AC/DC are they metal iyo?

Actually, Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, etc....all of the bands from then who influenced metal twenty years ago all the way to today. Guess what...they're STILL metal. AC/DC are not and have never been. They have always been arena rock-style stuff. They were heavy for their time, and I'm sure they have influenced metal bands, but that is not enough to call them metal themselves, in my opinion. Whereas most Black Sabbath songs, for instance, have compositional depth in the form of narrative structures or even just plain old epic/long songs with drawn-out instrumental sections (a big thing in metal and for the development of the instrumental capability prevalent in a lot of extreme metal, as well as the atmosphere of black metal, I would even say), AC/DC never did anything like this. They have always been verse-chorus-verse vanilla rock.

Again your going by todays standards and you are speaking as a fan of metal today. I grew up when AC/DC were considered Metal by all and that includes "metal" fans of yesteryear (yes the maiden,priest,sabbath etc. fans of those times). I have no doubt that if you grew up in the 70's and such you would of thought differently because that was the acceptance/train of thought of metal fans about AC/DC then. And there is no rules saying metal must be complex and cannot/should not do verse/chorus/verse song structures. Alot of the bands you do consider metal have used that structure and some still use it & have never changed. This is not about extreme metal which is the problem when people cannot consider anything metal unless it is extreme metal or influenced extreme metal. A rock influence in metal songs should not be excluded from calling it metal because metal is a versatile genre that takes many influences from many different types of music and makes it unique within the metal genre and that is what AC/DC did and Motorhead took to a further level afterwards.

With the exception of Sabbath, AC/DC were the heaviest band of their time until Motorhead came around in the mid to late 70's. AC/DC were simply pushed out of being considered metal at that point but that doesn't mean they weren't a new metal band for a new genre called metal in the early 70's to begin with. They simply became a mainstream metal band with the release of Highway to Hell and/or Back in Black.

And I would have to agree with Vihris & King Richard that at the very least AC/DC is borderline or in the grey area in this issue.
 
Again your going by todays standards and you are speaking as a fan of metal today.

Oh boy, sorry.

I grew up when AC/DC were considered Metal by all and that includes "metal" fans of yesteryear (yes the maiden,priest,sabbath etc. fans of those times).

OK woops sorry dude you're older than me and due to having more experience you clearly know better, sorry to argue with you about this ridiculous claim you're making.

And there is no rules saying metal must be complex and cannot/should not do verse/chorus/verse song structures. Alot of the bands you do consider metal have used that structure and some still use it & have never changed.

Yes, I am aware of this. However, most of said bands also incorporate other qualities that are common to at least MOST subgenres of the gigantically huge umbrella we call "metal" today.

With the exception of Sabbath, AC/DC were the heaviest band of their time until Motorhead came around in the mid to late 70's. AC/DC were simply pushed out of being considered metal at that point but that doesn't mean they weren't a new metal band for a new genre called metal in the early 70's to begin with. They simply became a mainstream metal band with the release of Highway to Hell and/or Back in Black.

No, they were just the most POPULAR band of their time due to their hooky, catchy, SIMPLISTIC sound. There were plenty of heavier bands...and guess what, even Mountain is considered classic rock even though they are still as heavy at times as Sabbath. And I am not about to argue that Mountain, Bang, Nazareth, etc. are "metal." They are proto-metal. If you want to say AC/DC were proto-metal, that is fine by me. However, by modern definition, they are excluded from the current definition of metal due to sounding like rock. Black Sabbath are still as metal as they had been back then. I guess we just don't agree. :zombie:
 
I'm a huge fan of Mountain but I would never consider them heavy/heavier as AC/DC. Nor any of the bands you mentioned or haven't mentioned. Leslie West is a hugely underrated guitarist in the history of rock in general though.

Grey area, grey area V5!!
 
So I take it you think Motorhead is rock as well, based on the criteria you use?
No, because musically Motorhead is not "about as pure rock and roll as you can get," they have significant influence from punk and metal (along with rock) that AC/DC lacks. Motorhead is a borderline case, AC/DC is about 99% pure rock and roll.

The argument that AC/DC was metal by 1970s standards fails for a number of reasons, mainly because the 1970s are over and the concept of "metal" as a genre is much more clearly defined now than it was then. And heaviness doesn't mean metal.

Musically: pure rock and roll.
Lyrically: pure rock and roll.
Image: pure rock and roll.
If AC/DC is metal, than why isn't Buckcherry? Nickelback? Three Days Grace? The Vines? The White Stripes? They would certainly have been considered metal by "1970s standards". Does the definition of metal change depending what year the music in question was released?
 
Does the definition of metal change depending what year the music in question was released?

Actually, I think that's Necuratul's view of genrefication. I remember telling him once that I didn't consider Venom to be black metal, and he went on about how they were 'black by '80s standards' and so forth. We should get him in here. :)

Ultimately, I don't give a shit. Arguing over the definition of metal is largely pointless, and I had my fill of it in the industrial metal thread (though I'll admit your arguments there were pretty convincing). However, my view of the discussion at hand is that AC/DC is at least hard rock, and since the only big differences between hard rock and heavy metal are lyrical themes and 'heaviness', there's always going to be a question of borderline bands. Just quit drawing so many damn genre lines, people.
 
Ive said it before and ill say it again, ACDC "WAS" about 95% rock and roll in the 70's and 80's. Today you ask any Pre-Pubesant girl if they like ACDC, they will say "lol!!!!! MySpace and ACDC and stickers and scene are so rock!!!11111!!1oneone LOL"... So there is obviously a fine line between ACDC and say.. Metallica. Atleast today anyways, and thats all that matters is today.
 
Actually, I think that's Necuratul's view of genrefication. I remember telling him once that I didn't consider Venom to be black metal, and he went on about how they were 'black by '80s standards' and so forth. We should get him in here. :)

Ultimately, I don't give a shit. Arguing over the definition of metal is largely pointless, and I had my fill of it in the industrial metal thread (though I'll admit your arguments there were pretty convincing). However, my view of the discussion at hand is that AC/DC is at least hard rock, and since the only big differences between hard rock and heavy metal are lyrical themes and 'heaviness', there's always going to be a question of borderline bands. Just quit drawing so many damn genre lines, people.

I read when Doden said about Venom and I would have to agree on him on them being Black Metal in those days. Venom came out with the term BM, the satanic themes, pseudonyms for band member names, they were/are extreme metal in sound etc. all influences on Bathory and later bands... and this was all accepted by fans at the time as was with AC/DC and their fans of the time....

But anyways Doden did post in this thread but he surprisingly took the same view as the majority. I thought he would take the same view he did with Venom. So his views are contradicting in a way. Sort of like selective hearing.

As for AC/DC. Totally agree with your views. Though I lean more into the "they are metal" side then the other side of course but I can live with the grey side as well.
 
Ive said it before and ill say it again, ACDC "WAS" about 95% rock and roll in the 70's and 80's. Today you ask any Pre-Pubesant girl if they like ACDC, they will say "lol!!!!! MySpace and ACDC and stickers and scene are so rock!!!11111!!1oneone LOL"... So there is obviously a fine line between ACDC and say.. Metallica. Atleast today anyways, and thats all that matters is today.

And there is a fine line between Sabbath and 1349... so what is your fucking point? ... doesn't make any one band less a metal band just because one is extreme and the other one isn't... my guess is you haven't been into metal too long... so don't say it again :lol:
 
And there is a fine line between Sabbath and 1349... so what is your fucking point? ... doesn't make any one band less a metal band just because one is extreme and the other one isn't... my guess is you haven't been into metal too long... so don't say it again :lol:

A fine line between 1349 and Sabbath? What the fuck is "Your" point?... According to you ACDC was "Metal" back in the day. But metal wasnt defined AT ALL then. They could call Hendrix metal then too... Pretty much anything with a power cord could be called metal then. ACDC is rock. Dont fucking contradict me.
 
It's a discussion, dear. I think contradiction is part it. Myself, no, I wouldn't consider AC/DC to be metal.
 
It's a discussion, dear. I think contradiction is part it. Myself, no, I wouldn't consider AC/DC to be metal.

exactly.. contradiction is part of a discussion... like a board member said once.. if everyone in this world agreed on everything it would be a boring world...
 
A fine line between 1349 and Sabbath? What the fuck is "Your" point?... According to you ACDC was "Metal" back in the day. But metal wasnt defined AT ALL then. They could call Hendrix metal then too... Pretty much anything with a power cord could be called metal then. ACDC is rock. Dont fucking contradict me.

If I want to fucking contradict you I fucking will :lol: And yes Metal was defined back in the day it just happened to evolve like let's say Judas Priest did to a extent and AC/DC didn't. They stuck to a formula that worked for them and didnt' change nor experimented. As for Hendrix being called such. Well no. Hendrix wasn't even "heavy" at least AC/DC is. And Hendrix was the 60's and metal came about more in the 70's even though Sabbath came out in 1968. Learn your metal history noob :lol: jk... peeps from bwooooklynnn they always think they are the shit.... :lol:

That rape scene from Deliverance is difficult to watch for a guy CTTN... makes me want to cringe and sit down or back my ass up against a wall lol
 
exactly.. contradiction is part of a discussion... like a board member said once.. if everyone in this world agreed on everything it would be a boring world...

Good point. And by the way unfaithfull, ive been a metalhead through and through for 9 years, which is a long ass time when your 16. And to think i was about to apologize.:mad: Fuck you man, true, metal DID evolve but ACDC didnt... they sound just like they did before, and since metal has "evolved" ACDC cannot be called metal anymore. Jesus, i say it over and over.:mad:
 
Good point. And by the way unfaithfull, ive been a metalhead through and through for 9 years, which is a long ass time when your 16.

yah long time for 16... i been into metal in some form or another since 1983... damn thats freaking old.. and they say we grow out of it :lol: not this old metalhead...
 
So does this argument boil down to AC/DC being one of the "heaviest" bands of the 1970s, so they must be considered metal? Is there some sort of quota that needs to be filled?

...for it's day AC/DC was considered metal by all at the time... thats what people don't get...
Not really:

"Those concerned with the future of hard rock may take solace in knowing that with the release of the first U.S. album by these Australian gross-out champions, the genre has unquestionably hit its all-time low." - Billy Altman in a review for Rolling Stone, 1976