[ Sign In | Register ]

ACDCfans.net

This forum is for fans of rock music, rock bands and rock concerts - and in particular AC/DC's brand of high-voltage rock 'n' roll music. ACDCfans.net brings you the latest AC/DC news and gives rock music fans and musicians a chance to meet others like them around the world.

To comment in the forum, you need to register for an account. Sign in to your account below or apply for membership.














  1.  
    I read an article in which the singer for GVF raised an interesting point, in response to Gene Simmons' comment about rock being dead a few years back - "maybe the world of rock [Gene] remembers is dead”.

    article here: https://www.louderso...

    Surely, the era of guys going wild, overdosing on heroin, being "rockstars", and bragging about how many 15 year old groupies they fucked is dead. Or, rather, passed onto the world of rap, which has a very different interpretation of it.

    I'm personally very glad that it's dead. I think the music will live on if it is of quality, and rock of course had no shortage of that, but this ultimately leads to a necessary separation between the music and the culture. I believe that kids for many more decades will discover records like Back in Black or Who's Next and be in awe, as I was, because of the sheer quality of the music. But, the culture that surrounded rock in the 60s, 70s, and 80s can only exist at that time - the music itself will last much longer than a shared, always-evolving collective consciousness that humans call "culture".

    I think Spinal Tap represents this very well - people being idolized as gods, many times despite their utter lack of any real musical skill/talent, much of it being a "fad" as the limo (?) driver called it, the guy in the bathtub at the end saying that he could do without the rock n roll regarding "sex, drugs, rock n roll", and just all the general bullshit that inevitably surrounds something so incredibly mainstream as rock music. Of course I realize that Spinal Tap displays stereotypes for satirical purposes, yet there's obviously some truth in what it displays.

    I also realize that the mystique of guys like Jim Morrison, and the godlike image of guys like Freddie Mercury were part of the draw of those bands - you were witnessing something incredible, almost superhuman. But, part of me also scoffs at the celebrity worship that is so prevalent, and that I was very much guilty of not even a year ago. Ultimately, when you remove all of bullshit (such is the case with modern rock), you're left with only one thing - the music. Unfortunately, many modern rock bands seem to be utterly clueless on that front. So, while I don't think that the music of rock will totally die any time soon, the culture and mystique of it is long gone.

    Thoughts?
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: Thankass
    • Apr 30th 2021 edited
     
    This is a good, well-thought-of, post.
    I think the world of Rock that 40+ old farts grew up with is indeed gone. Sadly but understandable. Time changes. The younger generation has probably a different view on the Rock music culture because the whole of society is different and has different values than say 35 years ago.

    Most important thing is that guitar driven rock music will always be present and played. By either young teens or old farts. Young teens playing old fart music is still my preference; )
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: Zan
    • Apr 30th 2021
     
    Everything is cyclical, the last decade saw the peak and decline of electronic dance music, and hiphop which in many way replaced rock in the cultural zeitgeist is also moving towards a decline. Due to the general timelessness of the combination of guitar, bass and drums rock will indeed at some point return in some form to a more prevalent state than today.

    In 2014 I was at a private event for Universal Music when they presented the big releases coming up for commercial radio for the next year. Out of 30-40 artists, they showcased only 2 rock bands, Imagine Dragons and Nickelback. That's when I knew for sure how far away rock was from the mainstream at that point.

    But audiences are always hungry for something fresh, and if something could penetrate deep enough, it could be rock music again.
  2.  
    Rock is NOT dead! It's just not as popular as it once was but that doesn't mean it's dead. Just because the musical landscape has changed and Rock is no longer the number one popular music genre doesn't mean that it's dead, it's just evolved to be at a different level in the mainstream music scene but there is enough happening in Rock music globally and enough fans of Rock music worldwide that tell me it's well and truly alive and kicking but just not like it was in the 60's, 70's 80's and 90's. It's like Jazz was once the most popular form of music in the days of Miles Davis and Johnny Coltrane and when it lost it's mainstream popularity it didn't die but rather it took another form as another alternative style of music that people could follow. Rock is becoming a little the same but I personally feel that Rock will have a revival as it is still heard a lot in mainstream society, just look at TV advertising and Sports events where Rock is heard regularly meaning even our latest generation of kids hear it regularly so their ears are conditioned to the sound of Rock music and it's not entirely foreign to them. Rock is NOT dead, it's just living a different life these days... ;-)
  3.  
    There could be a revival of sorts, but I'd wager more on a good rock band or two surfacing every once in a while. Ever since like 2002, you've had that; first it was The White Stripes, Jet, The Darkness, Velvet Revolver, QOTSA around that time, then around 2007 you had Wolfmother and The Black Keys. And more recently, stuff like Royal Blood and Highly Suspect. Then, there's more experimental stuff but with guitar like 21 Pilots. I think you'll see a lot more of that, and also rap including guitar work.
  4.  
    Kinda like the rap song with that guitar riff uuuuuhhhhhh.... "Mood" was it? I hear it's quite big.... I don't know ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  5.  
    An insightful, funny take on rock is dead:

  6.  
    I personally don't care if "rock is dead". I still listen to the music I like, and usually rock concerts are not empty venues with the only attendees being a dog and its owner.
  7.  
    Ultimately, what I'm getting at is a separation of the music and the culture that surrounded it in its heyday. As long as people are still listening to the music, it's not dead, but I think the era of rnr being "dangerous" and "wild" is dead and gone entirely. Besides, what does "dangerous" even mean in this context? Well, that's a different topic entirely.
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: DrBelford
    • May 1st 2021 edited
     
    Meanstreak has made the perfect contribution to this thread with the Lemmy interview.

    It perfectly exemplifies what Penguin is talking about (the current "cultural" state of RNR):

    Not merely because of Lemmy's statements, but mainly because of the venue & context: It is on ARTE.

    Pretty telling in itself.

    (EDIT: I'm not sure if everyone on this thread is aware of what the European network ARTE is though)
  8.  
    Posted By: DrBelford(EDIT: I'm not sure if everyone on this thread is aware of what the European network ARTE is though)
    Please explain haha
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: DrBelford
    • May 1st 2021 edited
     
    Posted By: MyCubiclePenguin
    Posted By: DrBelford(EDIT: I'm not sure if everyone on this thread is aware of what the European network ARTE is though)
    Please explain haha


    Well, it is THE network of what you could call the "bourgeois cultural sector".

    What I'm trying to say is: During the "heyday" of RNR, a network like this / the cultural sector would have never even *touched* anything like ... "eeewww" ... Motörhead or Lemmy.

    In other words: If "RockNRoll" means Rebellion (culturally) as Lemmy says, in today's world, ARTE is about as "rebellious" as the Rolling Stone Magazine.

    (Ironically, I like ARTE, a lot of great content, especially "ARTE Tracks")


    So again, if "RockNRoll" means Rebellion, Motörhead and ARTE would be polar opposites. And they would have been / were during the 70s and 80s etc.

    Today, they aren't anymore.

    That's what I find "pretty telling" in the current cultural state of RNR. I mean, how "rebellious" can you actually be, if your "rebellion" is embraced & celebrated by a "cultural elite"
  9.  
    ^Interesting. As obvious an observation as this is, the same teenagers that consumed rock music decades ago grew up and joined society. As the older generations died out, society began to be dominated by those same teenagers, and thus the rebellion aspect of it faded to an extent.
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: DrBelford
    • May 1st 2021 edited
     
    Posted By: MyCubiclePenguin^Interesting. As obvious an observation as this is, the same teenagers that consumed rock music decades ago grew up and joined society. As the older generations died out, society began to be dominated by those same teenagers, and thus the rebellion aspect of it faded to an extent.


    Exactly. I would say, the rebellion aspect fades out completely in that process. If something becomes a culturally dominating mainstream, how could it possibly be rebellious at the same time?
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: Rocco
    • May 1st 2021
     
    Posted By: DrBelford
    Posted By: MyCubiclePenguin
    Posted By: DrBelford(EDIT: I'm not sure if everyone on this thread is aware of what the European network ARTE is though)
    Please explain haha


    Well, it is THE network of what you could call the "bourgeois cultural sector".

    What I'm trying to say is: During the "heyday" of RNR, a network like this / the cultural sector would have never even *touched* anything like ... "eeewww" ... Motörhead or Lemmy.

    In other words: If "RockNRoll" means Rebellion (culturally) as Lemmy says, in today's world, ARTE is about as "rebellious" as the Rolling Stone Magazine.

    (Ironically, I like ARTE, a lot of great content, especially "ARTE Tracks")


    So again, if "RockNRoll" means Rebellion, Motörhead and ARTE would be polar opposites. And they would have been / were during the 70s and 80s etc.

    Today, they aren't anymore.

    That's what I find "pretty telling" in the current cultural state of RNR.


    Excellent analysis.
  10.  
    Posted By: DrBelford
    Posted By: MyCubiclePenguin^Interesting. As obvious an observation as this is, the same teenagers that consumed rock music decades ago grew up and joined society. As the older generations died out, society began to be dominated by those same teenagers, and thus the rebellion aspect of it faded to an extent.


    Exactly. I would say, the rebellion aspect fades out completely in that process. If something becomes a culturally dominating mainstream, how could it possibly be rebellious at the same time?
    Yep. Still, "rebellion" can be interpreted in different ways. A guy like Lemmy wasn't totally against everything that society stood for - he had a moral code (as evident by songs like "Don't Let Daddy Kiss Me" and just his personality in general), liked to own things (as shown in the Lemmy documentary, his apartment was practically a museum; thus, consumerism), had a sense of fashion, etc... despite rebelling against other aspects of society/government. That's not to bash Lemmy in any way, but just to say that rebellion is up to interpretation. Little Richard and GG Allin had very different interpretations of it, for example.
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: DrBelford
    • May 1st 2021 edited
     
    Posted By: MyCubiclePenguinYep. Still, "rebellion" can be interpreted in different ways. A guy like Lemmy wasn't totally against everything that society stood for - he had a moral code (as evident by songs like "Don't Let Daddy Kiss Me" and just his personality in general), liked to own things (as shown in the Lemmy documentary, his apartment was practically a museum; thus, consumerism), had a sense of fashion, etc... despite rebelling against other aspects of society/government. That's not to bash Lemmy in any way, but just to say that rebellion is up to interpretation. Little Richard and GG Allin had very different interpretations of it, for example.


    I agree, I was just talking in more generalizing terms. So I think it's quite accurate what you say about RNR being dead "culturally" VS "musically". And the Lemmy interview on ARTE was just a perfect example of that very idea.
  11.  
    So Rock 'n' Roll is now 'high art'?
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: DrBelford
    • May 1st 2021
     
    Posted By: CantEvenFeedMyCatSo Rock 'n' Roll is now 'high art'?


    It always was ;)
  12.  
    :-)
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: Thankass
    • May 2nd 2021
     
    It always takes a few decades for a rebellious cultural phenomenon is socially accepted. But that's mostly because the rebellious died during those decades due to the phenomenon turning into an old fart.
  13.  
    Posted By: DrBelfordSo again, if "RockNRoll" means Rebellion, Motörhead and ARTE would be polar opposites. And they would have been / were during the 70s and 80s etc.

    Today, they aren't anymore.

    That's what I find "pretty telling" in the current cultural state of RNR. I mean, how "rebellious" can you actually be, if your "rebellion" is embraced & celebrated by a "cultural elite"


    AC/DC played Top of the Pops in 1979. Did that make them not rebellious? Most rock acts we know today were signed to major labels when they recorded their classic albums.

    Does rock even have to be rebellious? Frankly, AC/DC were never rebellious in any real way. And yet I'd say they're the purest distillation of rock and roll there is.

    Also, it seems to me that when artists actually act in rebellious ways, they get shit for being egotistical and thinking they're rockstars who can get away with anything.
  14.  
    I think any real sense of danger has just been boiled out of music in general. It’s impossible to imagine any band having the shocking impact of the Pistols in 76 or NWA in 89. We’ve seen too much, we’re numb to everything. And old-fashioned bad behaviour is no longer seen as rebellious but just sleazy and uncool - look at Marilyn Manson. And I never saw hard rock and metal as rebellious because they’re innately conservative (small c:)) genres - you’d have to be a nun to find AC/DC, Guns N Roses or Maiden remotely offensive or threatening.
  15.  
    Gene is a twat.
  16.  
    Posted By: ToiletWallPoetDoes rock even have to be rebellious? Frankly, AC/DC were never rebellious in any real way. And yet I'd say they're the purest distillation of rock and roll there is.


    Well said. Agree 100%.

    Rock does not have to be rebellious to remain culturally relevant and it never has needed to be. I think the idea of Rock being rebellious is a little bit over-exaggerated and romanticised hype. Yes there was an element of rebellion in Rock, especially in the early days with Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley but Rock was ultimately relevant and alive because of its addictive catchy sound, rhythm and lyrical content.
  17.  
  18.  
    Posted By: ToiletWallPoet
    Posted By: DrBelfordSo again, if "RockNRoll" means Rebellion, Motörhead and ARTE would be polar opposites. And they would have been / were during the 70s and 80s etc.

    Today, they aren't anymore.

    That's what I find "pretty telling" in the current cultural state of RNR. I mean, how "rebellious" can you actually be, if your "rebellion" is embraced & celebrated by a "cultural elite"


    AC/DC played Top of the Pops in 1979. Did that make them not rebellious? Most rock acts we know today were signed to major labels when they recorded their classic albums.

    Does rock even have to be rebellious? Frankly, AC/DC were never rebellious in any real way. And yet I'd say they're the purest distillation of rock and roll there is.

    Also, it seems to me that when artists actually act in rebellious ways, they get shit for being egotistical and thinking they're rockstars who can get away with anything.


    Imo AC/DC’s rebelliousness was never about a social movement against the man or whatever. It was a general way of life attitude. “Come with us or get the fuck out of our way and don’t fucking tell us what to do.” Carried through the music, and the way they conducted their business.
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: DrBelford
    • May 2nd 2021 edited
     
    Posted By: ToiletWallPoetAC/DC played Top of the Pops in 1979. Did that make them not rebellious? Most rock acts we know today were signed to major labels when they recorded their classic albums.

    Does rock even have to be rebellious? Frankly, AC/DC were never rebellious in any real way. And yet I'd say they're the purest distillation of rock and roll there is.

    Also, it seems to me that when artists actually act in rebellious ways, they get shit for being egotistical and thinking they're rockstars who can get away with anything.


    I get your point, but I stated it as *IF* rock means rebellion (as Lemmy claimed in that interview above). Also, I was talking about the acceptance within a cultural elite. That's not equal to "Top of the Pops" or "mainstream".
    During the "heyday" the cultural sector regarded things like Motörhead or ACDC at best as trivial or trash, at worst as a dangerous subversion that promotes the "wrong values".


    Posted By: Alex LebanonI think any real sense of danger has just been boiled out of music in general. It’s impossible to imagine any band having the shocking impact of the Pistols in 76 or NWA in 89. We’ve seen too much, we’re numb to everything. And old-fashioned bad behaviour is no longer seen as rebellious but just sleazy and uncool - look at Marilyn Manson.


    Fully agreed.

    Posted By: Alex LebanonAnd I never saw hard rock and metal as rebellious because they’re innately conservative (small c:)) genres - you’d have to be a nun to find AC/DC, Guns N Roses or Maiden remotely offensive or threatening.


    But that's just looking at it from exactly that "numbed" perspective that you perfectly described in your first paragraph. I agree that this is the state of affairs NOW, but to claim it was never
    rebellious in intention or perceived as such doesn't seem objective to me. According to that logic, Punk or Grunge never had a streak of rebellion, simply because of becoming commercialized later on. But I would claim the opposite: Of course "rebellion" was a key aspect in its respective inception.

    Punk tried to reinvigorate RNR by identifying the rebellious aspect with anarchy etc.
    Grunge tried to do it by identifying it with anti-commercialism/consumerism etc.

    So ... TODAY you would "have to be a nun to find AC/DC, Guns N Roses or Maiden remotely offensive or threatening", yes, that's exactly what I was pointing out ...
    BUT it was certainly seen as a "threat" back in the day by more people than just nuns. Conservatives saw it as potentially dangerous subversion, calling it a "cultural decline", Religious groups saw it as a vehicle to promote "satanism" etc. And the Socialists regarded it as a threat in the form of propaganda promoting "dangerous ideas like individualism & hedonism".

    There's still quite a few places, where you will get into serious trouble for being a punk or a metal head. The people that take part in that subculture absolutely certainly see it as a form of rebellion (and rightly so)

    A Pinball machine is seen as a perfectly harmless form of entertainment today. Does that mean it was never seen as dangerous & subversive, just because it seems completely silly to us now?

    https://www.latimes....

    Malcolm has called their "ACDC" lifestyle a "circus" life.
    A Circus is also seen as a perfectly tame and harmless form of entertainment today. That was not always the case.
  19.  
    ^ Good points well made. The first minute of this song will always sound way more threatening/rebellious than pretty much anything ever recorded - just exudes a genuine, timeless menace that a traditional hard rock band could never match IMHO.

  20.  
    Posted By: SpellboundImo AC/DC’s rebelliousness was never about a social movement against the man or whatever. It was a general way of life attitude. “Come with us or get the fuck out of our way and don’t fucking tell us what to do.” Carried through the music, and the way they conducted their business.


    Yeah, in a sense, because just being a carefree partygoer like Bon was rebellious at the time. But I never really got the sense that they had a "get the fuck out of our way" attitude. Here and there they might say in an interview how they don't like being told what to do or something vague like that, but they never actually challenged anything in practice. It's not like they got into fights every night over the town's curfew telling them what to do. It would be very easy for, say, an older generation to paint them as disingenuous "faux rebels" who sing about being "problem children" but never actually cause problems.

    This will draw some ire and to be clear, I'm not comparing them, but for an analogy, think about how people mock Greta Van Fleet for being posers because they don't... what, exactly? Do you want them to overturn a police car and set it on fire? Like I said, when artists actually DO rebel against society, they overwhelmingly get shit for it from the same older generation calling them "posers". Also, "rebellion" is a wide encompassing term. For example, Harry Styles wearing a dress is a way of rebelling against societal norms. But he certainly never got credit for being a rebel there. Rebellion is very subjective.

    Posted By: DrBelfordI was talking about the acceptance within a cultural elite. That's not equal to "Top of the Pops" or "mainstream".


    But who is the "cultural elite" though? I doubt much of the audience for the London Philharmonic would appreciate AC/DC even today. I'll admit I have no clue what "ARTE" is though.

    Posted By: DrBelfordTODAY you would "have to be a nun to find AC/DC, Guns N Roses or Maiden remotely offensive or threatening", yes, that's exactly what I was pointing out


    Also consider that a lot of the satanic panic stuff was manufactured and drummed up by special interest groups, as opposed to being genuine societal backlash for their rebellious attitudes. Also, it was directed at rock in specific back then, whereas nowadays they've turned their attention to rap, like the Lil Nas X song where he fucks a demon or something. Rock gets a pass these days because they completely lost that battle by the '90s and they've cut their losses.
  21.  
    I think the "rebellion" behind rock music has always been about what's socially acceptable, with no real "danger" being involved. To that end, who actually wants their band to be "dangerous"? I suppose a group could walk out and mow down their audience with machine guns - that sounds pretty dangerous to me. That band wouldn't last very long, though.

    I've read things about bottles of piss being thrown at gigs, or things just otherwise being "wild". There's a very vague sense of "danger" to that I guess, but it's not real. When things do get real (fans being stampeded at gigs, the singer dying due to his alcoholism), no one endorses it. I guess that's why the whole "bad boy" image of rock just feels so damn goofy at times - sure, they partied hard, fucked hard, and were "wild", but there's no real danger in any of that until someone dies. And, as I said, when someone dies, no one endorses it.
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: Thankass
    • May 3rd 2021
     
    Posted By: MyCubiclePenguinsure, they partied hard, fucked hard, and were "wild", but there's no real danger in any of that
    Until it is your daughter who is at the party.
  22.  
    My parents didn't give a shit when I start listening to AC/DC aged ten. They got very worried when I started getting into Crass aged 15.