AC/DC to announce 'retirement' today???

To state the obvious, I don't think either May or Taylor believe that Mercury can be replaced by Rodgers or Lambert. The idea was they just wanted to continue to make music and needed a singer/singers to keep doing it. It has to be hard to have the frontman of your band cut down when, musically, you still feel like you have something to say. Obviously, AC/DC was in a similar situation in 1980 when Scott died. As noted it's never been just billed as "QUEEN" it's always Queen + (whomever).

Anyway, back on topic with AC/DC if Stevie Young plays with them, also as noted, it's not unprecedented. I saw Stevie play years ago with his own band, Starfighters, who opened up for UFO & Ozzy at Reunion Arena in Dallas in 82 or 83. Not a great band.

 

Yep, shifting units and concert revenues is ultimately what it comes down to.

 

AC/DC are Angus/Malcolm Young!

 

then why does the public still buy concert tickets to see them? seems like if they thought as you do then the tours would be hard to book because no one would buy the tickets

 

When I lived in Sarasota I used to go to wine tastings at a local liquor store that he and his wife used to attend (although usually his wife came alone). He seemed like a very down-to-earth nice guy. My friend once told him how much he enjoyed his singing, and he seemed a little embarassed and said [/British accent] "Aw, I just scream, is all" [/British accent].

 

They should call themselves Drag Queen as that more accurately captures their authenticity without Freddie.

 

Why do so many of you want them to hang it up? What are we gonna do when all the great bands are gone? What are we left with...freakin' Lady GaGa, Justin Bieber, One Direction etc etc...there's no great rock n roll out there any more!!! Well, there is some, but it is obscure and essentially underground.....there's no more mainstream rock n roll bands out there ! We need everything we can get !! I say soldier on AC/DC....keep rockin' until you can't !!! Ever take a look at Top 40 nowadays??!?!? Used to be you would see bands like AC/DC, Queen, KISS, or a Cheap Trick on there....now, as far as rock n roll, what have you got ?!?! NOTHING !!!!! Now I'm not saying the above listed bands should be on there today....no, but heck, there ain't ANY new great rock n roll on the charts any more !!! It's dead in the mainstream !!! The kids don;t even know what great rock n roll is !! A shame...a damned shame.....so I say ROCK ON AC/DC !!!

 

I don't get this attitude some have of 'I don't like them anymore so they should just go away and stop making music.' it just seems very arrogant and self-centered and childish.

Bands are comprised of human beings joined together for a common purpose. Things change, people change, circumstances change. People get tired of doing the same thing all the time and want to go in a different direction. People get ill; people die. As a band, the remaining members need to decide for themselves what they want to do. If they choose to carry on why would somone feel entitled to say they shouldn't?

If they carry on and you don't like the results, don't buy the records or go to the concerts. It really is as simple as that- no need to whine and snipe.

 

Sorry, but it is clear that our desire to be curmudgeony pricks about bands trumps any goodwill about music in general that we once might have had. This is evident not only here but in most threads about most other bands, even ones we once loved. It's all **** if it's not what we grew up on.

 

Understood....but the good rock n roll we grew up with is dying a slow death...we need AC/DC....we need them...

 

I don't think that's true, at least in my case. I saw Hendrix when I was 13 and have just expanded what I like since, and see plenty of "current" bands. But I do see RoryStorm's point clearly - big rock guitar riffs, an awesome stadium- (or at least arena-) sized spectacle - these are not characteristics that you will find at a Avett Brothers or Black Keys show. The huge "rock" vibe is not really around now, or at least does not have a big following among younger listeners. The style of music played by bands like AC/DC is becoming extinct...

 

That’s not true at all. We have Imagine Dragons!!!!!!!

 

I of course was being facetious and agree with you completely. I lament the fact that supposed "music lovers" around here continue to act like such nattering nabobs of negativism.

 

I see his point too - I was just joshing. I also agree with your statement for the most part. Fact is that riff-heavy hard rock is alive and well, you just won't find it being played to sold out arenas unfortunately. Festivals possibly, and clubs definitely, but not arenas (with a few exceptions like Muse and Foo Fighters which are loose comparisons).

Airbourne, Accept, Black Label Society, Graveyard, Clutch, Uncle Acid and the Deadbeats, Treat, The Magnificent, Ghost, Sword, Rival Sons, Alter Bridge, The Winery Dogs, Queens of the Stone Age...the rock is out there to be had, we just need to ditch our notion of the "mainstream" because that as the concept we've known is now and forever gone.

 

Yes, why not have a watered down version of the real thing. Take away the anchor, the rhythm guitarist, and a big part of the writing team, and that's exactly what is left. Do AC/DC want to continue without Malcolm?

 

Sorry but when I read this on Wiki describing Imagine Dragons, I have my doubts.......

"Imagine Dragons' Night Visions is primarily an alternative rock and indie rock album, although it also exhibits influences of dubstep, folk, hip-hop and pop."

Dubstep, folk, hip-hop and pop ?!? WTF.....For Those About To hip-hop We Salute You ?!? Not in my world....

 

Some people have this unrealistic idea of how their music idols should behave. They want them to look young forever and the moment that they start to show chinks in the armour, that they are human and not gods, they don't want to see it and can't handle it. Is it really embarrassing that a man in his sixties can't hold the same high notes as a vocalist or play the guitar with the same finesse as a 20 year old? In the end people will decide with their money whether they want to continue to support the band. After the well dries up and it is truly over people will go back and remember the band for their achievements and the "embarrassing aging years" will only be a blip that will hardly register as the years go on. When AC/DC is gone people will join and celebrate albums like "Highway to Hell" vs obsessing over those few years that Malcolm wasn't in the band.

 

And how exactly do you already know that post-Malcolm AC/DC will be "watered down?" How do you know if what's been written already wasn't Malcolm to begin with? How do you know that whatever creative force they might bring in to replace Malcolm with isn't just as bad-ass?

Everyone needs to simmer down and put away their Jump To Conclusions mats until we hear what the future will sound like.

 

their album tanked in a quick and very vicious way.

However, yes, the tour with Rodgers did pretty well, especially in Europe. Some people, enough I guess, seem OK with it. However, go to any forum where this gets discussed, and you'll always find a contingent of people that really dont like May and Taylor calling their band "Queen" without Freddie.

 

Did you not read their home site? By what BJ stated, it sounds like they have lots of work to do. Without Malcolm as part of the process.....you figure it out.

And replace Malcolm = watered down. You've lost part of the chemistry that make them what they are.

 

You, sir, are making sense. Stop it, there's no room for that on the internet!

 

Maybe Malcolm's situation will inspire them. Sometimes sadness or anger can activate one's creative mechanism.

I'd say they have a history of delivering the goods when the chips are down:

 

I read BJ's quote about "taking guitars into the studios and having a plonk." My point was that you're making assumptions of the quality of the band and their potential future work based on Malcolm's illness, which is baseless at this point in time. It's really a "different must mean worse" mentality, which seems silly to me for life in general, let alone music. Why not just let it happen and see what comes of it before prematurely declaring their chemistry dead?

Here are more wacky assumptions:

• Malcolm has been holding the band's compositions back for decades, focusing for the quick and cheap thrills over more ambitious ideas.
  
• With Malcolm out of the picture, Angus will have free reign to take things into a diverse and awesome direction, and will be able to solicit more ideas from others inside and outside the band.
  
• While Angus and Malcolm wrote separately for Black Ice, Malcolm's tracks were rubbish compared to Angus's and it is mainly his work on the album.
• Malcolm will be replaced by a better player and writer, bringing more strut and swagger to the group.

All of the above are of course nonsense, and while we could go on all day assuming, but it just doesn't make sense. They might write an album of all killer no filler, or they may not produce anything worth recording at all. Isn't giving them the benefit of the doubt both more fun and exciting than the alternative?

 

Can't say I knew the name Malcolm Young before this story broke. I knew the names Angus, Brian and Bon.
I'll judge it by the quality of the music, not the names.
And given that they have largely been rehashing an (admittedly kick a$$) formula for a few decades rather than breaking new ground (OK, Thunderstruck was a somewhat new evolution of their sound only 20 some years ago), I imagine that three of them will be able to rehash it pretty well with a new guitarist who has absorbed Malcolm's influence.

To the extent they did break serious new ground, I expect it would be a let down to most of the fan base that loves the one trick they do so well.

 

I hope you weren't taking me seriously.