#1
How popular and successful would have AC/DC have been if Bon Scott had lived and Brian Johnson was never the singer for them. Would they have been more popular and successful or less, I am just curious to all of your thoughts?
#2
Different outcomes. As we all know if you so much as tread on a butterfly in the past, the whole future gets completely ****ed up. So, different outcomes. They certainly wouldn't have written BiB.
#4
Quote by piop
....They certainly wouldn't have written BiB.


I definitely agree with that.
#6
Quote by cornmancer
They wouldn't have sucked as much.



Quoted from Wikipedia: "Back in Black has sold an estimated 45 million units worldwide, 22 million in the United States alone, where it is the fifth-highest-selling album.". That is with Brian Johnson as the singer. You call that sucking?! I would take that kind of sucking ANY DAY of the week!
#8
Quote by crimsonblood12
ABBA is one of the highest selling acts of all time. I think they suck. He thinks Brian Johnson-era AC/DC sucks. So, to him, they suck, no matter how many records they've sold.


Point taken.

Just saying I would love to have the success and money they have with Brian Johnson. I would also like to have what they had with Bon Scott. I would take either.
#9
Quote by BigDC
Quoted from Wikipedia: "Back in Black has sold an estimated 45 million units worldwide, 22 million in the United States alone, where it is the fifth-highest-selling album.". That is with Brian Johnson as the singer. You call that sucking?! I would take that kind of sucking ANY DAY of the week!

Popular =/= Good
#10
I liked Bon Scott alot especially on "Let there be rock", wich is one of the best AC/DC songs.

But Brian does not suck, maybe you dislike him but that does not mean that he sucks.
Quote by ljohn
The thing is, in a band like chickenfoot, think of the JSX as a submarine and the Marshall as a plane. No matter how good the submarine is, it might be the perfect submarine, if you need a plane, a submarine ain't gonna do it for you.
#13
Quote by BigDC
AC/DC with Bon Scott = Really Good

AC/DC with Brian Johnson = LEGENDS



I think you mixed them up.
#14
Quote by Bluestube
I think you mixed them up.



No, I think if you do all the statistics, including albums made, money made, number of fans between both eras, awards won, and I mean really, really, really, really research it, you will see that:

AC/DC with Bon Scott = Really Good

AC/DC with Brian Johnson = LEGENDS

Is CORRECT!


I never said I like it, and you don't have to either, but facts are facts, and nothing will change them!
#15
Quote by BigDC
No, I think if you do all the statistics, including albums made, money made, number of fans between both eras, awards won, and I mean really, really, really, really research it, you will see that:

AC/DC with Bon Scott = Really Good

AC/DC with Brian Johnson = LEGENDS

Is CORRECT!


I never said I like it, and you don't have to either, but facts are facts, and nothing will change them!


Stats mean fuck all in music. IT'S RELATIVE. ALL RELATIVE. However you perceive something, is how it is, when it comes to something that is entirely based on experience.

You cannot research quality.
"If you sounds GOOD to YOU, it's bitchin'. If it sounds BAD to YOU, it's shit."-Frank Zappa.

It's as simple as that.
#16
Quote by crimsonblood12
Stats mean fuck all in music. IT'S RELATIVE. ALL RELATIVE. However you perceive something, is how it is, when it comes to something that is entirely based on experience.

You cannot research quality.
"If you sounds GOOD to YOU, it's bitchin'. If it sounds BAD to YOU, it's shit."-Frank Zappa.

It's as simple as that.



If that is the case, then AC/DC themselves feel that Brian Johnson was a much, much, much better singer then Bon Scott. There are many of interviews with Angus Young and Malcolm Young, and they give credit to Bon Scott for being a very good singer and giving them a new direction. But they also go on to say that Brian Johnson has done and is doing things with his vocals that Bon Scott could have never achieved, and they believe while Bon Scott was a good singer, Brian Johnson is so much more of a huge leap ahead of Scott, and has attributed to their enormous success that they could not have ever hoped for in Bon Scott. Though his death was heartbreaking, it was also a huge turning point in the hugely popular and successful run that AC/DC would go on to achieve and continue to achieve with Brian Johnson.

Your right, It's as simple as that. According to all the interviews by Angus and Malcolm Young.
#17
Quote by BigDC
If that is the case, then AC/DC themselves feel that Brian Johnson was a much, much, much better singer then Bon Scott. There are many of interviews with Angus Young and Malcolm Young, and they give credit to Bon Scott for being a very good singer and giving them a new direction. But they also go on to say that Brian Johnson has done and is doing things with his vocals that Bon Scott could have never achieved, and they believe while Bon Scott was a good singer, Brian Johnson is so much more of a huge leap ahead of Scott, and has attributed to their enormous success that they could not have ever hoped for in Bon Scott. Though his death was heartbreaking, it was also a huge turning point in the hugely popular and successful run that AC/DC would go on to achieve and continue to achieve with Brian Johnson.

Your right, It's as simple as that. According to all the interviews by Angus and Malcolm Young.


So, to Angus and Malcolm Young, Brian Johnson-era AC/DC doesn't suck. However, to cornmancer, they do. Once again, it's relative. It varies from person to person. There are no facts when it comes to quality of music.
#18
Quote by BigDC
AC/DC with Bon Scott = One of the greatest hard rock bands ever

AC/DC with Brian Johnson = Meh

fixed. I hate to admit it but crimson blood is representing my argument better than I am. Just because 1 sold more records or the band liked him more doesn't mean I like him more I'm not some blind sheep who just says ok he's better.
Last edited by cornmancer at Aug 13, 2009,
#19
Quote by crimsonblood12
So, to Angus and Malcolm Young, Brian Johnson-era AC/DC doesn't suck. However, to cornmancer, they do. Once again, it's relative. It varies from person to person. There are no facts when it comes to quality of music.



I understand to commancer that AC/DC with Bon Scott was much better, I am not disputing that at all. But you tell ANY PROFESSIONAL musician that there are no facts when it comes to quality of music, they will laugh you right out of the room, and YOU KNOW IT!!!

Any body that has ever worked in the music business or is/has been a professional musician, and even the MAJORITY of music fans will tell you there ARE facts when it comes to quality of music

To say there are no facts when it comes to quality of music, is just plain ludicrous (not talking about the rapper)! The numbers speak for themselves!!!
#20
Quote by BigDC
I understand to commancer that AC/DC with Bon Scott was much better, I am not disputing that at all. But you tell ANY PROFESSIONAL musician that there are no facts when it comes to quality of music, they will laugh you right out of the room, and YOU KNOW IT!!!

Any body that has ever worked in the music business or is/has been a professional musician, and even the MAJORITY of music fans will tell you there ARE facts when it comes to quality of music

To say there are no facts when it comes to quality of music, is just plain ludicrous (not talking about the rapper)! The numbers speak for themselves!!!


I am a semi-professional musician. My father is a professional musician. He's said "I will never claim to know what is good music and what is bad music." Frank Zappa was a professional musician. I know at least a dozen professional musicians who would claim that music's quality is relative.

The only fact about quality of music, is that it is all relative to personal taste and perception. I am not talking about the MUSIC BUSINESS. I am talking only about THE MUSIC.

"Music is spiritual. The music business is not." - Van Morrison
#21
Quote by BigDC
I understand to commancer that AC/DC with Bon Scott was much better, I am not disputing that at all. But you tell ANY PROFESSIONAL musician that there are no facts when it comes to quality of music, they will laugh you right out of the room, and YOU KNOW IT!!!

Any body that has ever worked in the music business or is/has been a professional musician, and even the MAJORITY of music fans will tell you there ARE facts when it comes to quality of music

To say there are no facts when it comes to quality of music, is just plain ludicrous (not talking about the rapper)! The numbers speak for themselves!!!

1st of all, take a chill pill. 2nd In my opinion there is no facts when it comes to quality. Just because something sells better doesn't mean it is better. Let me make analogy, The Beatles are the best-selling recording artist of all time, but does everyone like The Beatles, no there are some people that don't care for The Beatles, in fact there are some who would even say The Beatles suck. If you don't believe me go ask The Pit. It's the same here AC/DC with Brian Johnson is immensely popular, but I don't care for them, in fact in my opinion they suck.
#22
Quote by crimsonblood12
I am a semi-professional musician. My father is a professional musician. He's said "I will never claim to know what is good music and what is bad music." Frank Zappa was a professional musician. I know at least a dozen professional musicians who would claim that music's quality is relative.

The only fact about quality of music, is that it is all relative to personal taste and perception. I am not talking about the MUSIC BUSINESS. I am talking only about THE MUSIC.

"Music is spiritual. The music business is not." - Van Morrison


Ok, that is 14 professional musicians out of MILLIONS, but still the MAJORITY out of those millions will tell you that there is fact when it comes to music and the quality there of (not the music business, the music its self), no matter how much you try to deny or dispute it!


Quote by cornmancer
1st of all, take a chill pill. 2nd In my opinion there is no facts when it comes to quality. Just because something sells better doesn't mean it is better. Let me make analogy, The Beatles are the best-selling recording artist of all time, but does everyone like The Beatles, no there are some people that don't care for The Beatles, in fact there are some who would even say The Beatles suck. If you don't believe me go ask The Pit. It's the same here AC/DC with Brian Johnson is immensely popular, but I don't care for them, in fact in my opinion they suck.


I'm not upset, not at all. There is fact when it comes to quality of music. Fact, if the musicians could not or did not get or eventually try to get quality in their music, then they would quit making it. And if they had fans, the fans would quit listening to it.

Yes the Beatles are the all time best selling artists, and I think they suck as well. But that doesn't change the FACT that their music was QUALITY!

I am not trying to get you to change how you think of AC/DC with Brian Johnson, you think they suck, and no one can or will change that.

But facts cant be changed, and to the millions of other fans, they are much better with Brian Johnson and their quality is as well.

===========================================================

I remember having to write a paper back in college based on several scientific/medical studies that was done on how the Human Mind thinks and perceives and acts upon things, one of it's main points was what conducts something to be a FACT or being RELATIVE. I went and dug it up out of my closet in my old college stuff.


This is what they determined: Out of the several Millions of people that they studied and interviewed.

Ages 15 to 27: This age group with 90% of them would disagree 96% time on what is fact and what is not and were wrong 98% of the time.

Ages 28 to 39: This age group with 65% of them would disagree 54% time on what is fact and what is not and were wrong 71% of the time.

Ages 40 to 57: This age group with 42% of them would disagree 38% time on what is fact and what is not and were wrong 30% of the time.

Ages 58 to 70: This age group with 33% of them would disagree 21% time on what is fact and what is not and were wrong 23% of the time.

Ages 71 to 80: This age group with 15% of them would disagree 8% time on what is fact and what is not and were wrong 16% of the time.

Ages 81 and up: This age group with 6% of them would disagree 4% time on what is fact and what is not and were wrong 5% of the time.

What they concluded from these studies was this, the younger the majority of the people were, the more naive and misguided on how they thought, perceived, and understood things that were either presented to them or they learned about on their own, they also concluded that no matter what the outcome of what these people said, did, or believed, it did not nor could not change what is a fact and just how much of the time they were wrong in what they thought! They also concluded that the older the majority of the people are, the more they truly understood things, and how things actually not only could be fact, but actually are a fact

These studies was conducted by several thousands people in the scientific/medical fields, conducted upon several millions these are their numbers, not mine!

So whether you want to say that there is no fact in music or no fact in the quality of music, doesn't change that there is. You can call it what you want, call it Relative or whatever. It still doesn't change that their is fact in music and fact in the quality of music.

Sorry for such a long reply,
Last edited by BigDC at Aug 14, 2009,
#23
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines quality as.
1. A peculiar and essential character
2. A degree of excellence
I agree while musicians should try to make music that sounds good to them and their audience, it's not like there's a scale from 1-10 or 1-5 that says this music is good and this music is bad. Everyone has their own ideas of what is good music based upon what they like and what they've listened to. Because of this music is relative and there are no facts about what is good music and what is bad music. I don't like AC/DC with Brian Johnson but does that make it bad music, while it is bad music to me, to someone like you it's not bad. See how that works that we can agree to disagree.

Edit: I just finished reading your post, and I'm wondering what you were getting at. Were you calling me a child disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, or were you saying that no matter what I think that is good music, because I'm pretty damn sure that if I don't enjoy listening to it then to me it's not good music.
Last edited by cornmancer at Aug 14, 2009,
#24
Quote by BigDC
1.Ok, that is 14 professional musicians out of MILLIONS, but still the MAJORITY out of those millions will tell you that there is fact when it comes to music and the quality there of (not the music business, the music its self), no matter how much you try to deny or dispute it!


I'm not upset, not at all. 2.There is fact when it comes to quality of music. Fact, if the musicians could not or did not get or eventually try to get quality in their music, then they would quit making it. And if they had fans, the fans would quit listening to it.

3.Yes the Beatles are the all time best selling artists, and I think they suck as well. But that doesn't change the FACT that their music was QUALITY!

I am not trying to get you to change how you think of AC/DC with Brian Johnson, you think they suck, and no one can or will change that.

4.But facts cant be changed, and to the millions of other fans, they are much better with Brian Johnson and their quality is as well.

===========================================================

...,


1. You keep saying this, but you have provided no evidence. Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Miles Davis, Louis Armstrong, Dizzie Gillespie, Yardbird Parker, Edward Elgar, the guy who runs the recording studio down the street, head of booking at my local rock/metal venue, John Petrucci, Steve Vai, and Dr. Andrew Poor, doctor of music and trumpet studies, and professional musician all agree with me.

2. A musician will make music that is quality to them. Their fans will dig their music because they think it is quality. But there will be people out there who will disagree, and say the music is not quality. They may concede that it is skillful, or successful, but they may not believe that it is.

3. This statement is contradictory. If you believed their music was quality, you wouldn't say it sucked, y'know? You're saying it was successful, I think. 2 totally different things.

4. This is the crux of the matter. They were better with Brian Johnson to those millions of fans.

Music is entirely perceptional. Quality of music can not be measured or counted. Its success can, and its form can, but the quality cannot. You cannot present me with one absolute truth about music, except that it is relative.

As for the rest of your babbling, I resent being called naive. I think you're confused on the definitions of quality and relative. Read some damn philosophy.

Furthermore, your statistics deal with how the younger mind perceives, and have nothing to do with the question at hand. They make no claims about the music business. You have basically been reduced to an Ad Hominem attack, with a bunch of numbers to back up your statement. Besides, the statistics mean nothing to the individual. Lastly, do you have references for this study?

Oh, and give me a fact about the quality of music. You have yet to do that.
#25
No I am not making fun of anyone.

This is the very last thing I am going to say on this......Let's agree to disagree!