I wonder. If only thinking short about it, I think that way more metal bands are influenced by Sabbath, Priest and Maiden. Musically, style-wise, that is. But I guess lots of bands could have still been inspired by AC/DC. Their rawness, energy and presentation is quite something.
Accept and UDO wouldn't exist without AC/DC though. Also Saxon is influenced by AC/DC.
When thinking longer about it (or hearing you guys), I might change thoughts... but for now I can't think of too many bands who are influenced by them. Well, there's that British(?) band... they were on Wacken 2008.. what's their name? (no, it's not Maiden).
Adrian Smith might have been influenced at early age. I can hear that a bit in Urchin. So, who knows what he brough to Maiden.
Agreed with Travis. I think 80s rock (not just Metal) would've been very different without AC/DC. I think of bands like Guns n Roses, virtually any glam metal band, even more modern bands like Foo Fighters. While a major influence might not be present, you can still hear traces of their grit and power. They really brought that to the forefront I think. Hell, even Dream Theater has had AC/DC influenced moments. I also imagine AC/DC has been one of those bands that might be a gateway into the world of hard rock and metal for a lot of people. Up there with Zeppelin and Pink Floyd in terms of influence.
I know the band always denied they were metal and no one today considers them metal, but to a teenager in 1980, they were metal, right there with Sabbath and Purple and Kiss. It's the definition of metal that changed.
Even today, Hells Bells and For those About to Rock can stand proud beside any metal track.
I remember when I was starting to get into rock/metal, I only really knew the big classics. Iron Maiden, Kiss, Judas Priest, DLR Van Halen, etc. Some glam metal bands as well. I also knew one AC/DC album (Who Made Who) and I never found it less metal than anything else I was listening to. It had rough vocals, loud guitars, seemed metal enough to me. Plus they sung about hell a lot. As far as I was concerned, this was an exclusively Metal subject.
I still think Back In Black is a classic metal album, as influential to the genre as other albums released that year were (British Steel, Heaven and Hell). Sure they're pretty tame by today's standards, but I think if you look at what was going on at the time, and context is always important, they're right there with the "real" metal bands of the time, whether they like it or not. Kinda like how Motorhead doesn't really consider themselves Metal, despite being a pretty big influence as well.
Here's how I see AC/DC's legacy: the blues in hard rock. Yes, Aerosmith does it too, but Aerosmith does it fancier. AC/DC is raw amped-up blues, even when it's not a 12-bar progression. Outside of Aerosmith, most other hard rock bands took on a stronger pop influence e.g. Kiss, Van Halen, Def Leppard. AC/DC is the biggest hard rock blues champion IMO.
Alongside hard rock, I wonder if AC/DC have had an influence in the thrashier end of metal. Scott Ian talks of them as an influence. The way AC/DC often rely on a single riff, played tightly with a slight "crunch" to the guitar, may well have influenced the palm-muting technique and crunchy thrash riffs. After Sabbath, of course.
I remember during the '80s that friends of mine who were heavily into thrash would also listen to AC/DC (and Motorhead) as heavy bands that stayed dirty and never sold out.
I really shake my head at critics sometimes.
The world of instant mainstream reviews is populated with people who have superficial interest in and knowledge of the band in question and have pre-shaped their story based on circumstance rather than content.
I am most of the way through my first listen to Rock or Bust after having read a half-dozen or so reviews.
The critics are talking about "enduring" and "rock n roll treasures" and "always delivering what's expected of them," completely ignoring the fact that the new album is, by AC/DC standards, a dishwater-dull, forgettable, monotone effort.
These are the same people who missed the spitfire energy, uncompromising attitude, undeniable hooks, and pure, sweaty, cheeky rock'n'roll fun of the band's first 10 years, dismissing them as "brainless," "samey," and "by the numbers."
Right adjectives, wrong albums.
I love this band and I am sure parts of the album will eventually grow on me. But on first blush, it's the least impressive thing the Young brothers have ever done.
These writers ain't got a clue. Always delivering, my ass.
I'm off to drown my sorrows by listening to What's Next to the Moon?
When reading an interview on Rolling Stone or USA Today or *insert mainstream critic here* it becomes pretty obvious that they're reviewing everything but the music. Very bland writing that never talks about the music in any sort of detail, just a bunch of hollow general statements that doesn't really say anything about the album. Those critics are only there to validate opinions, not attempt to persuade readers for or against any album.
One thing I took from the reviews on this album I read is that they're being championed for being around for so long and consistently making the same album every time. As if that's impressive or automatically makes this new album good.