Brian Johnson Returns to the Stage

[AxlsFavoriteRose]

1 minute ago, IncitingChaos said:

Specifically the ones that mention Angus was a bit soured by Brian's constant talk of retirement, another one mentioned Angus was disappointed by Brian's recent performances, and the conclusion was that once Angus got word that Brian's hearing got worse he used it to send Brian packing leaving the door shut behind him to any kind of return. In Angus's words it was "Rock or Bust" and they decided to keep rocking with someone who wanted to be there and could be there in Axl. Ultimately the return to standard tuning was apparently Angus' way of saying he's been looking to improve the overall performance of the show...and it simply wasn't possible with Brian. 

So who knows it could be a lot less tame then that but based on Brian's response to ACDC's official letter on Brian's departure there is some bad blood there 

yikes! yeah i am sure there's bad blood there :/   thanks for the info

[Sunset Gardner]

Just now, J Dog said:

I know right. Continuing with a band without it's original lead singer. It wold be like if the original lead singer from AC/DC died and they replaced him and kept on touring and making albums with a replacement lead singer.

yeah sorry bud, there are no similarities between bon scott dying tragically and being replaced by brian johnson (brian johnson with ALL original members of AC/DC) and axl joining angus' ac/dc cover band (that the lawyers will allow him to sell as AC/DC).  that'd be as cheap as axl rose playing with ALL employees and calling in guns n' roses.

 

Just now, J Dog said:

I like Brian and everything, and hope him the best and hope for the best with his health, but I'm perfectly fine with him retiring or whatever and us getting AXL/DC.

 

we all wish brian his health and happiness.  but axl/dc is not ac/dc.  if you saw mick jagger sing a stones song on stage with a backing band and NO members of the rolling stones… would you tell people you saw the rolling stones or would you tell people you saw mick jagger sing a rolling stones song solo?  

nothing wrong with axl and angus hitting it off and creating art together… just don't sell that shit as ac/dc because it's not.  

[Sosso]

Nobody should have the the illusion that Brain was a desicion maker in the band. AC/DC has always been a family business by the Youngs. It's a very close circle that includes Angus, Stevie and George.

Edited May 19, 2017 by Sosso

[bucketfoot]

3 minutes ago, Sosso said:

Nobody should have the the illusion that Brain was a desicion maker in the band. AC/DC has always been a family business by the Youngs. It's a very close circle that includes Angus, Stevie and George.

^^^ This.

[Sunset Gardner]

Just now, Sosso said:

Nobody should have the the illusion that Brain was a desicion maker in the band. AC/DC has always been a family business by the Youngs. It's a very close circle that includes Angus, Stevie and George.

it's not the decision making stuff for me so much as it is brian is the sound of ac/dc, the second chapter of ac/dc is very special and shouldn't be fucked with… like angus shouldn't be greedy and push for a third chapter with axl.  it's so rare for a singer to be replaced in a way that is both successful commercially and creatively.  it just never works and i can't imagine it working twice.  

i'm so glad that slash and duff never reformed VR with a new singer, it's good that VR is what it is with scott, leave it alone. 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Sunset Gardner

[J Dog]

18 minutes ago, Sunset Gardner said:

yeah sorry bud, there are no similarities between bon scott dying tragically and being replaced by brian johnson (brian johnson with ALL original members of AC/DC) and axl joining angus' ac/dc cover band (that the lawyers will allow him to sell as AC/DC).  that'd be as cheap as axl rose playing with ALL employees and calling in guns n' roses.

 

 

we all wish brian his health and happiness.  but axl/dc is not ac/dc.  if you saw mick jagger sing a stones song on stage with a backing band and NO members of the rolling stones… would you tell people you saw the rolling stones or would you tell people you saw mick jagger sing a rolling stones song solo?  

nothing wrong with axl and angus hitting it off and creating art together… just don't sell that shit as ac/dc because it's not.  

See, I guess that's where we start looking at it differently. I'm with you 100% on Axl and nuGuns. But you can say what you want, Brian was a replacement singer for the original lead singer, plain and simple. It just happen to work really well. So now Brian has health issues, and he may get replaced. To me that's different from Axl carrying on with Dj Ashba and Pittman. The original AC/DC died in 1980. Since then, it's been the band with a replacement non-original singer. No matter how you look at it.

I don't know, I stopped getting my panties in a bunch over names and members a long time ago, I guess I have too much going on to be to worried about band names these days. But, somebody dies, quits, gets kicked out, whatever, the original band is no more. If they choose to continue with different members, that's their business. I listen and think, hey that's pretty good and follows in the legacy and even though it's not the original I can still dig it, or I listen and think, well that's bullshit and they should be ashamed of carrying on this way. I put AXL/DC in the boat that it's pretty good and isn't embarrassing.

[Sunset Gardner]

Just now, J Dog said:

See, I guess that's where we start looking at it differently. I'm with you 100% on Axl and nuGuns. But you can say what you want, Brian was a replacement singer for the original lead singer, plain and simple. It just happen to work really well. So now Brian has health issues, and he may get replaced. To me that's different from Axl carrying on with Dj Ashba and Pittman. The original AC/DC died in 1980. Since then, it's been the band with a replacement non-original singer. No matter how you look at it.

I don't know, I stopped getting my panties in a bunch over names and members a long time ago, I guess I have too much going on to be to worried about band names these days. But, somebody dies, quits, gets kicked out, whatever, the original band is no more. If they choose to continue with different members, that's their business. I listen and think, hey that's pretty good and follows in the legacy and even though it's not the original I can still dig it, or I listen and think, well that's bullshit and they should be ashamed of carrying on this way. I put AXL/DC in the boat that it's pretty good and isn't embarrassing.

for me it's that brian joined ALL the original members… and then he created his own chapter with an excellent body of work that rivals his predecessors.  when there's ONLY ONE original member in a band i can't get behind it, it feels delusional and cheap.  if there's enough members participating (like say axl, slash, duff) then i can get behind them touring behind the original name despite all the original members not being present.  

look to be fair i take it all back if axl and angus create ANYTHING that is on par with bon and brian.  but again, i wish they'd just start a new band, give it a new name, start a new legacy, it's hard with just one original member to call it ac/dc… gnr… the rolling stones… i would hold any band to this standard.  

agree to disagree… 

 

[AxlsFavoriteRose]

33 minutes ago, Sosso said:

Nobody should have the the illusion that Brain was a desicion maker in the band. AC/DC has always been a family business by the Youngs. It's a very close circle that includes Angus, Stevie and George.

agreed!

[J Dog]

1 minute ago, Sunset Gardner said:

for me it's that brian joined ALL the original members… and then he created his own chapter with an excellent body of work that rivals his predecessors.  when there's ONLY ONE original member in a band i can't get behind it, it feels delusional and cheap.  if there's enough members participating (like say axl, slash, duff) then i can get behind them touring behind the original name despite all the original members not being present.  

look to be fair i take it all back if axl and angus create ANYTHING that is on par with bon and brian.  but again, i wish they'd just start a new band, give it a new name, start a new legacy, it's hard with just one original member to call it ac/dc… gnr… the rolling stones… i would hold any band to this standard.  

agree to disagree… 

 

It's cool. But Angus is just too damn old to start over  Let the old man make one more bad ass record with Axl and call it quits is what I say.

 

[AxlsFavoriteRose]

14 minutes ago, Sunset Gardner said:

look to be fair i take it all back if axl and angus create ANYTHING that is on par with bon and brian.  but again, i wish they'd just start a new band, give it a new name, start a new legacy, it's hard with just one original member to call it ac/dc… gnr… the rolling stones… i would hold any band to this standard.  

how 'bout calling it Angus and Friends?? since Angus is the only only left from the original AC/DC?

[Sunset Gardner]

 

Just now, AxlsFavoriteRose said:

how 'bout calling it Angus and Friends?? since Angus is the only only left from the original AC/DC?

they should call it axl/dc… that way it's a wink and a nod at the fact it's not really ac/dc… but a unique hybrid all its own.  i love axl and angus for the record, i say all of this just as someone who wants to see them succeed, sometimes when there's no one around to say "no" rich rock stars can make bad decisions.   

Edited May 20, 2017 by Sunset Gardner

[Sosso]

1 hour ago, Sunset Gardner said:

for me it's that brian joined ALL the original members… and then he created his own chapter with an excellent body of work that rivals his predecessors.  when there's ONLY ONE original member in a band i can't get behind it, it feels delusional and cheap.  if there's enough members participating (like say axl, slash, duff) then i can get behind them touring behind the original name despite all the original members not being present.  

look to be fair i take it all back if axl and angus create ANYTHING that is on par with bon and brian.  but again, i wish they'd just start a new band, give it a new name, start a new legacy, it's hard with just one original member to call it ac/dc… gnr… the rolling stones… i would hold any band to this standard.  

agree to disagree… 

 

Cliff Williams wasn't a original member - Larry Van Kriedt, Mark Evans, etc. were in the band before him 

Phil Rudd wasn't a original member - Tony Currenti, Peter Clack, etc. were in the band before him

Bon Scott wasn't a original member - Dave Evans was in the band before him

The only originals since 1974 were Angus and Mal.

Edited May 19, 2017 by Sosso

[IncitingChaos]

Axl and Angus make a record that gets people interested in rock music again then they can start etching that third chapter.

if it's called AC/DC or not isn't important it comes down to the consumer to decide if they deem it worthy to buy their record or go to their show. 

Right now ACDC's legacy is simply it's will to carry on, its persistence, its drive, and the enduring nature of the band. They simply will not die and that's something that Angus takes a lot of pride in and as long as he can still walk he will make sure that legacy lives on. Axl might be the fuel he needs to do so 

[AxlsFavoriteRose]

i am sure it will just be AC/DC when it comes right down to it just like GN'R remained GN'R *shrugs*

Edited May 19, 2017 by AxlsFavoriteRose

[Sunset Gardner]

Just now, Sosso said:

Cliff Williams wasn't a original member - Larry Van Kriedt, Mark Evans, etc. were in the band before him 

Phil Rudd wasn't a original member - Tony Currenti, Peter Clack, etc. were in the band before him

Bon Scott wasn't a original member - Dave Evans was in the band before him

The only originals since 1974 were Angus and Mal.

obviously that is correct… and my words should've been chosen better… my point was/is… that ac/dc WAS ac/dc when brian joined… it was a moving fluid thing… whereas i do not feel that now, i do not feel axl would be joining anything other that angus and the people angus is currently playing with, which is not ac/dc.  ac/dc at this point is over (for me imho).  when brian joined they were young men with the fire of youth driving them to write and create new great art.  the "non original" members of ac/dc continued working at the highest level and their records were incredible, arguably better or on par with anything their predecessors did.  you can't argue with greatness or success, but you can argue about "band members" who come into a band and bring nothing other than to play songs live that the real band members wrote years prior.     

like i said i just wish axl and angus would start a NEW band.  eric clapton didn't replace ginger baker and jack bruce and continue on as CREAM… he just started a new fucking thing… better than the last.  

if they make a record and put on a show and YOU enjoy it then i think that's great, i would never want to shit on something that brought someone true happiness… my point is just discussion and debate on a fan forum… when it comes down to it i support anything that makes anyone happy (within' reason).  

 

Edited May 20, 2017 by Sunset Gardner

[Sosso]

There is no real or fake AC/DC in regards of a specific line-up. At least for me. Line-up changes are a huge part of their history. Just compare the line ups from 1973, 1975, 1980, 1988, 2014 and 2016. 

 

[AxlsFavoriteRose]

24 minutes ago, Sosso said:

There is no real or fake AC/DC in regards of a specific line-up. At least for me. Line-up changes are a huge part of their history. Just compare the line ups from 1973, 1975, 1980, 1988, 2014 and 2016. 

 

i like how you think friend

[bucketfoot]

Most bands change line ups at one time or another. It's pretty rare that a band remains with the original line up when you think about it? Means fuck all.

[Sunset Gardner]

Just now, bucketfoot said:

Most bands change line ups at one time or another. It's pretty rare that a band remains with the original line up when you think about it? Means fuck all.

the best example, for me, of a band that changed things up right was the stones.  brian jones into mick taylor into ron wood.  so seamless.  each guitarist represents a very distinct period for the band.   the Eagles were also remarkably able to move people in and out around henley/frey.  

Edited May 20, 2017 by Sunset Gardner

[AxlsFavoriteRose]

11 minutes ago, bucketfoot said:

Most bands change line ups at one time or another. It's pretty rare that a band remains with the original line up when you think about it? Means fuck all.

oh i don't know...there are exceptions. imagine if you could get the original line up of Led Zeppelin. or The Beatles. or The Who. or THe Doors

[bucketfoot]

10 minutes ago, Sunset Gardner said:

the best example, for me, of a band that changed things up right was the stones.  brian jones into mick taylor into ron wood.  so seamless.  each guitarist represents a very distinct period for the band.   the Eagles were also remarkably able to move people in and out around henley/frey.  

Yeah, both of those are perfect examples. The Stones (who are my favourite band), as you say, changed guitarists absolutely brilliantly.

[Sunset Gardner]

Just now, bucketfoot said:

Yeah, both of those are perfect examples. The Stones (who are my favourite band), as you say, changed guitarists absolutely brilliantly.

it's almost scary how the stones got it all so right.  absolutely brilliant body of work over such an impressive amount of time.  and i love "blue and lonesome"... such a great little blues record.  

[bucketfoot]

11 minutes ago, AxlsFavoriteRose said:

oh i don't know...there are exceptions. imagine if you could get the original line up of Led Zeppelin. or The Beatles. or The Who. or THe Doors

Oh yeah, and I do agree there are also bands who have members who are so integral, that they can't be replaced, The Beatles could never reform after Lennon died being the obvious example, they are rare though. As much as I love Brian, he's certainly not irreplaceable (that's harsh I know)

[Sunset Gardner]

Just now, AxlsFavoriteRose said:

oh i don't know...there are exceptions. imagine if you could get the original line up of Led Zeppelin. or The Beatles. or The Who. or THe Doors

yeah, i totally agree… so much integrity in these bands.  except The Who… oh i kid The Who.   i buy any lineup change that backs itself up with solid work that stands on its own against anything that came before it.  but the bands you mention above (except for the who)… you just CAN'T imagine anyone not there, they are all bands that did not carry on out of respect for the lost members they could not be complete without.  

Edited May 20, 2017 by Sunset Gardner

[bucketfoot]

6 minutes ago, Sunset Gardner said:

it's almost scary how the stones got it all so right.  absolutely brilliant body of work over such an impressive amount of time.  and i love "blue and lonesome"... such a great little blues record.  

It is. I mean, I absolutely love Brian Jones, love him, The Stones were his band, basically, and yet all my favourite albums by them are with Mick Taylor.