As Simmo has suggested. I think that people don't fully understand the connections between AC/DC and progressive music movements!

In fact all of Ball Breaker was originally written in 9/8 as homage to the Dave Brubeck Quartet – then later changed during the recording process.

Angus Young was quoted in The Wire magazine as saying:

Angus wrote:Yes, originally we composed the album in compound triple time as a tribute of sorts to Dave Brubeck and the whole 50’s west coast jazz scene. For a long time, as a group we felt indebted to their sense of experimentation and their desire to escape the boundaries of traditional musical forms. However we felt that ironically [laughs] the originality of the works suffered from this slavish to adherence metre…

The full interview is here - www.thewire.com/angusspeaks

world of pee wrote:so you all like ac/dc so much, you get offended that people think they're crap.

so let me ask you this:

do you feel the same way about
motley crue?
def leppard?
guns 'n' roses?
any number of asinine cock rock bands with a singer that sounds like a squawking fowl?
is ac/dc more "real" because they wore some stupid schoolboy outfit instead of teasing their hair out?
do you like kiss?
how many songs about dude's balls can you take?

See though, you're lumping AC/DC in with hair metal and glam, which they are not.

This thread inspired me to re-listen to Back in Black.

That album is damn-near perfect from beginning to end.

Plus, unlike most music today, you can crank the hell out of that record on your stereo and it still sounds crystal clear.

Only "metal for life" people like them?
AC/DC has never been a "metal" band. Just pure and simple rock n roll.

Not Crap with 0 waffles. Not even for the Fly on the Wall and Flick of the Switch era.

Champion Rabbit wrote:Out of interest, are there any AC/DC songs that aren't in 4/4?

Are there any AC/DC songs that aren't in E or A?

I don't get this band.

I can't differentiate between old and new AC/DC because it all sounds the same, and it's all annoying. And boring.

And the fucking vocals jesus christ.

Crap.

Peripatetic wrote:I can't differentiate between old and new AC/DC because it all sounds the same, and it's all annoying.

Angus Young* wrote:...habit is relative to a stereotyped world, and meantime it is only the roughness of the eye that makes any two persons, things, situations, seem alike.

*ok, so it was actually Walter Pater... but he would have liked the DC. And the point is the same.

I can't believe I waste my time posting on a forum where 16 people think AC/DC are Crap. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

This is maybe the only poll where I think I will be in an absolute minority.
CRAP, no waffles.

I am sorry.

Heard Back in Black on the radio yesterday.

Those guys are geniuses.

Listen to what they are doing. There are a million little things happening in that song to make it what it is.

Malcom will play a two-finger chord one way on the downbeat, then play it as a three-finger chord on the offbeat. Next time around, it's the same two-finger chord, only on different strings to make it a little brighter. And the three-finger chord is a little harder hit. And he'll play that chord one more beat than he did the first time around, to build tension a little bit. Etc.

They all do stuff like that, all the time. You'd use up many trees trying to write all that shit down.

I just stuck High Voltage on the mp3 player for the 3 hour bus journey up to Inverness. I just realised that the only band I wanted to listen to today was AC/DC.

Not Crap.

do not trust anyone who doesnt at least understand and respect ac/dc.