AC/DC IN VANCOUVER?
- Thread starter tbone
- Start date
A friendly reminder to all:
Posting in ALL CAPS is strongly discouraged. People who continuously do so will find themselves in trouble.
On the topic:
I heard this rumor about AC/DC a week ago or so on Sirius radio. Supposedly:
a. They are definitely in a studio, doing something.
b. They have reportedly told friends that 'something' is a new album.
But AFAIK there's been no official announcement. Anyone care to check their website? I'm too damn lazy.
Posting in ALL CAPS is strongly discouraged. People who continuously do so will find themselves in trouble.
On the topic:
I heard this rumor about AC/DC a week ago or so on Sirius radio. Supposedly:
a. They are definitely in a studio, doing something.
b. They have reportedly told friends that 'something' is a new album.
But AFAIK there's been no official announcement. Anyone care to check their website? I'm too damn lazy.
national acrobat
Ancient Mariner
I've heard this rumour every couple of months for the past 5 years. If they've been in the studio for as long as reported, then they're going to release the best album ever, or have about 90 average songs. I predict the latter. 
national acrobat said:
It seems real this time, from what I heard. They really are doing something in a studio. About a week or two ago, there was a flurry of sightings.
The unconfirmed part is whether it's a new album ... but what else would it be?
A
Anonymous
Guest
national acrobat said:I've heard this rumour every couple of months for the past 5 years. If they've been in the studio for as long as reported, then they're going to release the best album ever, or have about 90 average songs. I predict the latter.
You mean, like Axl Rose?
national acrobat said:
Perun said:
No.
Not at all like Axl Rose.
You see, AC/DC is at least capable of releasing the best album ever. While it may be unlikely, it is possible. Remember, these are the guys who did Back In Black. They do know how to rock, when the mood strikes them.
Further, AC/DC has been written off and come back before. Guys like Perun may be too young to know this, but it's true. Enough crap singles like "Heatseeker", and most people had given them up for dead ... when they came up with The Razor's Edge and "Thunderstruck". You can never count them out.
Axl Rose, on the other hand ... the argument makes itself. And don't tell me that because Axl was involved with Appetite For Destruction, he knows how to rock. With the benefit of hindsight, we now know that he was just the frontpiece of a great band which has now gone away forever. AC/DC may have changed drummers, but the core unit (the Youngs and Johnson) are still there.
SinisterMinisterX said:
Baahahhhaaahahaha.
Baahahhhaaahahaha.
Baahahhhaaahahaha.
Baahahhhaaahahaha.
THUNDER!
Baahahhhaaahahaha.
THUNDER!
Baahahhhaaahahaha.
I was caught in the middle of a railroad track.
My mind raced and I thought, what could I do?
Albie
Keeping an open eye on the Weeping Angels.
Back In Black was, in my view, AC/DC at their very best - but since then, they seem to be just way too monotonous to have any sort of credibility. They have, however, had the odd moment since then - but not enough to warrant me forking out any money.SinisterMinisterX said:
Maxxim magazine had an interview with Angus Young a few years back, and asked him: "Didn't you make 12 albums that sound just the same?" He responded: "No. We made 13." (as closely as I remember the quote)
I laughed, but disagreed. I think the first albums, before Highway To Hell were more 'blues' sounding. They have definately gotten harder since then. Like LC said, they have had some good ones and some not so good ones, but the thing is, they still can make a rockin' one.
I don't think anyone can hear the begining of "Thunderstruck" without wanting to just crank it up.
I laughed, but disagreed. I think the first albums, before Highway To Hell were more 'blues' sounding. They have definately gotten harder since then. Like LC said, they have had some good ones and some not so good ones, but the thing is, they still can make a rockin' one.
I don't think anyone can hear the begining of "Thunderstruck" without wanting to just crank it up.
Genghis Khan
Ancient Mariner
wasted155 said:
I would disagree with you there. I think for the most part their earlier songs were harder. There are exceptions of course and Thunderstruck is one of them. Everyone I know likes that track, hell, even people who don't like rock.
Speaking of rumours, I've heard both the recent ones on Bravewords and some rumours that it may be a double CD release. Of course, they may be just rumours.
AC/DC is the one band I wish to see live before they retire. I've had a chance to see them at the "Toronto Sars Fest" in the Summer of 2003, but opted to attend last day of class instead. Shame on me.
OK, time to distinguish between "harder" and "heavier" - or in other words, what's the difference between "hard rock" and "heavy metal"?
There are several, but the most pertinent one right now is:
Hard rock is often heavily based on blues music (though it is not a necessary qualification) ... while heavy metal rarely is.
(Note that the above applies to entire songs, and not guitar solos, which (even in metal) often have a blues base.)
In other words, if you accept the assertion that AC/DC was bluesier with Bon Scott, then they were "harder" back then and "heavier" now.
Other differences between hard rock and heavy metal:
1a. Hard rock lyrics are most often about some aspect of male/female relations... sex, love songs, pick-up songs, breakup songs etc. When they're about something else, the most likely subject is party anthems... rock 'n' rolling all nite, drinking, fast cars, etc ...or teenage rebellion.
1b. Heavy metal lyrics are rarely about male/female subjects (though party anthems and rebellion/angst are still prominent). However, most lyrics are on some other subject altogether: violence/agression, religion, history, occult, etc.
2a. Hard rock has two very common tempos: power-ballad slow or a moderate, "danceable" tempo.
2b. Heavy metal has a wider variety of tempos, including an overall tendency to be faster in general.
3. While I'm not sure how to phrase this in any definitive or authoritative manner, metal is more intense. For instance, most Maiden songs are more intense than most Aerosmith songs. (This doesn't necessarily mean "better"; I love both Aerosmith and Maiden.)
There are several, but the most pertinent one right now is:
Hard rock is often heavily based on blues music (though it is not a necessary qualification) ... while heavy metal rarely is.
(Note that the above applies to entire songs, and not guitar solos, which (even in metal) often have a blues base.)
In other words, if you accept the assertion that AC/DC was bluesier with Bon Scott, then they were "harder" back then and "heavier" now.
Other differences between hard rock and heavy metal:
1a. Hard rock lyrics are most often about some aspect of male/female relations... sex, love songs, pick-up songs, breakup songs etc. When they're about something else, the most likely subject is party anthems... rock 'n' rolling all nite, drinking, fast cars, etc ...or teenage rebellion.
1b. Heavy metal lyrics are rarely about male/female subjects (though party anthems and rebellion/angst are still prominent). However, most lyrics are on some other subject altogether: violence/agression, religion, history, occult, etc.
2a. Hard rock has two very common tempos: power-ballad slow or a moderate, "danceable" tempo.
2b. Heavy metal has a wider variety of tempos, including an overall tendency to be faster in general.
3. While I'm not sure how to phrase this in any definitive or authoritative manner, metal is more intense. For instance, most Maiden songs are more intense than most Aerosmith songs. (This doesn't necessarily mean "better"; I love both Aerosmith and Maiden.)
Sound of the drums!Deano said:
SinisterMinisterX said:
Ok, that actually makes sense to me. I had never thought of it in that light, but that does catagorize it in a simple and easy to understand way.
Thanks
So, with that in mind, I would def say AD/DC was 'harder' early on and 'heavier' later on.
And, SMX, how would you catagorize 'High Voltage'? Seems like a lot of it isn't even that 'hard'.. thats just my opinion.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Where's Rainbow on your scale? Uriah Heep? Black Sabbath? Scorpions? What about Deep Purple, Motörhead or UFO?
Genghis Khan
Ancient Mariner
wasted155 said:
High Voltage comes alive on stage. I think that the studio version is rather limp, especially the title track. I absolutely love the bass intro to Live Wire.
SinisterMinisterX said:
I agree with you, except I would not use the term "intense" which I think is subjective and a person interpretation. I can't think of anything other than heavier and louder.