most of the fuss is entirely hypocritical, seeing as they hired Brian and recorded Back in Black about three months after Bon had died. They have never dwelt on sentimentality, so anyone who expected it for Brian was simply not paying attention.
Actually it seems you weren't paying attention. Axl replacing Brian Johnson is hardly the same thing as Brian replacing Bon. Let's analyze:
IN TERMS OF BRIAN REPLACING BON...
*** AC/DC still had not peaked at this point. They had some success in Australia but their success elsewhere was moderate at best. Arguably their most promising album came in 1979 with
Highway to Hell, which -- while making them viable -- still didn't catapult them to worldwide superstars. Less than a year later, Bon died.
*** Brian was hired to replace Bon because Bon died. Not because Bon had some issue that kept him away. Bon was dead and gone, and AC/DC was also going to be dead and gone. Not the same with Axl later on.
LOL, geez, somebody got awfully triggered!
Bon died, making him unable to be the singer anymore. Brian lost his hearing, making him unable to be the singer anymore. Explain how the reason they were unable to continue makes a difference. I'll wait.
*** AC/DC was never sentimental? Think again. It was Bon's parents who encouraged AC/DC to continue on, saying that Bon would have wanted it that way. Your post suggested that it was rather callous of AC/DC to continue on immediately after Bon's death, which isn't exactly the way it happened.
I didn't suggest that. But it sure as hell wasn't sentimental either. I said they hired Brian and recorded the entirety of BIB three months after his death. That is just a fact, you cannot argue with it.
*** Immediately after Brian's 1980 debut, he led AC/DC to megastar status and did so after replacing an established frontman, an astonishing feat that is still largely unparalleled in rock history. He went on to front AC/DC for nearly 40 years and cemented himself as AC/DC's legitimate frontman in every conceivable way.
So, in conjunction with your previous statement about the lack of worldwide success with Bon, you are saying that Bon was not leaving as large shoes to fill as Brian is to Axl? Because I think most fans would disagree. I would say they are about equal, and I am more fair to Brian than many fans. Bon accomplished a lot in his short time and Brian kept it going for decades.
IN TERMS OF AXL REPLACING BRIAN....
*** Some fans (mostly GNR fans) accept it. Many react negatively. Why? Because Axl Rose didn't spend nearly 40 years accomplishing what Brian did with AC/DC. To AC/DC fans, Brian is THEIR singer and cannot be legitimately replaced, and they're NOT going to just dismiss it by saying.... "but, but, Brian replaced somebody too!" And that's NOT hypocrisy on their part.
I was an AC/DC fan before I was a GNR fan. And as I already stated, the complainers are always the loudest. There are a LOT of AC/DC fans who were blown away by Axl.
Brian did not have 40 years of accomplishments when he replaced Bon in 1980. But he wasn't shit on relentlessly for it. In fact, Axl has much more of a legacy from GNR than Brian did with Geordie when he joined.
How is that not hypocrisy? Before he died, Bon was
THE AC/DC singer and many fans believed he could not legitimately be replaced. However, they were supportive of Brian and even held signs that said "good luck Brian" at his first shows. The contrast in treatment is undeniable.
Yes, Brian needed to step away because of his hearing, but unlike Bon, he is still alive. Lots of fans and industry people criticized AC/DC for continuing on with Axl rather than just rescheduling the shows when Brian was well enough (which most bands would have done).
Again, you must not have been paying attention. Brian was told by his doctor
in no uncertain terms, "you will lose your hearing entirely if you continue". He was stubborn about it and Angus got attacked for doing what was best for Brian. And yet again, if you know this band, they do not stop for anything. If they have a commitment, they will follow through come hell or high water. Malcolm had to bow out of the 1988 BUYV tour to go to rehab. They didn't bring the tour to an ass-grinding halt just for him, they enlisted Stevie.
Which brings me to another point, Malcolm died. Where is the outrage over continuing without him? Where is the shit being slung at Stevie for taking his place? Is he not irreplaceable? He wrote half of the freaking songs.
Brian didn't even write lyrics anymore. How in the hell can you say Brian is irreplaceable but not Malcolm? That is the definition of hypocrisy.
AXL replaced BRIAN at a time when Brian could've eventually gotten well and returned. It doesn't matter what Axl has done with GNR, this is AC/DC. It's Brian's band, and AC/DC fans believe that for very valid reasons.
Again, he was not going to get well in time to reschedule those shows. Especially at his age, the body does not recover quickly, and hearing damage is almost entirely permanent to begin with. It is not Brian's band any more than it was ever Bon's band, Malcolm's band, or now Angus' band.
Angus is the only original member surviving, so whatever he says the band is, is what it is. Not a bunch of fans, no matter how entitled they feel they are.However, it's ridiculous and rather offensive to call AC/DC fans "close-minded" and "hypocritical". You wanna throw those terms around? Over the last 15 years, we've had two types of people on this very forum:
1. Axl Rose fans who hated Slash and called original fans "close-minded" because they wouldn't accept all of the newer GNR lineups.
2. Old school GNR fans who criticized Axl and called Axl fans "close-minded" because they DID accept any old lineup that Axl called Guns N Roses.
#2 makes no sense. That is the definition of open-minded.
Guess what? The exact same debate could be had about Axl/DC.
1. YOU call AC/DC fans close-minded for not accepting Axl (and then you also falsely apply the word "hypocrisy" to something that isn't).
2. I could just as easily (and accurately) call YOU close-minded for dismissing/insulting AC/DC fans and devaluing the decades of passion they've had for a band (and its singer) by claiming all their opinions are "close-minded" just because they don't agree with YOUR opinion that any old singer can be thrown into the band!
Maybe you should look up the definition of hypocrisy before trying to just blindly lob it back like "I'm rubber and you're glue!"
#2: I AM a hardcore AC/DC fan with decades of passion for the band. I'm just not a closed-minded, entitled jerk like the people who think they get to determine what AC/DC is, going against Angus' decisions, who actually founded the band. I called them closed-minded because they didn't even give Axl a chance and wrote him off before he ever sang a single note. Not because they disagree with me, because they are being closed-minded. What is so hard for you to get about this? Really...
And Axl is not "any old singer". As I already said, he is a rock legend with decades of experience. Brian was a nobody before he joined.
Yep, "close-minded" is indeed an easy label to smear all over someone just because you disagree with them.
In your own (closed) mind, it gives you some sort of power and advantage over them when you rationalize that their thought process isn't the equivalent of yours, huh?
Do you even hear yourself? Is this grade school? Control your emotions.
AC/DC or GNR. A collaboration between them would potentially be the coolest thing ever IMO.
Yep, that little acronym at the end summarizes it.... IN YOUR OPINION!
And you know what? That's cool!
Until you "close-mindedly" start directing the phrase "close-minded" at ANYONE who doesn't agree that what is found IN YOUR OPINION is the only way to think of it!
Yeah, I very clearly said it was my opinion, so why are you getting so emotional and defensive about this?
And it's "closed-minded", not "close-minded".
Author