Talk:AC/DC/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about AC. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Not making a new album

I just read this

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=88225

Joke or no joke? Jay794 (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's bogus, read this

http://www.spinner.com/2008/02/19/ac-dc-ready-to-rock-again-with-new-album/

"Strap It On"?????????Hypershadow647 (talk) 02:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

death date of lead singer?

The article's date for "Anal Fudgecakes" is clearly incorrect, being listed as 198 (instead of 1978 perhaps?). The correct date needs to be filled in. 141.213.247.14 13:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's Febuary 20th, 1980 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.74.25.66 (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The correct date of Bon Scott's death is February 19th, 1980. A search of his gravestone will show that as the correct date. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Bon_Scott.jpg Archangel-22 (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Heavy Metal as a genre - looking at votes

Generally the band's pioneering long term influence on the genre's accepted. But as we all know that doesn't make them metal. Otherwise every band that influenced metal would be metal. And thus in expanding metal, every band that influenced them would be influences on a metal band too. And it would go on and on until every genre ever was metal.

In the last discussion on if AC/DC were or were not metal, user "Helltopay27" tried to convince people AC/DC are metal. "Captanpluto123", "KingCfr", "Bretonbanquet", "JNCooper" and "highvoltageacdc" all stated they are not metal.

In the discussion before that, "HK51" said he didn't mean they were pure metal in some statements of his. "'74 Jailbreak '74 Jailbreak" said they are not metal. "Bass Mast" agreed.

Discussion before that: "No-Bullet" started an argument saying they're not metal. "HK51" said some of their songs were metal and since things had said metal before he was reverting edits (i.e. they made enough metal songs to count as metal, even if this was few). "The Archer" suggested the band are not metal though did not comment on what genre they should be listed as since he also mentioned their metal influence.

"HK51" by the way stated that if the majority of people didn't want to call AC/DC metal, he was ok with that.

Looking back there's been about 7 debates when the over-riding decision has been that AC/DC are NOT heavy metal. So why are they still listed as such?(The Elfoid 15:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

AC/DC are a hard rock band, and hard rock often has overlaps with heavy metal. Most record shops put AC/DC in the metal section, and their reputation is of a heavy metal rock band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.123.241 (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that at all relevant? That just suggests they're often misunderstood. (The Elfoid 21:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

AC/DC is undoubtedly metal. Bands like Queen are considered proto-metal and hard rock. AC/DC is heavy metal, though, not just an influence on the genre. Even if you consider their early stuff just an influence on metal, there is no doubt that there later stuff was DEFINITELY metal. Therefore, as they for sure played metal at some point in their career, it should be listed as a genre. I mean come on, even in the articl its goes on and on and on about how they were pioneers of the genre and how they've been named about a gazillion times over as one of the best metal bands of all time. I listed metal as a genre and I hope everyone agrees. Navnløs 23:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, since when are they not considered influential on metal? Accept, Raven, Def Leppard, and even Metallica were influenced by AC/DC. In fact, the success of Back in Black offered the success of glam metal. 164.107.218.3 01:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No one said they don't influence metal, just that they aren't. Black Sabbath had a huge influence on thrash metal. They invented metal most would argue, and also some of the earliest thrash riffs are in Sabbath songs. Would ANYONE consider them a thrash metal band? Influencing a genre's not enough.

Rolling Stones had a huge influence on AC/DC. This if AC/DC are metal for influencing metal bands, Rolling Stones are metal for influencing a metal band. And so all the bands they liked, artists like Howlin' Wolf, would also classify as metal! IT COULD GO ON FOREVER UNTIL ALL MUSIC IN HISTORY WAS METAL. Influencing a genre just can't qualify.

Navnlos, don't edit genre during a debate. As I put in my initial comment on this page, there's been many, many debates on genre which all ended in them not being metal. Thus after about 5 or so debates with no one coming up with a reason to list them as metal...they're not. Lyrical content of their music shares little with most metal bands (other than the hair/glam scene which is a bit of an unusual one and I doubt you'd call AC/DC hair metal), the riffs are almost entirely blues based, the basslines are much more passive and simple.

I know the look of a band doesn't define them, but it's worth thinking about. No metal bands dress remotely like AC/DC.

Musical identification and genre specification are not the same. A lot of people call them metal, but none of them can tell you why. They're rock 'n' roll that happens to be heavy enough to be metal - but the riffs, chord progressions, lyrics, vocal stylings and key influences are not remotely metal. Metal bands were typically influenced by Led Zep, Deep Purple and original-metal-band Black Sabbath. AC/DC don't carry any of those influences.

They pioneered the genre in that they brought it to a much wider audience, as a stepping stone from rock to metal for crowds that needed a little bridge. The band carried metal's heaviness without any of the other styling, helped people move accross.

Look at bands they sound like - it's all late 50s/early 60s stuff like Chuck Berry.

There's sources saying they're not metal, but where is there that says "anyone saying AC/DC are not metal is wrong"?

(The Elfoid (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

acdcis a rock no metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabian33 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Band picture

When are we going to get a picture of the current line-up of AC/DC? Bon Scott has been dead for over 27 years, and is no longer a part of AC/DC. Let's get a picture with the true voice of AC/DC, Brian Johnson. 69.148.78.129 02:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we get a photo of the whole group with Bon Scott, and put it in The Bon Scott Era and another group photo with Brain Johnson as the main photo?-RREDD13 22:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That'd be ideal. (The Elfoid 21:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

Uh, since when can't you cite in the infobox

Other featured music articles do it (see: Slayer), and there's absolutely nothing that states you can't in Wikipedia's guidelines. Besides, with the re-opening of the heavy metal debate, it seems that citations might be the only things keeping heavy metal as a genre. Helltopay27 01:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

My guess would be that since people wanted to prove AC/DC are metal, there was a thousand odd citations or something at some stage. But I have no idea. (The Elfoid (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

Citing within an infobox is certainly not disallowed; I have seen it done many times in infoboxes and tables. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Naw, there were only two citations. I've seen more for other articles. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It didn't look like a rule, more a recommendation for the topic at hand (The Elfoid (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

How to deal with genre dispute

List the band as all present genres bar heavy metal. State it also as 'disputed', and lower on the page list something on genre dispute explaining it all. Most emo bands do it, why don't we? (The Elfoid (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

"List the band as all present genres bar heavy metal..." - Have you read the hidden text in the infobox on that? Scarian ^Talk 17:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. It said not to edit it BEFORE someone added heavy metal a while back actually. I took it down, and suddenly people who have it in their watchlist are on it like hawks, kept putting it back.

Hidden text is not law though. The genre IS disputed since reputable sources both call them metal, and also state they're not metal.(The Elfoid (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

Do you want to state these "reputable" sources for us to have a look at? Scarian ^Talk 17:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

AC/DC themselves. Garry Sharpe-Younge from rock-detector who is author of the mammoth "Metal: The Definitive Guide" book recently published. Ian Fortnam and Sian Llewellyn both wrote about it in "Classic Rock" Magazine. Rock historians Clinton Walker and Ian Christe. Sleazegrinder.com. Grinder's a music authority that's fairly well respected in it's fields, despite being an 18+ website

In terms of genre debate, there's also the fact that in 1970s rock press they were strongly associated with punk rock. Can you see that making sense either?(The Elfoid (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

Well since they're paper written sources they're gonna be the hardest to verify. In addition, like most written publications it is bound to be WP:POV and, thus, subjective rather than objective. Which means that it most likely will be of no use as a genre "deal breaker". Scarian ^Talk 22:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a decision on a genre is of course not just influenced by POV, but it's the direct result of it. But one of the longest standing and most respected rock music magazines in British publication history, a professional music reviews site, a professionally written book by an editor of a well known professionally run rock music site and qualified rock historians count as being just as much of an authority as say...allmusic.com, Rolling Stone magazine and all the other relevant sources.

Wikipedia accepts written sources, anywhere. The fact something's in book form matters not. Especially if you can give ISBN numbers, page references, correctly spelt author's names etc.

Verification of written materials is not required, provided it is accurately and correctly referenced. Though I can provide a direct quote for your satisfaction if required. Infact, The professional rock critics' quotes can be found on Wikipedia articles. It's either hard rock or heavy metal, I'm not sure.

Lets see what the relevant information pages say on sources shall we?

"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analysing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is."

Classic Rock, and the publisher for "Metal" (it eludes me now) are both highly respected. A professional rock historian's obviously fully qualified at degree level. I'd imagine they're university pressed, though I'm not sure. The CR writers are frequent contributors by the way.

"Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text."

Sleazegrinder's DEFINITELY a website that can be trusted, in terms of credibility. Wikipedia cites it frequently.

And as for AC/DC themselves...it's written on the booklet with one of the remastered albums. The Razor's Edge I think. So it's self-published, definitely not a misquote. AC/DC are obviously not qualified music experts from a technical and historical standpoint, but an already weighty argument suggesting the genre's highly disputed can be added to by this as well.

You're honestly putting "professional websites", as more accurate than professional websites, professional music writers, rock music historians and the band in question? I say drop the metal tag, but call it disputed because so many damn people argue about it. And look at all the reviews for their albums that just don't mention metal at all eh? There's them too.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/

Is another source that claims they are not metal. Somewhere in a music section by one of their 'professional blogs'

(The Elfoid (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

"You're honestly putting "professional websites", as more accurate than professional websites, professional music writers, rock music historians and the band in question?" - Nope! I have no idea about the current source. I was just asked to keep an eye on "POV pushing in the AC/DC" article.

"professional blogs" - Despite having the word "professional" in there, it doesn't make the blog any less opinionated (Blogs are infamous for being the haven of opinion), and it would only be the writers opinion.

"The fact something's in book form matters not." - To refute that, for example, in the Nirvana article Michael Azerrad's material was quoted a lot. Without realising, a lot of the users who referenced his material didn't notice his own slant in his books. That is the danger of quoting books and written sources like that; writers can, even subtley, put their own slant/spin on it. News articles would be the closest and least likeliest of sources to be biased. But, again, the opinion of journalist's may not represent the opinion of the masses.

As for "disputed" - I don't see much of a dispute. There has obviously been a strong consensus about this before and I think you're retreading trodden ground. We'll have to wait and see what other editor's say. Scarian ^Talk 09:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You're failing tosee the point. There is no website out there who can describe a band's genre that will not involve some degree of opinion. Because it is a decision you must come to based on your own attitudes, values, ideas and thoughts.

The blogs are not blogs in the conventional sense - not on blogspot.com or anything like that. They're just an easy way for authors on a site to make contributions. They're columnists, effectively. If you look at the site and the context, you'll understand.

Biased? How is this anything relating to biased attitudes? It's not like someone is gonna say "I like AC/DC so I am gonna say this band is not metal" then write about it - that's insane. Quoting a source can lead to misleading results, yes. So I've offered you seven.

You are making a huge mistake thinking Wikipedia does not accept personal opinion. It does, provided it is educated and qualified - someone who can make an intelligent, well informed opinion who has proven their understanding and knowledge of the topic. We, as users, can't do that. These sources can. You will find no sources better or worse - a music genre's too open to opinion.

And all these things explicitately state the band are not a heavy metal band. There's no "find a slant" to it - they just lay it bare. As said, I can find quotes for you if you really need them.

There was NOT a strong consensus!!!! On the presently archives pages (which I don't think cover the page's entire history), there's some 7 extended arguments over it. And other asides on the matter too. And generally, people who claimed we can put them down as metal really, really struggled.

Users involved in past discussions, and what they said -

Not Metal: "Captanpluto123", "KingCfr", "Bretonbanquet", "JNCooper" , "highvoltageacdc", "'74 Jailbreak '74 Jailbreak", "Bass Mast", "No-Bullet" , "The Archer"

Metal: "Helltopay27", "HK51" (who's opinion was 'not pure metal' - a bit dubious) were the onles non-anonymous users who made and decent responses suggesting they are metal.

It was quite clear the band were not to be listed as metal. Then it crept in. Read archived debates before you comment!(The Elfoid (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

Editor opinions mean nothing on Wikipedia. It's all about referenced content. And trying to erase or alter a source that clearly meets WP:RS because it does not agree with your pesronal opinion .... is just your personal opinion. The term is referenced in the articles lead-in and therefore supported for use in the article infobox... it's just that simple. The infobox itself had references in it at one time for the term. But references in infoboxes are frowned upon because referenced content belongs in the article and not the box. I have never thought of the band as a heavy metal band. But again... editor opinions don't mean anthying. Deena Weinstein's "Heavy Metal: The Music and its Culture", Ian Criste's "Sound of the Beast" and Robert Walser's "Running with The Devil." are 3 books that are used heavily as reliable sources in many heavy metal related articles on WIkipedia... including the main HM article itself.... and all 3 books feature AC/DC quite prominently. If it is referenced...and verifiable.... and those refs come from reliable sources... then the content is valid and editor opinions mean absolutely nothing. I will also point out that in your "NOT" list... Captainpluto123, JNCooper and The Archer are all known sockpuppeteers and their edits on wikipedia usually get rv'd no matter what they are. I hjave seen disputed added to the genre fields in a couple of other bands. 2 problems. 1... "Disputed" isn't a genre... the infobox is for information...not soap operas... ans 2... 'disputed was ususaly added to those other boxes by young, musically impaired teenagers who were more intersted in POV soapboxing then they were in building s reliable encyclopedia. You can add a section on musical style and introduce differing views(if they're referenced from reliable soruces).... but you cannot remove cited test because it doesn;t agree with your own POV. That is the foundation that Wikipedia is built on. 156.34.223.191 (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The source stated that the band are pioneers of the SOUND of hard rock and heavy metal. Here it says they are pioneers OF heavy metal. That's totally different! I think they have elements of the sound since they're as heavy and hard hitting as metal, but that doesn't mean it is metal, since there's more to a genre than that. I CORRECTED the text to bring it more in line with the source. How dare you accuse me of any sly tricks or snide play. How. Dare. You.

I am not saying do not call them heavy metal due to my opinion. I am saying do not call them heavy metal due to several (SEVEN!) conclusive debates on Wikipedia, a varaiety of credible and respected sources and due to the band's own view that it is not an accurate description of their sound. Christe states that the band are prominent in heavy metal due to influence and audience, but not actually heavy metal (check the hard rock or heavy metal pages and search for a specific quote).

A bunch of credible sources say one thing. Another lot say another. Who are we to pick one over the other? I'd pick the one that supports my theory, but unlike you I just thought of something! EDITOR POV IS NOT IMPORTANT! That means we can't decide if they are heavy metal or not, right? So we can't just say they are. You're choosing to ignore a variety of credible sources.

And "genre classification dispiuted (see below)" with a link to text further down the page is perfectly respectable. There's nothing wrong with it. Who cares who put it on on other pages? It still works!

If a user is not banned from Wikipedia, he/she is still just another user. And that means their point of view counts. If they're known sockpuppets, why are some of them still here?

Oh, and don't assume because someone's edits have been reverted they are a total idiot - they just might not know their way around Wikipedia yet. Don't assume teenagers know nothing. Don't assume anyone makikng edits you disagree with are soapboxing and know nothing about music. Stop being an elitist. I find your behaviour immature, offensive and not nearly open ended enough for a community like this(The Elfoid (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

Comment on content, not the contributor, please. Scarian ^Talk 13:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If I don't get a reply by the 25th, I'll assume no one has a constructive argument to present and remove the tag, writing up on the dispute. (The Elfoid (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

Two more references to support the tag were added to the article lead-in so the tag can't be removed. 156.34.215.188 (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition to that, it's not such a great idea to set deadlines, it doesn't help in terms of being constructive and/or WP:NICE. Scarian ^Talk 11:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If I put in 8 reliable sources from groups that are trustable, of high reputation and fairly qualified to comment on the matter saying they are not heavy metal, we simply cannot state that the band are without a doubt. We can state it is possible they might qualify as such, but in no way can we make a blank statement.

Scarian, I was just hoping to either motivate a reply or make people realise I won't just drop the matter because no one is replying. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

No one has ever said that differing points of view couldn't be added with references from reliable sources. Many music artist articles have a section called "Musical style and influence" or "Musical style and legacy"... blah blah blah there's a number of different ways of saying it. There's room for one on this article right before the Band members section. Debates like that are editorial and don't belong in either the lead... or the infobox. This is a featured article with an excellent amount of cited text. The lead-in is written the way any good featured article lead should be written. Brief... quick facts... give the reader the gist of the story. AC/DC are an Aussie band that have sold a ton of records and been cited as a major pioneer in a music genre even though the band themselves just consider themselves to be a humble rock n roll band. Period, done, well written... now get to the fine details in the main body of the article... making sure they're sourced well because it's a featured article and that shouldn't be compromised. Lemmy doesn't consider Motorhead to be a heavy metal band... he says its all just rock n roll. But... heavy metal they certainly are.. and likely the premier band of the entire speed metal style of rock. Thrash metal wouldn't exist without them. Heavy metal was near dead by the end of the 70s. And, as noted in Sharpe-Youngs book; "AC/DC released 3 albums that would be the cornerstone of heavy metal's early 80s resurrection when they released Highway to Hell, Back in Black and For Those About to Rock". Christe states pretty much the same thing... narrowing in on the impact of Back in Black as a single release that "carried a hundred heavy metal bands on it back to 80s stardom and success". All Music Guide... the single most quoted source for most Wiki music articles... has a lengthy list of "key" artists on their site and they are divided into levels of importance to the genre. AMG only lists 14 bands as "level 1" heavy metal bands... and AC/DC is one of them. I personally have never thought of the band as aheavy metal band. But... this is Wikipedia and my opinion, like any other editors opinion, means nothing. It's all about the references. Barely a day goes by that some peabrain doesn't delete heavy metal from the Led Zeppelin infobox. They've read the article, they know the facts... and the references... but they delete it anyways because it doesn't "fit" with how they see things. "Wiki" struggles to be a "pedia".. and music articles are its Achilles heel because they attract so many 'opinions' and not enough 'citations'. Hopefully that won't happen here. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. The best thing to do is to detail the genre dispute and everything in a new section, citing sources and quotes properly. Of course, the edits and references made in this article should be added to the hard rock and heavy metal music articles. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 02:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Motorhead's a bad example. Lemmy's just about the only person to claim they aren't heavy metal. CORNERSTONE OF HEAVY METAL'S RESURRECTION. That does not specifically state they are metal at all! They attracted attention to the metal scene. To quote Wikipedia's page on hard rock, which specifically quotes Christe:

"The issue is not only one of shifting definitions, but also a persistent distinction between musical style and audience identification: Ian Christe describes how the band "became the stepping-stone that led huge numbers of hard rock fans into heavy metal perdition.""

Stepping stone - see. They had features of metal in their sound but not style, so attracted people to the genre.

You are ignoring me anyway. I'm not arguing about the right to claim they are metal. Simply that the counter-argument is too major for us to issue a carte blanche statement on genre. When a band and several large and well known members of the music press claim a band is not heavy metal, it is more than a minority in opposition. It becomes a debatable claim which lacks complete legitimacy.

As I have already told you, I have 6 sources, and quotes by two of the band members. This is nothing to do with a lack of information. Allmusic's just as good as any of them, as are many other sources. But we cannot simply state that a stack of 8 important sources mean that all we can say is "some people disagree on the genre, but really, the band are metal".

(The Elfoid (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

I moved your comment to put it in chronological order with the rest Bullet, that ok?

I'm not getting any comments from 'the opposition'. I managed to knock the Christe quote suggesting the band are heavy metal out of the window, as well as the one in the lead (due to the 'sound' part being ignored). I also got Christe agreeing the distinction is a little hard to be made.

And on the note of

"There's room for one on this article right before the Band members section. Debates like that are editorial and don't belong in either the lead... or the infobox. "

I was suggesting list it is debated and provide a hyperlink to further down the page. What you are suggesting is "we accept the heavy metal tag is not one we can state is probably true, but we have to put it in since we can't have a debate that high up the page". It's just silly. A lot of bands list genre as disputed sub-genres, it is nothing un-usual or un-acceptable.

Now offer me a reply, you know who you are, and you're editing this page so quite clearly active. To get into an argument then walk off is to drop out of a challenge you accepted. It leaves me feeling "Well I didn't win, but he walked off...". I feel without replies I have the right to edit the page in my favour, but I just know it would be reverted.(The Elfoid (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

Not sure what you're reading above? I never walked off. I won the debate. And got agreement from a another regular editor in doing so. What cite did you knock out the window? You should get the book and read it... perhaps go to your school library or see if your parents will drive you to your local city library. As mentioned already, you can't remove cited content... that's vandalism... but you can offer alternative views from reliable sources. You are correct in pointing out that the word "disputed" appears in some infoboxes. You failed to note though that doing that is frowned upon for being VERY unencyclopedic. And that it does not happen in any Featured Articles... which this article is. If you want to introduce some sort of junior high school soap opera into what is supposed to be a simple infobox... then that would quickly jeopardise the FA status of the article. An FA that many editors worked hard to achieve. It's an encyclopedia. It's always better to edit with that thought in mind. 156.34.217.92 (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How I dealt with your cites:

"Heavy metal was near dead by the end of the 70s. And, as noted in Sharpe-Youngs book; "AC/DC released 3 albums that would be the cornerstone of heavy metal's early 80s resurrection when they released Highway to Hell, Back in Black and For Those About to Rock". Christe states pretty much the same thing... narrowing in on the impact of Back in Black as a single release that "carried a hundred heavy metal bands on it back to 80s stardom and success"."

AC/DC were the cornerstone of heavy metal's resurrection in the early 80s, yes. Does that automatically make them heavy metal? No. To quote the same author:

"While we're at it, recognise that this book is about Metal with a capital M. Ask AC/DC, Aerosmith, Kiss, Bon Jovi, Rush or Def Leppard if they are metal - you'll get a resounding "No!" Believe me, I've asked them all. Motorhead? Well Lemmy is right about most things - except one".

AC/DC carried a hundred bands back to 80s stardom and success. Does this make them heavy metal? No. To quote the same author:

"became the stepping-stone that led huge numbers of hard rock fans into heavy metal perdition."

A stepping stone suggests in between a gap - somewhere beyond rock, not quite heavy metal yet. A cross genre band is not the same as what that sounds like.

The rest of your argument:

"Lemmy doesn't consider Motorhead to be a heavy metal band... he says its all just rock n roll. But... heavy metal they certainly are.. and likely the premier band of the entire speed metal style of rock. Thrash metal wouldn't exist without them."

I think Motorhead are a bit of an exception. While I've found as I said, 6 sources plus two band members who call AC/DC a "non metal band", there's plenty of album reviews and such which just call them hard rock. I don't think anyone except Lemmy has tried to put together a decent argument about why his band is not metal.

"All Music Guide... the single most quoted source for most Wiki music articles... has a lengthy list of "key" artists on their site and they are divided into levels of importance to the genre. AMG only lists 14 bands as "level 1" heavy metal bands... and AC/DC is one of them."

You can't state one reliable sources is better than another reliable one. If they're reliable, there should be no debate. But we have reliable sources on both sides of the fence, numerous ones.

"Debates like that are editorial and don't belong in either the lead... or the infobox."

As stated, I did not say the debate itself was to go up there.

So...your citations as I said, are invalid. There are I grant you, a million places calling AC/DC heavy metal. There's no need to prove that. I just think that it's so rare for there to be numerous sources that don't just say a band aren't a genre, but construct an argument explaining it, that an exception has to be made in this case. I can think of websites calling AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, KISS and Van Halen a non-heavy-metal band...but no others. Everyone can agree on the fact that nothing Van Halen did in the period 1986-2004 was not heavy metal, that Led Zeppelin were very eclectic in their styles and that KISS had a huge variety of pop, rock, glam and disco, songs. The debate with them is "do their heavier hard rock songs count as metal enough to call them a metal band?". With AC/DC it is a far wider one - the band sounds pretty similar on most songs. That is a completely different debate, a unique one. Bar your example - Motorhead. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

My opinion is they are definetely Heavy Metal. When Heavy Metal evolved as a sub genre from hard rock, it wasn't any where near as heavy as many of the groups are today. To categorise what metal actually is we mustn't define it by these modern extreme metal / punk bands but rather consider the groups that the genre label were applied to. AC DC are definetely heavy enough to fall into the category of bands that the Heavy Metal genre of hard rock was applied to. If they call themselves rock. So do most heavy metal bands as it is a form of rock, the same way punk is. The Beatles even called themselves a rock n roll band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not about your opinion, it's about feeling. Bands like Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple have evolved metal styles you can still find in todays music, they're very complex and the broke up with the rock 'n roll style. AC/DC just took Chuck Berry's and the Stones style and made it a bit harder but they still got the blues/rock 'n roll style. Rhythm and chordprogression, 12 bar blues chords, etc etc etc. AC/DC always kept their music simple. (Heavy-)Metal did not. Early metal might have been a sub genre of hard-rock but todays metal is a genre you can't compare to hard-rock anymore. And last but not least, the band always said it was hard-rock, rock 'n roll or blues-rock. The band doesn't make metal, they don't want to be called metal, and the music is almost every rock style, but no metal. Compare Highway To Hell or High Voltage or something with Smoke On The Water and Kashmir. --83.135.19.166 (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Discography

I don't think we should have a discography table just like the one on AC/DC discography. I say we convert it to a simple list. Any thoughts? No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 21:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Pioneers?

The article claims that AC/DC are pioneers of hard rock and heavy metal alongside Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and Deep Purple. That doesn't wash. Those bands predate AC/DC by years and they all released albums at least five years before AC/DC did. AC/DC does not stand alongside them. There is no way that a band that releases their first album in 1975 can be considered a pioneer of hard rock and heavy metal. Those genres were thriving before AC/DC showed up. Also, none of the sources cited back up those claims. The lead needs to be rewritten. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Saying For Those About To Rock is the first hard rock album to got to #1 in the USA is also ridiculous. Led Zeppelin II did that over a decade earlier. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Why the hell are we looking for a citation for this "first hard rock album to hit number one" garbage? Give me a break. Listen to Led Zeppelin. Try Presence for example. That's emphatically hard rock. It went to #1 long before AC/DC did. What a joke. Delete it. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

THe confusion might have arisen from people reading about AC/DC being the first Australian hard rock group to have a #1 album on the Australian charts. I'm not even certain that is true, but it at least sounds reasonable, unlike the claims that they were the "first ever" globally, which is obviously nonsense. Manning (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

150 million

The citation for 150 million albums sold is dated long after this article claimed it. A source needs to be found that meets WP:RS criteria and predates its first mention here. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the date of publciation has anything to do with it... other than the fact that the band has probably sold more records now. And the CBC isn't a reliable source? Cmon, man... Skeletor2112 (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The CBC is certainly a reliable source. 156.34.216.115 (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the CBC is reliable. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the CBC likely just took the figure from Wikipedia itself. That figure has been in this article, unreferenced, for many months before that CBC article. So that means it did not come from the CBC article. We need to find out where it came from, because, otherwise, it just came from some anonymous dude on Wikipedia and that ain't good enough. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your preoccupation with dates(or your near-obsession with global sales) - it doesn't matter that someone added that number to this article before the CBC article was written, what matters is that the CBC is (as WP:RS states) a "reliable, third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The date published is inconsequential. Skeletor2112 (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion that the CBC took the figure from WP is sensible, but OR. Would you be willing to contact the writer to see where he got the figure from? If he did take it off WP, then, yes, it should be removed. And if we can find a better source than this one, let's. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any contact information on that website. I think it's pretty obvious that I'm right. It's not like whoever added the 150 million figure to this page could see the future, so if the figure has any merit at all there has to be a reliable source that predates its mention in this article. There isn't one. It has no merit. It ought to be removed. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Show us on the policy pages how the source is not reliable. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

How about you show me where the person who added the 150 million figure to this article got it from. Because unless that person had a freaking time machine, it didn't come from the CBC. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it really that unbelievable that AC/DC has sold 150m albums? If the source for 68m in the US is reliable, why is there such an issue with saying that they have sold 150m worldwide? Google "ac/dc" + "150 million" and you get 5100 results. This is one of them: http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780061133923/ACDC_Maximum_Rock__Roll/index.aspx. It says that they have sold 150m albums, and it reads like its from the back cover of a book published by HarperCollins. That looks reliable enough, doesn't it? I thought about it more though, and I agree that since we can't contact the writer of the CBC article, it is reasonable to assume that they googled AC/DC and went to the WP article, since it is one of the top results if not the top. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I added the harper collins ref, to allay any fears of lack of RS. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Fears" weren't required in the first place since the CBC is a concrete RS. But there is no such thing as too many refs. The more the better. 156.34.220.185 (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Should there be albums sales listed for Volts/live albums/videography?

The RIAA certainly does keep track of these things. Volts has technically sold 1 million copies, as Bonfire has gone platinum. The same is true for Live at the Atlantic Studios and Let There Be Rock: The Movie.

Also, should Volts be listed as reaching #90 on the Billboard charts (that's how far Bonfire reached)? Helltopay27 (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)