Tuesday, September 22, 2009

The Church of AC/DC, part 3








THE AC/DC LEGACY





The members of AC/DC are getting old, and probably can't do what they do for many more years, their singer Brian Johnson in particular. Their current world tour marks the first time they have detuned the guitars (only a half-step) in order to make it easier for him to hit high notes. But rumors have that it may be his last tour. Even if they replace him with another singer, it will be the end of an era, and with the rest of the band approaching 60, AC/DC is clearly in its twilight. So what will be their legacy?

The commercial success speaks for itself. Since the band's first LP in 1975, all of their albums have gone gold; most have gone platinum. Unlike other hard rock acts that were big in the 1980s but now tour small club circuits, AC/DC continues to sell out arena shows internationally. They are the second largest-selling band internationally next to The Beatles. Back in Black is the #2 best selling album of all time behind Michael Jackson's Thriller, having sold over 20 million copies. Their success is due to many things. They haven't become a victim of their own success. They haven't sought fame for its own sake. They've lived private lives, marketed themselves wisely, and stuck to their brand.

But critical understanding of the band is lacking. They are often misclassified as heavy metal, not hard rock. Critics usually gloss over them for their apparent simplicity. Even while acknowledging that some of AC/DC's albums are classics of the rock genre, they refer to the band condescendingly, as a second rate act not to be taken seriously. They were not inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in their first year of eligibility, which so angered Courtney Love that she demanded the museum return all of the Kurt Cobain artifacts on display (she was also outraged that they panned Lynard Skynard). AC/DC is perceived as dumb and frivolous, merely a low-brow distraction in the rock genre.

AC/DC's incomplete critical assessment may be partly of their own doing. They don't give revealing interviews, they don't engage in a dialectic with their critics, and they tend to embrace comical portrayals of themselves. Ultimately, I think they don't care about their critical reputation.

But the band has also been smeared by people like Tipper Gore, who in the 1980s led an ignorant campaign against rock music considered threatening to youth. AC/DC was made out to be dark, evil, and dangerous. The band was mystified by the accusations, yet the impression has stuck among people unfamiliar with the band. But anyone familiar with them knows AC/DC is about as harmful as Little Richard.

In my estimation, AC/DC has a better fundamental understanding of what rock and roll is than most every other so-called rock band. Amidst all the bland, safe, and self-conscious groups you might find in a record store, there are actually very few who are true rock bands. AC/DC is one of them. If you see them perform live, you cannot help but recognize that these guys eat, breathe and sleep the genre. They may not be able to do anything else, but they do rock as good as it gets. Their fans know this already, and it's why they continue to come out in droves whenever they do a tour and buy up their records. But for AC/DC to have the proper legacy of other highly regarded rock acts like The Rolling Stones, there needs to be more serious critical evaluation of them.