I don't really feel like reading through 17 pages so apologies if this was already posted but here's the roots of Hell's Bells at 2:15:
Also, after looking at the set list june29,30. I noticed Have a drink on me and Let me put, are not played. Bon stated he was finishing song writing duties and looking to go too studio in March. The Young' s stated, he played drums on these to tracks. Could they have just needed to finish up these two tracks?
Unless an authentic tape of Bon Scott singing "You Shook Me All Night Long" or a notebook in Bon's writing with the complete lyrics of the album show up, I will believe that Brian Johnson did what the credits say he did.
WTF? Did they ever play Let Me live? Are they supposed to play the entire album at every show? Your logic makes no sense.
"What if" and you "think"? Believe what ya like, but it doesn't make it true. Regarding writing the music (being able to play a bit of drums and/or the recorder doesn't mean one can compose riffs) Bon himself, in the Let there Be Rock movie says: "I can't write. I wouldn't know the first thing about music". So, I guess Bon is lying now too? Also, notice in the above vid that Malcolm talks about how he would come up with the titles for songs too. This is something Brian spoke about recently in an interview with Rolling Stone (more lies?): AC/DC's Brian Johnson on Malcolm Young: 'He Gave Rock and Roll a Fist' The timeline does not support it either. You may want to investigate a bit more how AC/DC worked, and maybe go beyond Fink's book for that info. This is a lot like arguing politics and/or religion though - where facts don't matter, and folks gonna believe what they want and that's that.
Been thinking about this since I read Jesse Finks: the last highway. An undoubted fact seems to be that Bon's flat was raided just after his death and his lyric books were missing. Hhmmm... There's many statements from people close to Bon that suggested he was way down the pecking order within the band. Most notably to me, their manager at the time. A man who supposedly spoke down to Bon and the guy who most probably ordered the books looked for. Seems to me that if this man - a man who reportedly showed open contempt towards Bon - came into possession of these books, he simply would have kept them for the up and coming album/albums without hesitation. Given the pressure the band was under to follow up highway to hell with something bigger and better. Taking this into consideration - along with my view that ANY singer covering fresh Bon lyrics would be compared to, and ultimately, trashed by Bon's adoring fans - I think that the decision to use Bon's lyrics, while cutting him from the credited artist's list, seems totally feasible. ACDC were on the brink of becoming an unstoppable money machine. One man's death was not going to derail that. Morally wrong, definitely. Incredibly smart, absolutely. Someone with a great understanding of fans and their temperaments would have had to make that call. Then of course, persuade the young brothers. Though, given all the lads had put into the band, I doubt it would have taken much to persuade them. Use Bon's best lyrics while Brian and the youngs come up with the rest. Pay Bon's family royalties on the quiet, and get them to sign a contract stating they cant speak publicly about any arrangement regarding Back in Black. *Angus apparently slipped up in 1998 saying Bon's stuff was in there.
Ah, when the Beatle afterlife isn't enough, we always have the great Young & Young conspiracy to deal with.
Just after Bon’s death, the band was basically also dead. The Young’s didn’t even decide to go on until Bon’s folks told them to. They were under zero pressure when Bon died to follow up anything with anything, and they weren’t back from the grave until they found Brian. So some mad rush to raid Bon’s apartment for “future albums” the minute after he died feels like nonsense to me.
I don't see any reason why Bon's contributions (if any) would've gone uncredited. Any royalties would've gone to his estate. Dave Mustaine was getting credits on two albums he didn't appear on with Metallica. Yes every outfit is different but, why would Angus and Malcolm purposefully screw over Bon's mother?
They wouldn't, that is what makes accusations like these so incredibly farfetched and nasty. Made up by people with some sort of strange agenda, it seems
I also find these oft repeated statements about The Young’s being so ruthless to be overstated as well. They only really ever kicked one guy out of the band (post first album) and that was Mark Evans. Phil went insane on his own in 83 but was brought back in 94 and stayed on until he imploded again (after being given chance after chance) 20 years later. Simon Wright quit on his own after 5 years. Slade was only let go after the band wanted to try Phil out again. Actually Slade quit on his own out of pride when he heard they were going to give Phil a try. Mal was respectful enough to tell him this straight out, but even then wanted to keep Slade on a retainer. Yes, the Brian thing could have been publically handled much much better but he’d also been with band almost 40 years. So, the idea these guys were brutal and evil enough to screw Bon over like that doesn’t add up.
I am not taking any sides in this debate and I think AC/DC always remained an amazing band. Without any real proof evidence of notebooks, or pen to paper by Bon to ever be presented, this topic of lyrics on BNB will always remain a mystery to a degree... Myself being a musician, guitarist/composer and words/lyrics writer, I have, and keep written notes of my works, sentences, titles, subjects and completed song lyrics. Sometimes I haven't used some, sometimes they are work to be tried in rehearsal and yet to be used, and there are some others I have gone back to, up to years, and used them as new songs to repertoire, so the possibility is always there and I would think other singer/writers could agree that (as musicians) we keep this kind of stuff as well as are always continue writing more. All of the singers I have worked with do this themselves. Whatever not done, or if was done, is none of my business, (or anybody else's) if it's not my (or their's) business or band. It is an interesting topic though, and opinions are opinions, and that goes for guess's too.
Back In Black is a special album for sure. That I will say, as it speaks for itself on/in many levels.
I’d consider believing these rumors if the lyrics actually sounded like Bon. Hell’s Bells! Back In Black! You Shook Me (with it’s purely Brian car metaphors) are absolutely nothing like Bon’s work. Sure, there are songs about drinking and getting with the ladies but it’s all pe*nis puns and double/triple entendres and with this very distinctive non-linear incomplete/non sentence sentence thing that Brian does all over the next few albums. Bon told stories, Brian spits out imagery. Both distinct styles also worked perfectly for each guy’s vocal style. I’m sure someone else could articulate this better than me.
There was two interviews. Paul Elliott of kerrang magazine 1991. Elissa Blake Australian Rolling Stone 1998.
Baffled a bit by this statement tbh. Bon was getting better year on year and was entering the peak of his writing abilities. He was excited as hell at what they were about to do. Brian hadn't written anything noteworthy at all in his career, yet he then 'writes' and records the best album by ACDC in less than eight weeks? Any writer will tell you that it takes years of dedication to develop your style, and Bon's is all over this album. Close your eyes and listen to the opening of Hells Bells, has Bon's bravado all over it. Buzz Shearman's wife says she got a call about him replacing Bon. She was asked if if he could audition 'in LA for the back and black album'. 'Don't worry about it' she was told 'come in and just do the singing part'. Also in an interview with Elissa Blake of aussie rolling stone Angus said 'we had songs that he had written and wanted to finish the songs' '...our tribute to Bon'. 'we didn't even know if people would accept it'. This latter part of his statement is why I think they credited Brian. They were worried about any backlash, and in my opinion, management made the decision (with the blessing of the Scott's) that Bon wouldn't be credited. That's my take on it anyway.
They didn't. Bon's family get royalties from back and black. According to an old band mate of Bon's and a family friend of the Scott's anyway. One of his brothers told him they get a royalty share.
ALL AC/DC has “Bon all over it” simply because they continued writing in his vein. And I can’t imagine Bon singing any BIB stuff because Brian’s performance is so phenomenal that he obliterates all other possibilities. His own personality and bravado is all over the album and it’s more than enough for me (and untold millions of other fans around the world) Perhaps you should try sitting back and appreciating his efforts/contributions without pushing a contrary agenda? Why ruin the best album ever??? And I’m a musician/writer myself. A lot has to do with building skills/talents over time: yes, but momentum and inspiration/not to mention pressure, can be equally effective for achieving amazing results. And Bon’s lyrics on HTH are a far cry from his best work, in my opinion and the BIB lyrics are much worse from a critical perspective but still cool. So, I don’t see Bon anywhere on BIB aside from some subject matter. Also, what had Bon ever written of note before his first great set of lyrics for AC/DC? Look at Black Sabbath: Children Of The Grave and Children Of The Sea. VERY similar lyrics. Does this mean Geezer must have written the COTS words and not Dio??? Oh, and Jesse Fink pushed heresay is exactly that: heresay and should be taken with a grain of salt.
Not that it matters right or wrong or a side your on or what to believe because the album stands as great. They do have people in forensic and FBI investigative areas that could give insight in this topic, matter or myth, whichever choose to call it. They take suspect writings and have/find ways to match them up against previous writings of supposed culprit or in this case writer, they use everything from letters, work papers, schools, in this case previous song lyrics, family mementos, basically they would be able to give as accurate as you could get to just how certain or uncertain a "said" writer could be, still it would be an opinion by percentage and science obtained, and they still can get it wrong. An interesting take on this topic is what comes to mind only, purely investigative and scientific. Still, the album will be great, and the achievements by all involved with album and the bands history throughout time would still remain the same as well. It seems like a which hunt at times, and science could add or take away from that, though I don't think it's needed or would ever be wanted or warranted for reasons that are definitely other peoples business, and they got this one. Mysteries can make good stories and discussions, and sometimes not good stories or discussion, also can create folklore. Then again it never was really deemed a mystery, so folklore? Which in turn allows each to make their own decison
And when we talk about BIB and Brian’s lyrics: Brian has described it himself as half going off someplace with a pad of paper and making up things in the vocal boot I’ve always thought Whiskey On The Rocks from Ballbreaker had “Bon all over it too!” They need to come clean and rename the whole thing “Bonbreaker!”
