But I still don't get it. In my little band, I'm playing with three guys who can play just about anything (I'm not kidding: I'm the weakest link in the deal), and they light up like little kids when one of 'em suggests an AC/DC song. Me? I stand there and toss original rhythm bits into something I'm hearing in real-time because I've never studied a single AC/DC song. I just never played 'em, but I have to try to fake something with three guys who just wail through it like I'm not even there. (I put up with it with a smile, and they put up with me, with rolling-eyes, wondering why I don't get it.)
An understandable reaction. I even agree to a large degree; I’ve never quite fully understood the devotion to the band exhibited by a lot of people. Not that I’ve not enjoyed what the band has turned out over the years, on an “I can take it or leave it” basis.
But think on it this way, Billy;
They are, if nothing else, fundamentalists.
Their arrangements tend to be stripped- to- the- walls bare, so that the focus can be not on flash, but the real root of the band, which is to my mind, raw power. The other rock songs and acts as you mention in your write-up are great bands, and draw on other infleunces… Jazz and blues, for their flourishes, and touches. AC/DC has no such influences in their recorded work, and so is perhaps definitionally, elemental rock and roll.
This is something that took Mutt Lange quite a while to understand… And, it’s why the band’s sound never changed substantially, in spite of the change of producers, after BIB was released. The message here is…”This is who we are, on an elemental basis and forget you, if you don’t like it.”
This is going to seem a strange comparison, but I’m going to offer it anyway; Don Williams, one of my favorite artists over the years, has tended to go with the absolute minimalist approach in most of his work, too, so that the focus of the sound can be on the real root of Williams work… His voice, and the tunes themselves.
Granted their work is VERY different, but their approach, each in their own context, is much the same in that they tend to take the minimalist approach in their respective arrangements. In both cases, there’s a lot of places where the arrangements could be dressed up quite a bit to good effect and to display the ability of the people involved. But the conscious choice was made not to do that, because of the understanding that in the doing, it would alter the central focus. The result is work that in both cases, can be called rather dull if you don’t understand that central focus.
Is Angus Young the “most electric”?
(shrug)
I guess that could be called a mindset thing. IMO, likely not, at least by what we hear in the recordings. Then again, I tend to measure such by the diffuculty of what’s being played and how well that effort is placed in the context of the tune being played. By that same standard he’s also not likley the most capable with his axe, either. Any player of reasonable skill can bang power chords without muffing it too badly, after all.
But in each case, thier own ability to play ‘tasty’, as the Good Rats once put it, is not the message they’re sending. Respect comes once you understand THAT basic.
Update: Nice to know Colby Cosh is reading. A welcome to his readers. Follow the link below to the main page, and have a look around.
Tags: BitsBlog
