Number 18
My top hard rock/metal guitarist countdown continues with number 18. It is...
Angus Young
Angus tapped into basic blues based rock with straight forward style. Stripped down and basic, but he made it work. The 1970's was definitely the peak for his playing, but his influence is still being heard in bands today.
**I'll have number 17 out next week.
Angus Young
Angus tapped into basic blues based rock with straight forward style. Stripped down and basic, but he made it work. The 1970's was definitely the peak for his playing, but his influence is still being heard in bands today.
**I'll have number 17 out next week.
Labels: Angus Young, top 25
posted by Metal Mark at
12:30 AM
83 Comments:
Damn I was hoping Angus would be higher, he's such a legend. But worshipping AC/DC as much as I do its very difficult to not be bias. Looking forward to the rest of the list.
This is the first one on the list where I really disagree. Angus Young isn't particularly skilled which would be fine except he's not original or exciting. AC/DC is a mediocre band that have been pulling the wool over people's eyes for 30 some years now. Usually that make me wonder what I'm missing, but with Angus and company it's clear to me each time I try to listen that I'm right. This is the first guy that I think made your list, because you've just bought into the hype. Everyone else has been well thought out. Still, one bad choice (and it's a common mistake) out of eight is pretty good.
Martell-I think this spot is about right. His influence is undeniable, but I don't think he has done a whole lot worthwhile after 1979.
Bob-Yeah, I have never heard that argument from you before. Oh, wait I have heard it every time I have mentioned AC/DC to you over the last twenty years. You use different words each time, but it's the same argument over and over and never holds water. Let's break this one down.
"not original or exciting"-For originality everyone has their influences and AC/DC show theirs (50's rock, Rolling Stones), but they added enough to create their own sound.
"AC/DC is a mediocre band"-Is? Yes. Was? No. Their albums from the 70's are some of the best hard rock of the time. The sound, the energy and the attitude was all there.
"you've bought into the hype"-You know better than that. I have been a fan for years. Each time I listen to the band's early work and Angus' playing I love the raw rocking sound and it sounds great to me and it always will.
"one bad choice"-It's only a bad choice in the Book of Bob, but we will turn the page on that and go on with the countdown.
I think it's interesting that you feel that Angus hasn't done anything good since Bon Scott died. You think he's a good guitarist, because you liked the band with Bon Scott and you think he's crappy after Bon Scott died, because you don't like Brian Johnson? Or was he only a good guitarist before Mutt Lange really slicked up their sound? I can see if you thought he was once good and then faded down the stretch, but it was the same mediocre guitar work before and after. It's just than Bon Scott had a bit of attitude and his voice was kind of unique (in a not altogether awful way like Brian Johnson) and the kinda raw sound had an appeal for those who wanted to see basic bar band hacks playing in arenas. The small bit of charm they had was gone after Scott died and they had guys like Mutt Lange commercializing them, but that doesn't mean Angus was good and suddenly was dull. he was always dull and merely fit AC/DC's persona fairly well.
I liked Eddie Van Halen more when David Lee Roth was in that band. Much like AC/DC there was a change in musical direction there and the guitars suffered.
Mediocre? Not technicly great, but neither were a lof of others guys like the Nuge or Tony Iommi who focused more on tones and rhythms than on solos and flash. Angus is in the same boat. It sounds like you pulling in your issues with Mutt Lange and slapping them on Angus as well.
The band was better with Bon Scott. He had a stronger voice, good stage presence and the writing was superior when he was around.
You find Angus dull and I'll never understand that misjudgment on your part, but I still love those prime album and his influence is still being heard in young bands today.
I'm not blaming Angus Young's being a lame guitarist on Mutt Lange, I'm saying he was always lame and it was just more clear once the raw edges were smoothed out. I'm all about feeling and tone over technical prowess, so you'd think I'd like Angus, right? The trouble is that in addition to not having a lot of skill (his most tolerable fault, by far), he also doesn't have much going on in terms of sound or feel or emotion. He's kinda like a hard rock Keith Richards, but his charms are even more negligible.
EVH's guitar was mellowing out over several albums even before DLR left. In some ways his sound, though less earth-shaking, got even cooler and didn't hurt the msuic, because DLR carried their fun nature. While VH took a huge hit with the loss of DLR, EVH's guitar parts took longer to fade. But the msuic couldn't survibe on his playing alone, especially after the electricity of the first several albums wore off.
Bob-I think Angus a really good feel and worked in with his control of the riffs. Those are two of his best qualities. Yes, knowing some of your tastes I was surprised that you didn't like Angus. However I also know that you are too stubborn to ever change your opinion on this issue.
Not true. I've changed my opinion on several bands that I've hated in the past. AC/DC just never gives me a reason to change my mind. As a matter of fact, the last time I listened to them, I was surprised by how right I actually was.
Bob-We have all been off at one time another. This just happens to be one of the ones where you are way off.
The fact that most people disagree with me doesn't make me wrong. I might be too hard on AC/DC, but I'm a lot closer to the truth than everyone who likes to take it easy on such a lame, lackluster band. Do they have cultural importance? Of course. It's always puzzling when the masses fall for something cheap.
"The fact that most people disagree with me doesn't make me wrong."
Yep, that's why I didn't say that. You just don't get the appeal of Angus Young and you continue to fight it.
It's not that people take it easy on AC/DC, but rather that people like what they hear and they don't have the hang-ups with this band that you do.
I don't hear AC/DC as cheap, but rather as simple or basic. Hey so were KISS, the Ramones, the Misfits and a bunch of other bands. If it's done right then that's great. AC/DC pulled it off for half a decade and a few other select albums. What's puzzling to me is that you accept other bands (the above three for instance) that follow a similar approach, yet you blow up at AC/DC.
I never said I had a problem with being basic, but there has to be something else going on. I can form a band tomorrow and I promise it will be basic, but that doesn't make it good.
It's not that I don't get the appeal of Angus Young so much as there's nothing to get. Believe me, I've tried, but mediocre is mediocre. AC/DC's biggest appeal is that they make the non-rock n roll crowd feel like they're in on something and it's a sham. Even the Bon Scott records are hard to get through in a single sitting if you're looking for something other than pretending. How and why they became the poster band for the wannabe rock n roll crowd, I can't explain. If I figure that part out, I'll let you know though. Like I said, they're not the worst band ever, but they've certainly never recorded a single thing worthy of the ridiculous hype that's surrounded them for three decades.
They are a real rock band. Some people know that and appreciate it and I guess others try to fight it.
You left a word out. They are a real stupid rock band.
I'm sure they were real once, but their hype far outdistanced their worth. It's interesting, because they worse they got, the bigger they got. The post-Bon Scott period, to whose ills even you aren't immune, is their commercially most successful. I think that goes a long way to show that they were running on hype and not good music. Every now and then a part turns hype into longevity somehow. It's a strange phenomenon, but it happens and AC/DC is a perfect example.
And, as I said earlier, I don't try to fight AC/DC. I've given them more chances than perhaps any other band. They continue to disappoint and therefore, it's the truth that I cannot fight.
The truth in your mind maybe and yes you are fighting it. However AC/DC continue to have a following, continue to influence bands and their classic albums still hold up well while you continue to fume and try to grasp onto straws in your thin argument against them. You don't like them and your dislike for them has mounted over the years because everyone knows better and argues against you and the band marches on.
"it's the truth that I cannot fight" Actually it is the truth that you are fighting. Angus is a good player and AC/DC knocked out as many great albums as say Aerosmith or KISS, but you persist in trying to pile everything you can scrape against them. It's your opinion and I respect that to a point, but in this case you just happen to be way off. I am sure this argument just fans the flames higher in you and I know cannot change your view nor do I hope to. Still I stand by my view besides I need to save my breath in case I get other arguments on this guitarist list. I still have 17 more to go.
How can you say that I fight it when I give them another try every few years? I even give the Brian Johnson albums another shot. I think the intensity of my argument has risen over the years, but only because it never ceases to amaze me that so many people are blind to how average they are. However, despite that, I still keep open the possibility that I've missed something. It's just that each time I entertain that possibility and play a few AC/DC records, I'm reminded once again that I'm right.
I would only be fighting the truth if I ignored what I know in favor of popular opinion. I'm not doing that, so I am not fighting the truth, I'm just not accepting the received opinion that AC/DC is a great band.
Of course you fight it as all of the above comments demonstrate, but I'll accept your word then you give them chances every so often. You don't leave it at that though. Then you try to paint AC/DC fans as blind sheep to help strengthen your limp argrument. You keep coming back to this point of you vs. popular opinion like that's relevant to the argument of whether Angus or AC/DC are good or not. I guess you like to try to justify your view by thinking you are fighting a good fight or something. Unfortunately it's simpler than that. You don't like Angus, I do. We both have reasons for our opinions that have to do with playing style and the music being made. That's really the basis of this and there isn't much more to be said because neither of us is going to sway the other.
I keep coming back to it, because "success" is used as a measure of how good they are. In many cases, success does indicate some level of quality, but not in all cases. It's also relevant, because my point isn't that AC/DC is just the worst band ever, just that they fall very far short of the hype that surrounds them. The poorer their music gets, the more popular they become, it seems. I think that argues well for the failure to reconsider whether they're really good or not. Now, I can't explain your opinion, because I know that mass appeal holds little water with you. Perhaps, you were fooled at a young age and haven't been able to get beyond that? Perhaps AC/DC is just an honest, guilty pleasure? I don't know.
I'm fighting ignorance, not the possibility that I'm wrong. I re-examine my position as often as I can really stomach it.
I think you took a position agains AC/DC and their continued popularity and your perceived hype eats you up.
I got into AC/DC early on in my music days, but I still reconsider their albums each time I heard them. I don't blindly follow that's why theirs albums of theirs I like and one I don't.
Guilty pleasure? I easily hear the pleasure part, but feel no guilt because I know how good their early albums are.
Oh, by the way you are still trying to boost your position by striking out at others in the hopes of gaining some satisfaction.
Won't happen. I think all we have done is fired the arguments back and forth with no change in position.
I hardly expect to "boost my position" (whatever that really means, because I think the only thing getting a boost is your hit count each I leave a comment) by taking an unpopular position, especially on a site that caters to hard rock fans who almost universally love AC/DC.
I just like to argue sometimes and AC/DC is a favorite topic since someone needs to take shots at them. Even outside of hard rock circles, it's hard to find people who see them for what they are.
"I just like to argue"-That is the most accurate statement you have made in this whole post. Okay, I took that out of context.
Thanks for increasing my hit count. I'll take that in any way I can even it means reading the same comment phrased in different ways over and over by you. Okay, I may be doing that too, but that's just because by this point we are just volleying the same arguments back and forth.
"Even outside of hard rock circles, it's hard to find people who see them for what they are."
Rather what you think they are.
Okay, you can say "what [I] think they are," but you should at least qualify that my opinion is based on years of chances and a wide breadth of interest in music. It's not like I'm being random here. It's not like it's just some silly, half-baked prejudice.
AC/DC is one of those topics that will never get a fair shot, because they've become unassailable in the minds of so many rock fans. They'll just never get their due., despite all my efforts.
"at least qualify that my opinion is based on years of chances and a wide breadth of interest in music."
I think you have made that point several times already so yes I read and accpeted it. As I stated more than once already.
"They'll just never get their due., despite all my efforts."
Maybe everyone else is stubborn, maybe your arguments are weak or maybe you are just wrong. Or of course it could be a combination of all of the above.
I think it's the first one. The second two choices don't seem plausible.
They don't seem plausible to you, but that's about it.
I think it's just hard for people to come to grips with liking a band for years and then waking up to find that they kinda suck.
Bob-Really which one of your bands have you realized now sucks?
Oh, you mean you were actually tring to pump some more hot air into your sagging argument against AC/DC?
At least you have been worn down enough to use "think" and "kinda" instead of using words like "truth" and "know".
Oh, sorry. I know AC/DC isn't that good. I've approached them with an open mind time and again, but they prove over and over that my opinion of them reflects the truth.
Better?
Yes, I am glad you included that it is just your opinion
Yes, my opinion which, in this case at least, reflects the truth.
Only the truth as you see it which only goes so far. Although you have tried to stretch your flimsy view into 15 comments. Unfortunately you just keep repackaging the same ideas and trying to slip them back over and over with little success.
And that's different from what you've done how? Look, I'm not the one with a lousy choice at #18.
No, you are just the one with a incorrect point of view. You have been on the attack, I am just defending my position and the truth.
Defending it with the same thing over and over? Isn't that what you accused me of doing?
The bottom line is that you've always liked AC/DC and you just can't see past your own error. To be fair, that's a difficult thing to do once you've investing something of yourself into supporting a point of view. I know, because I've done it before. It seems like a tough thing to do, but it's not so bad once you do it. I'd change my opinion on AC/DC if I wasn't correct already (and had that re-affirmed by repeated chances). There's really no sense in abandoning the correct position just for the sake of change.
It does surprise me that, with the narrow focus of your musical interests, you can't sort out what's good and what's bad in this case. It's not like you have to consider guys like Robert Fripp or Leo Kottke which might muddy the waters as you cross genres. You just have to consider a relative few guys. Maybe that makes it more difficult though, because the limited focus may also limit your intellectual flexibility and therefore your ability to make good decisions in all cases. Still, your first seven do display the ability to see past the conventions of hard rock/heavy metal guitar theatrics and find guys who were actually good rather than flashy. Again, I'm at a loss to explain your ignorance.
Defending the same attack with the response? Possibly. If I know that I am right then why would I change my stance.
"There's really no sense in abandoning the correct position just for the sake of change."
Yes, I know that's why I stand by my view.
"It does surprise me that, with the narrow focus of your musical interests, you can't sort out what's good and what's bad in this case."
There is another attempt to attack my credibility to support you view. Actually I do know what I am talking about. The fact that you struggle to hear how good Angus is baffles me to some extent, but it's just a shortcoming you will have to deal with.
Actually, it's not an attack, but simply a true statement. You're the first to admit that your interests are quite narrow. You wear it like a badge. I can't decide if that clouds your judgement or simplifies things for you though.
The interesting thing about your misjudgment in this case is that you are not an example of the common error. Instead, I think yours is just different thinking that results in the same fallacy. By all counts, you, of all people, should be able to figure out that Angus is/was mediocre, but for whatever reason, you can't. Perhaps I'm making it too complicated. It may just boil down to human error on your part, which, depending on the remaining 17 choices I suppose, is excusable.
It's not a shortcoming. I just know what I like and stick with it.
You sound you dropped all your argument cards and then just picked them in a messy order and just started typing little parts of all of them in a desperate effort to try and make it sound like you know what you are talking about. Like all of the above your arguments it still sounds it's coming from a sour person who got in too deep with a faulty opinion and is too stubborn to back out.
But even you have conceded that I have given them repreated chances, so while I may or may not sound sour, I have actually willing subjected myself to having my mind changed by the band's music.
While you have tried time and again to dismiss what I say ("you keep rearranging the same points" and "you seem like you dropped your argument cards" and then accusing me of being something you've already conceded that I am not), you have failed to make any convincing argument about Angus Young. Let's see, 1) You like him, 2) Other people like him and 3) He's basic. Along with 50 cents, you can get yourself a pack of gum with that.
I, on the other hand, have tried to grapple honestly with how you've come to your opinion. I've explored several possibilities, but the most plausible still seems to be simple human error. Even your generally solid opinions on what makes a guitar player good may have moments where it breaks down, I suppose.
Angus has a good tone plus he controls the pace and uses it well. I believe I said those points earlier. Since you brought it up I will also say that he has a very distinct sound to his playing. Those are his top points and that's why I like him. I cannot make an argument to you that is going to be acceptable because you won't be swayed and neither will I.
You don't explore possibilities, but make the same points. The only thing you seem to grapple with is that you can't believe others don't agree with you. Not the first time or the the last time I am sure.
Although even you don't seem too sure anymore as you end with "I suppose".
Your posts are getting longer, but your arguments are getting thinner.
He has a good tone? Really? You mean an SG and sloppy playing amounts to good tone? I didn't realize the two were synonymous. He controls the pace? Okay, maybe so, but that's pretty easy in a band as dummied down as AC/DC and really the job of the rhythm section anyway. He uses it well? What does that mean? You use that phrase quite a bit and I've never been sure what you meant. I think that might be a euphemism for "I like him, but I don't know why."
Good tone-Yes, it's sharp and distinct. You know an AC/DC song or an AC/DC inspired song by just a few notes. Yes, that is a good thing indeed.
Controlling the pace and using it well go together. By using it well I mean being able to punctuate points when needed, tightening parts and punching them out. If you need this explained to you then obivsously you don't hear what I do and you likely won't hear it accpet my explanation
Sloppy? I have never heard that one before on Angus even from people that don't like him. You must be running low on reasons by this time.
"I think that might be a euphemism for "I like him, but I don't know why."- Putting words into my mouth or trying to. It doesn't stand up to well since I have explained wby I like him. However you won't accept any reasons except of course your own misguided ones.
Sharp? Nah. Distinct? Yes, distinctly bad.
Oh, yeah. That's right. "Uses it well" is a common term in music criticism. Everyone knows exactly what it means. It means you aren't sure how to really express what you mean in less than 13 words, so you'll just use something vague that readers will at least understand means you like it.
Back to Angus Young, what does it take to control the pace of an AC/DC song? It's a simple task that I suppose he has to shoulder, because the rhythm section is too lame to do it themselves. Or perhaps he doesn't actually control the pace of the music, but his simplistic play fits tidily into their simplistic rhythms. Okay, so he's a good fit for them. I conceded that earlier. But being a good fit in a not-so-good band certainly is no argument for greatness.
He's most definitely sloppy. In and of itself, that's not a problem. As a matter of fact, cleaner play would be worse in a band like that. Jimmy Page was sloppy. Wayne Kramer was sloppy. Like Angus Young that was an important part of their playing. It made them loose and allowed the music to move more. AC/DC doesn't do much moving, so there's no need for the sloppy playing.
No, I wrote what came to me and wasn't trying to write an expose on why I like Angus Young nor do I imagine that anyone but you will read this. You can't take any reasons and are trying hard to twist anything you can. Unfortunately your tactics are as weak and transparent as your arguments.
Your whole middle paragragh is more re-hashing of yes, you don't AC/DC and don't think they are talented and your are attempting to break down their playing so it will support your fading opinion. Broadening your attack to every band member is meaningless if you are wrong to begin with. It's just lashing out.
Being sloppy or not is an opinion and I don't think either of us will sway the other on that. However, I think you are digging down to the bottom of your reasons and just hoping some broad statement will stuck. Sorry, no luck there.
"AC/DC doesn't do much moving"
Again this is an opinion and if this the way you feel then nothing I can say will change that unfortunate view. However I think they move along well and often have some strong grooves. It's part of their appeal.
Does "thinner" mean "stronger" in the Heavy Metal Time Machine land? You suggested that my support was thin, so I add detail and explain myself (in considerably more detail than "he uses it well," no less) and now my argument is thinner? Who's digging down in their empty well now? C'mon.
As far as movement goes, I supposed plodding is movement, but there's not much in the way of groove. It does occasionally show up, but a handful of times in a 30+ year, way-too-many-albums career isn't anything to write home about.
It's thin because you are pulling out every argument you can and offeringlimited support for some reasons and very little for others. I elaborated on my opinion when you asked. In the end it boils down to my opinion vs. yours. Since we both have both had our opinions for so long despite revisiting the albums then I doubt either of us will change anytime soon.
You are the first one I have heard use plodding to describe the pace of AC/DC. I wouldn't use that term even on their material I don't like.
Poor choice of words on my part, because I was using the first definition ("laborious and monotonous"), but it's true that the second ("slow and heavy") is more common in discussing music. They are the former, but not the latter.
You have done less to support your opinion than I have to support mine, but I suppose that is the luxury of holding the popular opinion (which you seem to have mastered well for someone who seldom does it (that's a double compliment and only one is backhanded)). Well, I didn't have anything like, "They use it well," but who can compete with that. That's your big guns, right? I guess I should be flattered that you unleashed that on me rather than some over-used clichés or technical terms.
"You have done less to support your opinion than I have to support mine" I actually I did well on beating off your desperate jabs.
"I suppose that is the luxury of holding the popular opinion"-My opinion is based on what I hear, but you like come to back to this point for some reason.
"Well, I didn't have anything like, "They use it well," but who can compete with that. That's your big guns, right?"
Big guns? No, I just state my view in honest terms. You have tried digging at my use of words for three straight comments because you obviously out of your own ammunition and are trying (repeatedly) to throw back at me. It's a weak ploy worthy of someone running on fumes.
"I guess I should be flattered that you unleashed that on me rather than some over-used clichés or technical terms."
I am just defending my views. I expanded my views when you asked. I don't unleash. I just state my opinion as needed and defended as as needed or asked. You did the same as well, but now seem to be trying a new angle. However it seems to be losing steam each time you use it. Stick to acting sour and going for the "me against the world" approach, it suited you better. It didn't work a whole lot better though, but at least you were sort of addressing the music.
Metal Mark,
I love this argument/debate/headbashing. Entertaining as hell! Anyway, just wanted to say I'm looking forward to reading your review of our debut album.
Keep this $#!% rockin',
Jeffrey Winslow
Syrym
Jeffrey-Thanks for stopping by. I have been listening to your band's disc and will be reviwing it later this week.
Mingya, what kind of party pooper doesn't like AC/DC?
I'll answer that with a question of my own. Why would anyone like AC/DC?
Woody-See all of the above for that answer.
Bob-I have a feeling that answering this will lead to a "When you give a mouse a cookie" type circle of events. However as a unit I like them because it's solid rock music with strong grooves and raw vocals (Bon Scott).
I would amend that as follows:
I dislike them because it's run-of-the-mill rock music with few grooves and unique, but far from outstanding vocals (Bon Scott).
It may amuse you to know that yesterday's conversation had the over-slick hooks of "Back in Black" stuck in my head. Luckily though, it was just the opening riff and not Brian Johnson's voice.
Bob-Yeah, I think you said most of that yesterday.
I am only reminded of Brian Johnson's voice when I hear the sound that follows when I accidently step on the cat's tail.
I am amused that you had an AC/DC riff in your head as the result of the comment fest yesterday.
Mark, you are welcome to come over and watch my bootleg Bon Scott AC/DC dvd's anytime. Bob can wait in the car and listen to Wilco by himself.
Great. Just about anything is better than listening to AC/DC. All hype, no substance.
If you hate them so much then you probably wouldn't dare own much or anything by them.
Actually, as evidence of the ongoing second chances I give to this band, I have most of their catalog through the mid 80s.
I have:
TNT LP
High Voltage LP
Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap LP
Let There Be Rock LP
If You Want Blood LP
Highway to Hell LP
Back in Black LP
For Those About to Rock LP
Flick of the Switch LP
Who Made Who LP
Heatseeker EP
Blow Up Your Video LP
The Razor's Edge CD
If I took all the tracks from all the albums that are above average, it probably wouldn't fill a single LP.
I think having all those albums speaks louder than your little dig at the end.
Why would you say that? You know I have plenty of albums that I don't necessarily like. I'd probably even buy Fly on the Wall if I saw it for $1 somewhere just to be a completist. I have 17 Chicago records too, but I'm not thrilled with them either.
Besides, I couldn't very well give them a fair shot (over and over, no less) if all I had was Back in Black.
You seem to be protesting a lot and on the defensive when I just noted that you have a lot of AC/DC albums. A whole lot.
You're suggesting that there are implications to my owning those records that aren't true. I'm just explaining why I have them, because in most cases one likes a band when he has 13 of the records. My situation is just an exception that that and I felt I needed to explain.
Yes, quite a long explanation.
Well, I wanted to be clear. You tried to muddy the waters with what you knew to be an irrelevant detail.
I don't think the fact that you own so many albums is meaningless, but that's my opinion.
17 Chicago albums? Wow...
Nice try. If I was a closet AC/DC fan, why would I disclose the number of AC/DC records I have. My entire database of records is in public view.
Woody, yes. I have 17 Chicago albums. Other than a few early ones, they get less play than even crappy AC/DC, if only because they don't get the second chances that AC/DC has been afforded over the years.
I didn't say you were a closet AC/DC fan. I just said you had a lot of their albums for someone who claimed to not like them. You must very proud of your collection to have put your database in public view.
I don't think it's a matter of pride. I created the database for my own purposes and some people were interested in seeing it, so I put it online. It wasn't that difficult and I've even done the same for several other people. It also makes it easy if someone asks or if I'm trying to remember if I have this album or that.
I have picked up some doubles by accident because my memory wasn't working as well as I had hoped. I don't think I would want a list though at least not yet.
You don't have as many records as I do though. Maybe you don't need it. I find that I have to look quite a bit if I'm talking about bands I don't listen to that often.
With reviewing so many new items I don't look at my old stuff as much as I used to so that's a big part of why I forgot some things.
This discussion reminds me of what happens whenever I tell someone that I really don't like the Rolling Stones. But I don't own any of their records.
Woody-Bob doesn't like the Stones either and he could go on for hours about that too. I like them though.
The Rolling Stones are perhaps the only band more overrated than AC/DC. I have 20 Stones records though. Now I can listen to their early material and one or two songs in the last 35 years also, but their stature is tremendous and I don't think their career comes close to warranting that, especially since they just keep going with all that substandard material. They've become a facsimile of themselves.
Bob-Yes, I have this argument before too.
Everything you said about Angus is how I feel about Keith Richards. He's written plenty of hit songs but he's nowhere close to Steve Cropper in my opinion.
Question for Bob - do you like Rose Tattoo?
Oddly enough, I can take Rose Tattoo, but I think my stomach for average bands is better when said bands only achieve average success. My issue with AC/DC isn't that they are terrible, just that they're mediocre. Rose Tattoo isn't great either, but I never really have to plead my case on that one. I do prefer them to AC/DC, but I'd have to pull out Assault & Battery to see if I still believe that. Maybe I'll do that after lunch.
Haha, I know I'm a bit late, but I think this is the funniest blog argument I've ever seen. Especially from two people who I actually read their stuff.
I love AC/DC, more their original stuff, but Back In Black is a killer album. And I would like to say I have a wide array of music and tastes.
I also don't much care for The Rolling Stones, only ever listening to their greatest hits, and even then it's sketchy. In my book the order of the Big 3 of the British Invasion are The Who (by a huge margin) The Beatles, and waaaay down the line, The Rolling Stones. that's just me though.
Mark, Bob, keep up the good work and the good arguments. I enjoy reading!
Hey Bob if you hate AC DC so much why the fucking hell do you have all their albums idiot? When I think a band sucks I return the album or use it as target practice. It just seems to me endless diarrhea comes out of your fingers. By the way millions of albums sold, suck on that egghead! Another thing, who the hell has or wants 17 fucking Chicago albums? Your really lame, you can leave some stupid reply as you always do but I won't reply because it will encourage more asinine stupidity to spew forth. Metal Mark has the patience of Saint for putting up with your stupid bull shit, me I would've deleted your comments and kicked your Chicago loving ass off my blog.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home