff was just traditional metal and hard rock, then I think they went more in a straight heavy/hard rock direction right before Hagar joined. Can't confirm that, though, as I don't remember anything from Hagar era, and I haven't heard much of late David Lee Roth era. I saw you mentioned Warrant earlier as a not-metal-'glam-metal' group, and I'd like to say that I disagree with that notion. A few examples of what I'm talking about on Warrant: "Uncle Tom's Cabin", and everything I've heard from the album "Machine Gun" is on. I think you're judging some of these for hits or something. I dunno. I never said the influences weren't important. I said that someone can deviate enough from their influences as to get into another genre. On that note, according to AllMusic, AC/DC was influenced by Led Zeppelin and Blue Cheer among others. But that's AllMusic. Howlin' Wolf's style was completely different, if I remember correctly, and he never spent an entire song screaming the way Johnson did. Style didn't remain the same. Those Status Quo songs you listed are blatantly plain hard rock. They don't come near AC/DC's metal material (two examples of which I have already listed, please refrain from asking for them again). You seem so sensitive about the metal term that you haven't even comprehended why it comes after 'hard rock' in the tags. (Albert Mond (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

I understand your point perfectly well, I was elaborating on it. Van Halen / glam metal - I picked that up from glam metal. You did say influences weren't important when the product doesn't sound like the influence - scroll up. I know those SQ are hard rock - that's why I included them here. SQ are as blatantly hard rock as AC/DC - you don't agree and I'm tired of trying to explain it to you to be honest. Especially as it bears no relation to this article. Don't tell me what I do and don't comprehend, if you please - you'll have to accept that it's a case of differing opinions, not me failing to understand your points. Thank you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"Music journos do what they do. Some do it well, some don't. But I've yet to see someone define heavy metal in a specific way, and then explain how both AC/DC and bands like Slayer and Napalm Death all fit into it together."

Slayer and Napalm Death are extreme metal. AC/DC is a debated first wave traditional metal group. They aren't supposed to sound exactly alike. Sabbath doesn't sound like either of those, either.

However, here's an extreme metal group covering AC/DC. Just throwing that out there. (Albert Mond (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

I didn't say they sounded exactly alike, I said they're being put in the same overall category, which leads us on to subgenres. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't cut off my posts. If you need a reference, quote me. No, that's not how it works. Heavy metal is a genre. Heavy metal is also an umbrella term. The same goes for hard rock, punk, rock, and every genre to ever have offshoots.(Albert Mond (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

Please don't tell me how to post. Unlike you, I was addressing your whole argument, not just snippets, so quoting would not be helpful. I bow to your superior knowledge of genres, a topic which is the epitome of futile argument, of which this is a good example. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"Instead of casually slapping the metal tag on to AC/DC, how about trying to justify it? They don't seem to do that conclusively and use metal as a convenient catch-all term for noisy bands."

I've already justified it.

"If that's the case, then heavy metal is a totally useless woolly term, and we should be concentrating on the earlier-mentioned subgenres. What subgenre of heavy metal do people think AC/DC are?"

They aren't a subgenre. None of the first wave were. You could call Sabbath and Pentagram doom metal, Rush and Uriah Heep progressive metal, and BOC and Deep Purple speed metal, but the only sure thing is that they were heavy metal. If you want me to be more specific, there's the useful term "traditional heavy metal." (Albert Mond (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

"Traditional heavy metal"? Where did that come from? Is that the subgenre for metal bands that aren't actually metal? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No. You've never heard that before? We even have an traditional heavy metal article on it. It's a useful term which says that a band is playing (ta da!) traditional heavy metal, as opposed to glam metal, black metal, etc. (Albert Mond (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

"I'd also like to know which part of AC/DC's catalogue can be described as heavy metal, and more importantly, why? Where does their music depart from being hard rock and become heavy metal, and where's the evidence for it?"

It doesn't depart from being hard rock. When did I say it did?(Albert Mond (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

You're saying that at least some of AC/DC's music is heavy metal which means that at some point they got too heavy to just be classed as hard rock in your view, no? So where's that point? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That point I already said. They have always been hard rock, and they've been hard rock/heavy metal since said albums. (Albert Mond (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

The fact of the matter is that a band can have multiple primary genres. Obviously, they've always had hard rock material, so "hard rock" goes ahead of "heavy metal" and "blues rock" in the genre tags. Albums-wise, I'd expect it started with Dirty Deeds or Let There Be Rock.(Albert Mond (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

Neither of those albums is anything like heavy metal. Dirty Deeds contains a straight blues, at least two pure-bred rock 'n' roll songs and some hard rock. Let There Be Rock is a hard boogie blues-rock album - nothing more than that. Powerage was largely blues-rock, certainly their bluesiest album. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Among others, I disagree with it. Also, I never mentioned Powerage. What's more, if having heavy blues elements (calling Dirty Deeds "straight blues" seems absurd to me) then Sabbath isn't metal either. (Albert Mond (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

I know you don't agree, and I know you didn't mention Powerage, it was merely an extension of my point. I was waiting for you to tell me that Powerage was heavy metal, or thrash, or jazz or something. What I said was Dirty Deeds contained a straight blues. You don't think "Ride On" is a straight blues. Why doesn't that surprise me? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"I'd like to say I agree with Wolfpeaceful's post, and I'll add that if AC/DC's opinion of their genre is not particularly important, then neither is Rob Halford's. Legend that he is."

The point I think Rockgenre was getting at is that Halford is inarguably a metal musician and fan. He plays metal, he listens to metal, he considers himself a metal purist, and he refers to AC/DC as relevant to "rock and metal." The reason AC/DC's opinion doesn't matter is, for one thing, they're in the absolute minority in not considering themselves hard rock or heavy metal. AC/DC is a band that does not care about genres. (Albert Mond (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

Being relevant to metal is one thing - being metal is another. I won't argue that all of this stuff is relevant to metal, including AC/DC. Comparing AC/DC to Judas Priest for example opens up radical, really radical differences. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Your first sentence here is irrelevant. By that logic, AC/DC wasn't rock, either. Comparing AC/DC to Judas Priest is only radical by 'metalness ratio' which doesn't matter, because the article very clearly lists 'hard rock' ahead of 'heavy metal.' (Albert Mond (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

No it isn't. Maybe you don't understand it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add that "heavy rock" isn't really a genre in-and-of itself, as far as I know. Seems more like a way of saying something's slightly harder hard rock. (Albert Mond (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC))

Huh? Since when is heavy rock not a genre? Gor a cite for that? But "traditional heavy metal" is a genre? Forgive me, but this is starting to sound ludicrous. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Christ. You're asking me to cite that something doesn't exist? Really? No. You prove it exists as more than just a term, please. (Albert Mond (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

It exists because a lot of people use it. Maybe you just choose to believe it doesn't exist because it doesn't fit into your argument. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming quite a Forum... not that I don't enjoy this discussion, and I admit I'm highly attracted to this topic, and I'm part to blame... but Wikipedia is not a forum. I do believe the discussion of AC/DC as heavy metal is relevant however to the article... but only in so much that we find references for the topic being discussed here. For those of you interested in Forum debate about AC/DC as being heavy metal or not, I'd recommend going to a non-wikipedia forum or website and continue the argument there. My only purpose of mentioning Bozza was in so much as that he is a recognizable journalist (a former Rolling Stone's editor) that has the view that AC/DC is simply a hard rock band. Its a twist on the typical journalistic interpretation of AC/DC as being Heavy Metal, that provides a compelling argument... and explaining why (in his opinion and mine) that AC/DC is not Heavy Metal. As someone else mentioned heavy chords, loud music, and amplification is not a formula that equals Heavy Metal If that were the case, when my niece played her rendition of Bethoven at her recital, then I guess you could say Bethoven is Heavy Metal, so long as it is played loudly and amplified. My intent on discussing the topic, was for the benefit of the article. There are truly sources that proclaim both sides to this debate... A good encylopedia would show both sides... With this though I do have one caveat: AC/DC IS a rock and roll band (I don't think that part is disputed, even here)... but people SAY that they are heavy metal: I'll use one of my southern slang phrases to exemplify what I mean: A Hen is a Chicken, but people say that that one chicken over there is a Hen. Yet, He would say otherwise, if 'twere he could talk." (If you don't know what I mean by that, ask me on my talk page.) Wolfpeaceful I'm Bisexually biased... get over it! 18:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Wolfpeaceful not least in that this is not the place for this discussion, a) because nobody is about to change their minds, and b) as far as Wikipedia is concerned, anything goes so long as there's a cite. If I were to get a job writing articles in a music magazine and wrote a piece arguing that AC/DC were prog rock, it could be cited here as fact. That's how ridiculous the whole thing is. People take music, an artistic, organic thing, and cram it into ill-defined, near-indefinable pigeonholes with no obvious purpose whatsoever. It's about the most futile and pointless thing I can think of to do. More importantly, it's very unencyclopedic. Anyway, I've responded above to the previous posts, as they were addressed partially to me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This conversation is relevant to the article. Therefore, it does not qualify as usage as a 'forum.' I never once argued that AC/DC's simply being loud = heavy metal. Please, stop throwing that straw man out here, because if you have an argument, you shouldn't need him. Bozza is obviously in the minority, as well. Why not skip the Wiki article on Dinosaurs, because some people think fossils were a trick planted by Satan?(Albert Mond (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

"If I were to get a job writing articles in a music magazine and wrote a piece arguing that AC/DC were prog rock, it could be cited here as fact." No. It wouldn't. For one thing, AC/DC has had solid cultural regard as a hard rock/heavy metal band since at least 1980. Don't think we don't know they've been called punk; we do. We don't include that in the tags, because it is not culturally relevant, it was tagged by a minority of journalists, and the editors do not agree with it. If you honestly think AC/DC has as much in common with Pink Floyd or King Crimson as with Led Zeppelin or Accept, you have no case. (Albert Mond (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

I apologize to Albert for cutting his post in half... I have deleted my previous post so that's albert's previous post is in full flow... Also for the benefit of the doubt, this is an issue that I would like very much for us to agree to disagree about. As noted above, its an issue that is even debated by those in the musical business, and perhaps unresolvable between parties. I've studied music for quite some time, and I understand that all music has overlaps, and similar sounding tonality between genres, but in my opinion A thing IS what it is, and not what it APPEARS to be like... hence the chicken and hen story. Albert I don't recall ever stating to use Bozza in the fashion you mention above (i.e using his opinions as facts. Instead, I just mentioned that I agreed with his opinion.) I was merely implying that he could be used in the Article for the one side of the issue of those who share the veiw that AC/DC are not heavy metal. (Yes he may be in the minority, but thankfully, wikipedia doesn't use a majority/minority rule to proclaim which authors we can or can't cite from.) Feel free to add the citations that cater to your side of the argument. As I said above, "There are truly sources that proclaim both sides to this debate... A good encylopedia would show both sides..." we don't have to proclaim either as FACT... all we need to do show is that the argument is valid, and back that up with citations for BOTH sides. But, I'm very passionate about AC/DC, (after all they are my favorite band) and I just couldn't help myself from throwing in my two-cents worth. Nonetheless, personal admiration aside, let us agree to disagree, and work on starting a propsal for an inclusion of the debate in the article (perhaps its own section is best.) But I do have a question... when did this debate first begin? What year, and by whom? I'm asking this, because I want to know where the argument first falls on the Heavy Metal timeline. Thanks. Wolfpeaceful I'm Bisexually biased... get over it! 20:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

To Albert - If you honestly think AC/DC has as much in common with Pink Floyd or King Crimson as with Led Zeppelin or Accept, you have no case. That's great, though I never, ever once mentioned either Pink Floyd or King Crimson. Or Accept, come to that. You know perfectly well I was using prog rock as an example of lunacy. If you're going to use something I didn't say as an argument for concluding that I have no case, it speaks volumes for your argument. You appear to be utterly convinced that you're right, so it's pointless going any further. In any case, no change to the article is in the offing. Furthermore, I'm starting to dislike your tone - "Oh Christ", for example. You come across like you're addressing a mental case. On another note - nobody accused you of saying "loud music = heavy metal". The strangely absent Rockgenre said that, and attacking that line of thought is thoroughly valid here. If you don't like that, then take it up with Rockgenre. Finally, you keep telling me I'm in the minority - that is a slightly bullying argument which I find disagreeable. Maybe in your country, that view is a minority one. Not in mine. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As a postscript to this discussion, at the traditional heavy metal article (don't worry, I found it myself), it mentiones the very problem we have here. Assayas's Rock Dictionary points out another ambiguity of the term "heavy metal" [8] and notes that in certain context, some may consider it as synonymous to hard-rock (most particularly in the USA)[9] when others consider it as a distinct genre from it. - Clearly in the US, heavy metal means something different to what it means in the UK.

The different use of the heavy metal term may not have the same meaning according to the context and the authors. In this regard, while some authors like Ian Christe have regarded hard rock bands like AC/DC, Queen, Led Zeppelin or Deep Purple as heavy metal in the original sense, others may reject this label for these bands for example Garry Sharpe Young in his Metal guide, who denies such bands to be heavy metal considering "they refused to extract themselves from the blues."[13].

My argument exactly.

Sharpe Young[14], Rob Halford[15], as well as Sam Dunn[16] rather trace back the origin of this genre to Black Sabbath exclusively, [17] characterized by the dropping of the blues roots. Rob Halford notes: "Black Sabbath absolutely invented heavy metal. I've read a lot of essays and such like about tracing it all back further and further. It's as though these writers want to claim the source, a bit like Dr. Livingstone and the source of the Nile. But as a purist metal musician, I can tell you- it's Black Sabbath." [18]

Mr Halford is correct. Dropping your blues roots was the way to heavy metal. If you didn't drop them, you aren't metal. Sabbath did that in the early part of their career and thus invented heavy metal. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sabbath had just as much blues in them as any other metal band of the time. I've said it before that most of their first album is a straight forward blues-rock album. The only thing in my opinion that separates AC/DC from other '70s metal bands was that they didn't cover the gothic-laden, dark themes that other bands were following. And AC/DC are still today widely viewed as a metal band. Even one of the books used as a source in this article is called AC/DC (Monsters of Metal) Rockgenre (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There were blues elements to Sabbath's first album, but it's not a blues-rock album. Anyway, as I said, they dropped their blues roots as they invented metal. You really still think that, aside from the dark gothic themes, AC/DC were just like Priest and Sabbath? That's amazing. I really don't remember Priest doing the Chuck Berry stuff. And here you go with the "widely viewed". Read the above extracts from the trad HM article - there are differing views. It's a minority view outside the US, I suspect. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This is hilarious, but Priest didn't do the Chuck Berry thing you say? Rockgenre (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry to dip into your mirth, you know that's really unrepresentative of their work. Every album that AC/DC did contains blatant Berryesque traits throughout, and Priest cover one Berry song. This leads you to believe that there's no difference between them. Priest also covered a Fleetwood Mac song, no doubt you believe they'll be hiring a female vocalist sometime soon. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't get what I was saying. The cover was the "hilarious" thing and Priest obviously have no roots in Chuck Berry. Again, back to AC/DC. I think your idea that "British people don't think AC/DC are metal." is absurd. Especially because of Rob's support on the subject. And we are still going to find more sources that say they arre metal than sources that say they aren't. Rockgenre (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I did misunderstand you. I disagree with you in what Halford is saying. He's implying that Sabbath invented metal because of their dropping of the blues roots, and metal doesn't go back any further than that. AC/DC's influences are entirely before that and deeply rooted in the blues. I don't know why you think the view you outline is absurd - I don't think you're really qualified to say that. We will find more sources to back your view up, and the majority of them will be American, because that's the commonly-held view there. It isn't here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"We will find more sources to back your view up, and the majority of them will be American, because that's the commonly-held view there. It isn't here."

Zing!

Double zing!

Also, our primary source on this article before this discussion was from Encyclopedia Britannica.(Albert Mond (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC))

This is exactly why I said "the majority" of them will be American, because I knew someone would trawl around looking for British sources. While you're still zinging (hope that didn't hurt), here's a quote from your latter source: But for others, AC/DC aren't a heavy metal act at all, they're a classic rock band - and calling them heavy metal is an act of treachery. In the age of economic and environmental meltdown, it's good to know some people still feel strongly about these things. Doesn't really back up your point too well does it? Typical fence-sitting Guardian. And bless the EB - not exactly known for their rock music expertise. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A two-second Google search is hardly "trawling." What's more, these are major English mags/news sources. I read the whole Guardian article, Bret. "Classic rock" is not a real genre in the first place, I'd like to add. Also, AC/DC is as debated in the US as it is in the UK. I know the EB isn't known for it's rock music expertise. If you would please scroll up, this debate was started on the questionability of EB, to which I quickly responded with several reliable sources. (Albert Mond (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC))

Here's the Guardian again, proving that their opinion on AC/DC's genre seems to vary somewhat. It also uses "heavy rock" as a genre, since you were asking for cites. "Heavy rock" in terms of music gets 818,000 hits on google. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"God" gets 489,000,000 hits on Google. "Heavy rock" redirects to "hard rock" on Wiki, and in my opinion for good reason. We don't really have an article specifically dedicated to "Downer rock," either.(Albert Mond (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC))

"I don't think you're really qualified to say that." Ask yourself, do you think anyone one who works for this site is qualified to be writing an encylopedia? Most of us are just average Joes. I claim to be no music expert and I hope I never will. And I think Albert has found more proof that this idea that only Americans see AC/DC isn't true. Rockgenre (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of patronising you, read what I said again. I never suggested you weren't qualified to edit an encyclopedia. We are all qualified to do that. What I said was that you're not qualified to say I think your idea that "British people don't think AC/DC are metal" is absurd. How could you possibly have any basis for that opinion? Ever even been to the UK? And to your last point, read my response above. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And I just read your response to Lep vs. Heep and it made me very curious. You believe Arthur Brown was heavy metal? While he was certainly an influence on metal which can be seen through the Alice Cooper band and KISS, but his Crazy World era sounded more like the Doors than Cheer, Sab, Purple, Zep, etc. Rockgenre (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Read my point again. I said metal came from Arthur Brown etc. I believe he was among the first to show the way towards metal, which you appear to agree with. My opinion is that Black Sabbath were the first heavy metal band. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sabbath, while one of the heavier bands of the time(albeit Sir Lord Baltimore and Budgie also have agruments for being heavier bands of the first wave), there is no way that they are the first heavy metal band in my opinion. With Vincebus Eruptum and Outsideinside released by Blue Cheer in '68 and Zep in '69 there is no way Sabbath were the originators of the style("Dazed and Confused" even has "Paranoid"'s intro.) Though Sabbath are the most influential metal band of all-time, no one can deny that. Rockgenre (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

We're way OT here, but while I love SLB and particularly Welsh Gods Budgie, I wouldn't say either were heavier than Sabbath - not consistently so anyway. Blue Cheer do have a claim, but I think they were a bit too psych rock at times while Sabbath cemented the metal vibe more consistently. Zep were only metal when they felt like it, like a lot of bands at the time, slipping into blues, folk or trippy hippy stuff regularly. The sound originated in maybe '67-'68, but Sabbath were, in my opinion, the first band to concentrate on metal to the exclusion of almost everything else, almost from the start. Only the occasional ballad or acoustic track, otherwise metal all the way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

We are definately forgetting what this discussion is about, but I can name a lot of Sabbath's ventures into music that certainly wasn't metal:

• "Planet Caravan"(their stab at psychedelia)
• "Changes"
• "Fluff"
• "Solitude"
• "Laguna Sunrise"
• "It's Alright"
• "Looking for Today"
• "Am I Going Insane (Radio)"(Synth crazy tune)
• "Supertzar"
• "She's Gone"(Techincal Ecstasy in general is a pretty poppy album)
• "Johhny Blade" "Breakout"
• "Air Dance"

etc.

But getting back to AC/DC, can you find several specific UK websites, books, etc. that completely dismiss the idea of AC/DC being metal? It would help your argument. Rg (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"Johnny Blade" not metal? Actually, I'm getting off-topic, there. Personally, I think that even if the "AC/DC is explicitly not metal" opinion is predominant in the UK, it's irrelevant.(Albert Mond (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC))

Opps, I actually meant to put "Breakout", not "Johnny Blade" Rockgenre (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've re-read the comments here, and I beleive it all boils down to one principle: The "FACT" is that AC/DC is rock and roll. The "OPINION" by some is that they are Heavy Metal. I believe it is better to say: "AC/DC is classified as Heavy Metal by Sounds Magazine" rather than "AC/DC is a Heavy Metal band." "AC/DC is a rock and roll band" is a non-disputed Fact, as far as I know, wheras, "AC/DC is a Heavy Metal band" is non-precise, but rather based upon opinion. Also, both veiws are held in both the UK and the USA, so I'm unsure where anyone gets the idea of a predominant Point Of View of this issue. I was hoping to qualify a section The Heavy Metal Debate, on the article, which would tailor both points of view (inluding, but not limited to UK references as well as American references. Wolfpeaceful 208.119.72.6 (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"I've re-read the comments here, and I beleive it all boils down to one principle: The "FACT" is that AC/DC is rock and roll. The "OPINION" by some is that they are Heavy Metal."

In that case, "rock and roll" could be argued with. Genres are based heavily on opinions. Since the professional majority tags them as hard rock/heavy metal, it is in their genre tags. Some people think Sabbath isn't metal. Some people think Zeppelin isn't metal. Some people think Deep Purple isn't metal. All (including AC/DC) have musical credentials which could get them classified as metal, and numerous journalistic sources to back it up.

""AC/DC is a rock and roll band" is a non-disputed Fact, as far as I know"

Not if you take "rock and roll" literally. I've never personally heard an AC/DC song that was really traditional rock and roll in the vein of Elvis or Chuck Berry. I believe they have that material, but puritanically speaking, it boils down to as much or less than their 'metal' material. We don't start the article with "AC/DC is a heavy metal band," and I've already pointed out in this conversation that we put hard rock ahead of that in their genre tags. The predominant point of view, if we're basing it on journalistic sources, is that AC/DC were metal enough for it to be among their primary genres. I'm sure there's never been a worldwide poll on whether or not AC/DC is metal, but in my experience it's a very mainstream, accepted view. (Albert Mond (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

I'd also like to add that I think we've already adequately covered the 'Is AC/DC metal?' debate in the heavy metal article. (Albert Mond (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

Someone who calls any AC/DC song heavy metal clearly does not understand hard rock and heavy metal music very well. I don't care if they're a journalist or a Wikipedian, they're blatantly wrong. Besides, this silly discussion has come up in this talk page over nine thousand times and will probably come up another 9 thousand times, so anything I say, or any of you say, will be a waste of time. I really don't see the problem in just saying they're a rock band and leaving it at that anyway; listing particular genres is generally a waste of time and creates needless debates like this one. Unfortunately my call for some sanity will most likely go unheeded and this debate will continue to rage on in stalemate for all eternity. This debate is a prime example of what's bad about being a Wikipedian and why a lot of decent contributors leave, like myself. Sigh. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 03:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Not in Itunes Store

Does anybody know that this song isn't in iTunes or Amazon.com? Can you rewrite the article explaining why it's not in any of them?

when will Wikipedia admin amend the AC/DC article home page to correctly state that AC/DC are a British Band or as compromise a British/Australian Band? This action has be taken by Wikipedia for other bands such as Dragon after similar debate about nationality, the country of orign or where the firt 'hit'was recorded. Wikipedia pretty quickly amended the Dragon article entry from New Zealand to New Zealand/Australian. Who makes these calls and why are these changes inaccurate and inconsistent? Sort it out please. (kiwi) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.49.116.182 (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What has it got to do with Wiki admin? It's your opinion that AC/DC are a British band. We've had this discussion a thousand times and consensus among editors is what you see in the lead paragraph. Why do you think AC/DC are a British band? The majority of the band's members have been Australian citizens. Wikipedia does not "take action" or "amend" anything. Editors do it in line with consensus. And sign your comments. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, read the already posted discussion on the band's nationality before reposting similar information. Ozkidzez91 (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi ACDC have no songs available digitally and you can only get them on CD as it can be illegal to download them from other places buy the CD and then pt it on your computer if you want. Dont bother to get songs from a band that is called ACDB that is not a error it is a cover band and the songs are no way as good as those of ACDC. I think this should also be mentioned in the article so please{| class if you know more put it in the article.Tortuga135 (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Acca Dacca the tribute band

Is it worth noting in the article that there is an Australian AC/DC tribute band called Acca Dacca? Ozkidzez91 (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And another called ACDB (Dont Be fooled)Tortuga135 (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

AC/DC are an Australian rock band

The subject line is the AC/DC article opening entry. It is erroneous & slightly offensive. Accurate information has been presented throughout the AC/DC article 'discussion' entries. The information presented clearly states that original members of AC/DC were British born. In addition the AC/DC line-up has remained British. Being new to Wikipedia processes I have no idea on how these debates are resolved and who adjudicates. I have noted on many other Wikipedia discussion pages similar debates. Clearly many people from around the world are frustrated with inaccurate claims and changes made by Wikipedia which alter the nationality of their countries artists/bands. Its eaily resolved if Wikipedia include the country of birth of every band member. In addition for bands with lesser status than AC/DC the debate appears to end quickly as a result of Wikipedia changing the article entry. An example of this is the Dragon entry being quickly changed from New Zealand to New Zealand/Australia. This change resulted from subjective debate about where Dragon first recorded or had a 'hit'. These discussions were highly opinionated (short on facts) but still resulted in Wikipedia changing the country of orgin and as a result now infer that an iconic New Zealand band was also Australian in origin! The facts published by Wikipedia state that Dragon were established in New Zealand several years before the band moved to Australia - to record. Its states that each band member was a New Zealander by birth. Wikipedia is therefore inconsistent as their facts state that AC/DC are a British band (by birth) and that AC/DC recorded some early material in Australia & then quicly left Australia to return to their homeland. So why is it that Wikipedia are reluctant to change the AC/DC entry from Australia to British or perhaps British/Australian but Wikpedia are very quick to change the facts for lesser bands such as Dragon. Once again the facts published by Wikipedia stated that the nationality of the original or key AC/DC band members was British & clearly 'not' Australia. (fact) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiltedscottishkiwigrant (talk • contribs) 23:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

First, sign your comments using four tildes (~). Second, as has been explained before, "Wikipedia" itself changes nothing. No-one "adjudicates". All changes are made by individual editors in line with the consensus reached between them after a discussion. This might explain to you why articles are not consistent with each other. Furthermore, what happens in one article has no bearing on another article. Each article is discussed individually.

Those members of AC/DC that were born in the UK and moved to Australia as small children were raised as Australian citizens. Place of birth does not denote nationality, so do not confuse the two. The band was formed in Australia by Australian citizens. Two members of the first stable line-up were born in Australia, and one of those is still a member of the band. Contrary to your claim, each band member's articles clearly state their nationality, with Scott and the Youngs accurately described as Scottish-born Australians. To say that Scott and the Youngs "quickly" left Australia is incorrect. They spent as long as 20 years there before briefly spending time in the UK in the late 70s, with the Youngs then leaving again. Only one AC/DC album has been recorded in the UK, with five in Australia. Finally, countless reliable references exist for AC/DC being an Australian band. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks UTC - whoever and wherever you are that was quick. Very impressive response time so I'm guessing this disussion must be important to you. Your response is full of misinformation & very light on hard facts. You are clearly running an agenda. A little reminder - you can't change ones place of birth. The passport's AC/DC band members carry in 2010 matters little. What matters the most in any border/passport/nationality transaction is your place of birth. The members of AC/DC we most identify with were/are British, they all speak and sound 'British' they state that they are a British band (March 2009 'E'). Countless publications and online information (google results 11/01/2010) state that AC/DC are a British band and acknowledge the misinformation being pushed that they are Australian. Countless published articles since the 1970's state that AC/DC is a British band. A band (and its producer) can record wherever it wants - it does not mean the band can be claimed as being nationals of that country. Taking your theory a little further- because Wings recorded Band on the Run in Lagos Nigeria and lived there for awhile, somehow this fact allows Nigerians to claim that Paul McCartney is English born/Nigerian and that 'Wings' was a Nigerian band. Or perhaps UTC you will argue about that the length of residency in another country formally overides ones country of birth. UTC it is all about consistency and credibility. The rhetoric you are using to drive your opinions would appear to be inconsistent with the fact based views raging approx 2 pages above this screen. So whoever has the skills to change the article's opening comments to reflect the fact that AC/DC is British needs to get onto it. I'll now give Wikipedia a miss after this entry and put it down to gaining 'online 'experience.(scot) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiltedscottishkiwigrant (talk • contribs) 02:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

AC/DC formed in Australia. The band was born in Australia to a group of legal Australian citizens. It is not a UK band.(Albert Mond (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC))

AlbertMond, you are correct. I believe that a) the continued failure of the above editor to even sign his comments, despite being asked to twice, and b) the fact that he/she addressed me throughout as "UTC" despite my username being clear for all to see, speaks volumes. That, plus the failure to assume good faith and to then ply an argument completely untroubled by any facts. In fact I've rarely read a post so devoid of any sense. Apparently now the passport you carry has no bearing on your citizenship. Interesting stuff! Must get on to the Home Office about that one... And if you think the Young brothers don't have Australian accents, like Bon Scott did, then that's astounding. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet you appear in other sections of the AC/DC site e.g. the nationality debate raging 3 screens above this one. You obviously upset people very easily. Your sarcasim is offensive & cyber bullying. I'd encourage you & Albertmond to read what others have to contribute much more carefully; acknowlege their comments and accept their right present content which if accepted might take an article in another direction. If you apply these people skills then others should empathise more strongly with your own assertions/opinions. In parting the facts - the key AC/DC members were/are British born, they are therefore a British band that formed in Australia. Visit the Bee Gee's wikipedia site to see how the AC/DC article might open - the BG's relationship with Australia is analogous to key AC/DC members.(scot) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiltedscottishkiwigrant (talk • contribs) 07:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Debate 'raging'? What? From what I can tell, most of the posts there are about two years old, save your posts which were made just recently. Bret's hardly any more offensive than a usual Wiki editor would be, and accusing him of "cyber bullying" is absurdly over-sensitive. The sentence immediately following that one just doesn't make all that much sense. Calling it a "British band that formed in Australia" also makes little sense. The band members were Australian citizens. Angus was only eight years old when his family moved to Australia. Malcolm was ten. They formed AC/DC a decade later in Australia. (Albert Mond (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC))

I'm still not sure how someone could possibly be offended that AC/DC are being called an Australian rock band, despite them declaring themselves that this is so. That's like me taking offense that someone called Bretonbanquet an appreciated contributer to Wikipedia. Also, please read the previous discussions on this topic. It is obvious that there will be no change to this, and further argument is pointless. And finally, it is not one's place of birth that is the most important thing, it is the place they grew up and matured, and for AC/DC's majority of original members, that was Australia. ozkidzez91 (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Kiltedscottishkiwigrant, please take the time to read wp:assume good faith and the various civility guidelines, as you are sailing very close to the wind. Accusing someone of cyber-bullying and being offensive breaks a lot of rules. You're obviously new, so I'll let it go, but you need to stop now. You were politely asked twice to sign your posts yet you still refuse to do so - what reaction do you expect? You are not arguing your point so much as blindly repeating yourself. The article will not be going in any other direction because of the reasons outlined by AlbertMond and Ozkidzez91 and various other editors in the past. There is no current desire from anyone but you to change it. It seems to centre around your refusal to accept that the Youngs and Scott were Australian citizens, regardless of where they were born. Birthplace does not determine nationality, that is a simple fact. Otherwise Cliff Richard would be Indian. The world is full of people born in one country but citizens of another. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

anyone there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.36.77 (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Template AC/DC Singles

Someone should create a template that refers to the singles of AC / DC, used as a guide to this Template:Bon Jovi songs, or this Template:Aerosmith singles. It's easy, I was doing but I pulled back and erased everything. This template should be on the homepage and in each AC/DC single. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ready, I already created it, is this. Template:AC/DC singles. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

After Christ Devil Comes

Isn't this another meaning for the band's name? 18.111.84.7 (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. It wouldn't make sense of the "/", would require a reliable source, and even for a rock band, I think their English would be less clumsy than that. "All Camels Discover Cucumbers", anyone?Rodhullandemu 21:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Another source credits George Youngs wife as source of band name

In AC/DC Maximum Rock 'n' Roll by Murray Engleheart with Arnaud Durieux names George's wife Sandra as the originator of the AC/DC name. "George's wife, Sandra, thought it was a good name for a group, Malcolm told Michele O'Driscoll in Go-Set on 15 June 1974. Albert's Rocka Souvenir Songbook confirmed this in August 1976, saying, 'George's wife devised the name AC/DC', a statement backed up by Angus when he spoke to Bob Hart the following month in Spunky. '[The name came] off the back of my sister-in-law's sewing machine.' (Pg. 51)

Seems like a much more reliable source than current one. Hammer of the Gods27 (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Source of lightning bolt between band name

From the same book as mentioned above (pg.60) tells how band got thunderbolt between the name AC/DC which might be interesting to put in article. circa June - July 1974

"Around this time a piece of AC/DC's identity presented itself when they arrived at a gig in Sydney's southern suburbs to find a poster for the show with a lightning bolt seperating AC and DC, an idea Albert's Chris Gilbey had come up with to emphasise the sense of energy in the band's name. It was perfect and it struck." Hammer of the Gods27 (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9