Talk:Back in Black

Untitled

I deleted the section below. The way contributors to Wikipedia from the US reduce topics of all areas to discussions on their own country is a continual source of irritation to me. This is an article about an Austrialian band with a British lead singer. Isn't it a little odd to be ranking their success in terms of how many records they sold in America? This data would only be of any relevance as a comparison with the album's sales in Australia and the UK. Palefire 04:34, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I re-added it. If you'd like to add info on chart sales in Australia, UK or elsewhere, please do. And there's certainly no need to remove categories and interwikis too. Tuf-Kat 20:45, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Removing categories? Sorry, that was careless of me. Look at it this way. If I was to go to the page on some Aerosmith or Metallica album, write a section at the bottom titled "Chart positions", and list the album/single sales in Australia only, would you find that acceptable? No. Now please explain to me why this is any better before you revert back my change. The way I see it, the US billboard chart info is secondary to the band's sales in their own country (in which they're national heros), and only merits inclusion once someone's put the Australian info in. I've had a quick look for it, but haven't been able to find it. If someone else has it, they're welcome to put it back in along with the US info. Palefire 21:32, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

All albums, bands and songs should have all verifiable charting information for any country in the world. If you added Australian chart info to a Metallica album (even one that had no other chart data), I would find it acceptable. If you added (verifiable) Bahraini, Papuan or Seychellois chart info on a Metallica album, I would seek you out and laud you for it. I'm re-adding it, but managed to find out that the album hit #1 in the UK and Australia, and so will put that in too (from Walmart.com of all places). Tuf-Kat 00:30, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Palefire 00:47, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Scott Contribution to Back in Black

I just deleted a new section called "Songs that Bon Scott wrote for the album." Two reasons: the info was completely unsourced, and one of the alleged Bon Scott Back in Black songs was "School Days," which was released on AC/DC's 2nd album, T.N.T. Additionally, my understanding is that no Bon Scott Back in Black demos were recorded, and I've heard most of the songs listed. But if there's proof somewhere, I'm willing to listen. Thehaikumaster 03:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Brian Johnson carried on the style of Bon Scott. According to Mick Wall's biography, the Youngs had started writing music for the next album and on one occasion Scott had joined in on drums while they were writing music for two songs that would be later recorded on the Back in Black album; "Have a Drink on Me" and "Let me Put My Love Into You." While Scott was continuing his practice of writing down ideas, lines and lyrics in his exercise book Scott never wrote lyrics to music that was being written for those two songs. It is not known definitively if any of his ideas were used posthumously on any of the Back in Black tracks, though Johnson is credited as the lyricist. FlatOut 11:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Bon Scott didn't even write School days. School days is a Chuck Berry song.

Second best selling album of all time

Can someone find a source for this that isn't on a Michael Jackson fansite? I'm confused, because they seem to refer to an announcement by the RIAA, but I can't seem to come up with the citation online... -- nae'blis 18:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC) yes the first is thriller of michel jackson the second is black in black http://www.everyhit.co.uk/recordalb.html Record Breakers and Trivia

This source doesn't have AC/DC in even the top 10... Incorrect article? ChowRiit (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

At the bottom! Did you even try to read it? The first list considers only the UK...--64.128.133.180 (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

despite these references - there is no way back in black sold these numbers. 42 million means 19 million outside US and Canada! Sold about 800K in Australia, 1 million in Germany it was not on the UK best selling album list so has not sold 1.623.000 overthere it is certified Gold (may have sold 1 million). ...you do not sell 19 million in the rest of europe if your not HUGE is UK, France, Japan and Germany Bin B get to 30 million or so!

AC/DC are just as popular in Europe as they are in the US -- and possibly more so. In fact, they played in stadiums in Europe on their 2009 tour, usually in arenas in the US. You can find out about it by just looking for European AC/DC tour in Google or looking at Youtube videos.--64.128.133.180 (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

the first eagles greatest hits sold more than thriller

It did in the US, but not world wide. It didn't even come CLOSE.

Agreed, I find it almost impossible to believe that this album sold the often quoted 40-50 million copies world-wide. The section "Sales and certifications" shows the sums don't add up. If you total all sales in that table, it comes to 25.6Millon, not 50Million. Admittedly, some major markets such as Australia and Japan are missing from the list, but that doesn't explain the 24million shortfall. 80.177.124.44 (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This is incorrect - and the citation doesn't say that it has sold 42 million or is the 2nd biggest selling album in the world. No way.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

So now we have cited an Italian website - with no idea where they got their information (from wikipedia perhaps ?) - surely we need something a bit more solid ? -- 200.55.178.35 (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

FlightTime, David M Medlar, "According to the RIAA, it's the sixth-highest-selling album of all time". But perhaps that only refers to the US. The entire basis for the claim "second best-selling album ever" seems to be just the statement "It reached No. 4 on the Billboard 200 and has gone on to sell more than 50 million copies" from the same source combined with List of best-selling albums listing only Thriller as having more claimed sales. There's a 20 million gap between 29.6 million certified copies of Back in Black and the stated 50 million, but maybe they sold crazy in India, China, Japan or Russia? Or the 50 million includes re-releases or something. At any rate, if this is our basis for saying it's the second highest selling album, isn't that original research? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thats what I was trying to say, these sales stats r claimed & a bit speculative...but Mr. Flightime took umbrage with the term "probably". I was going by the Wikipedia article on best selling albums btw. Notice in his user bio, he claims ACDC is 1 of his favorite bands, so he is obviously taking this "emotionally" instead of unbiased... David M Medlar (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

FYI: US sales r far more organized & accurate than less industrialized nations sales stats. I would imagine that the more industrialized the nation, the more accurate, that seems like common sense... David M Medlar (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Steve?

Ok I am sure the former lead singer's name is not Steve. I find it hilarious that they put that name there replacing Bon Scott. Bill102 13:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

AC/DC's first lead singer was called Dave Evans (1973-74). Bon Scott replaced him. Either somebody mixed up "Steve" and "Dave" or it was a joke. Stanley Oliver (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Second or Third?

"[T]he third most sold disc of all time" & "the second best-selling album of all time"? Are these contradictions or is there a difference i'm not getting between disc and album? Cheers, Lindsay 16:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Eagles Greatest Hits is the most sold disc, definitely. I'd think it should be an album, as well. The article is incorrect. john k 15:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

(That is to say, Back in Black is no better than third, behind the Eagles and Thriller). john k 15:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

F word?

I was listening to this song awhile ago and i could swear the F word appeared but Lyrics freak.com say it actually "flack" not "fuck" in the verse "I'm beating the", which word do they actually say? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.72.10 (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

It's definately "flack"... "'Cause I'm back on track and I'm beating the flack..." It has to be "flack"; it rhymes more,
sounds more like it, and makes more sense, lyrically.

Place source for total disc sales?

Could someone please place a source for the total disc sales in the articleBookermorgan 17:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in the title of a song

To Begin, I apologise for my english ...

Isn't there a mistake in the title of the song : "Givin the Dog a Bone" ?

Shouldn't it be "Given the Dog a Bone" ? Simla29 16:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Columbia/Sony has corrected the song title to "Givin the Dog a Bone" on the 2003 remastered CD, LP and on streaming sites. The song also appears as "Givin the Dog a Bone" on Columbia/Sony's release of Bonfire. On past releases the song appeared variously as "Given the Dog a Bone", "Givin the Dog a Bone" and possibly "Giving the Dog a Bone". Given was obviously a typo and "Givin" is the corrected form (without the g or the apostrophe). I've owned versions that listed both "Given" and "Givin", but all of my Columbia/Sony versions list "Givin" which is the official spelling. Check Amazon.com or go to ACDC.com and checkout the streaming track list for verification.

TLDR - "Given" was a typo on many older versions and "Givin" is the correct spelling as seen on all newer releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.55.17.90 (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

https://www.acdc.com/music/back-in-black/ "4. Givin the Dog a Bone" 93.243.205.70 (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• English obviously being a foreign language to you, it's no surprise that you'd not recognize this slang.
• "Givin" is supposed to mean "Giving". Sometimes, us native speakers are lazy and don't like to pronounce the "g" at the end of words ending in "-ing".
• Of course, there is a grammatically correct way of showing this: for any letter not pronounced in a word, an apostrophe is used in place of it (thus showing that a letter SHOULD be there, but it's not pronounced by the speaker). Therefore, it should read Givin' instead of Givin. However, AC/DC apparently didn't feel like using an apostrophe and penned the song "Givin the Dog a Bone". Helltopay27 22:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"Given the Dog a Bone" (with an e) was the title of the song in the original 1980 release. I personally think that the "e" was a typo, that would explain why the other releases list the track differently. However, "Givin the Dog a Bone" is also wrong grammatically, as Helltopay said, it should be written with final n or with an apostrophe. Hope it's clearer now. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 03:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have the track sitting here right in front of me and it says "Given the dog a bone" That said, I believe this is what should be mentioned under the track list since the first release of the album had it that way. It should also be noted of other varying spellings on other releases of the track, not visa versa!

I have yet to see a release which shows either "Givin the Dog a Bone" or "Givin' the Dog a Bone". As far as I know, the vast majority show "Given the Dog a Bone", and a few (mostly Aussie) show "Giving the Dog a Bone". The latter is the rarer of the two, and if "Given" were a typo, it would have been corrected by now. The official website says "Given", so that's what it is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

From what I understand, AC/DC's music isn't exactly cerebral or anything. As long as we can pronounce it and sing along to it, who cares how it's spelt? I'd rather divert that energy to thwarting the SOPA bill and killing demons. Pagen HD (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Just in case anyone decides to edit it...I would like to add that in the case of "Let Me Put My Love into You"...the 'into' should be lowercase because it is a four-letter preposition like 'with' and 'from'. For proof, check out the articles on the songs "Got to Get You into My Life" (Beatles) and "I'm into Something Good" (Herman's Hermits).Chapa1985 (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

"Into" is often seen as a compound preposition and thus would be capitalised per MOS:CT. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be the case with for example "Break Into a Fight". 'Break Into' is considered a phrasal verb, but 'Put into' is not. So I would think that in this AC/DC song it should remain lowercase.Chapa1985 (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

"Into" is a difficult one; some people don't consider it a compound preposition at all. The concept is that it's a compound of two prepositions – "in" and "to" – thus would need to be capitalized like the first part of any other compound preposition. I'd say we should try and establish a consensus, if not here then ask at one of the MOS talk pages. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

To me, the word 'into' looks nicer in lowercase on song titles, but of course that's just a preference you know!Chapa1985 (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I have used the titles and syntax used at allmusic. Cult of Green (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The allmusic site doesn't seem to follow the rules very well. They write the 'a' in "Shake a Leg" in uppercase which is not correct.Chapa1985 (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I just asked at the MOS page, and was told that 'into' is not a compound preposition so stays lowercase so "Let Me Put My Love into You" is the official and correct way. Chapa1985 (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Mixolydian?

Mixolydian currently claims this song is in that mode. Is that true? If so add it to the article where appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.79.148.26 (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Heavy Metal?

I don't think so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.9.145 (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I do! FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

---

It is NOT heavy metal.... Check your facts people... I would trust the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame way more than a review anyone can make and is being used as a source here... See http://www.rockhall.com/inductee/ac-dc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naosoufadawiki (talk • contribs) 15:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That article never says anything about them not being heavy metal, therefore it doesn't support your point. I could also add references to Blender magazine, Rolling Stone, NME, Kerrang!, etc., that says to the contrary. To the OP: great argument; I love the one lined opinions when trying to make a point. 70.226.114.132 (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The group themselves would not thank you for calling them Heavy Metal but people who aren't fans of rock don't differentiate between say, AC/DC and Anthrax - it's all 'metal' to them. Metal fans of today wouldn't bracket them as a HM band, though! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.15.94 (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The genre situation on Wikipedia is hopelessly skewed anyway. As 70.226 pointed out, there are plenty of sources saying that AC/DC are heavy metal, but none saying that they aren't. That's because articles, books and other sources never say that a band aren't a particular genre - why would they need to? Therefore we get lazy journalism winning the day, particularly from the US, where anything a bit loud is classed as heavy metal, probably aimed at making our poor children want to kill themselves. It doesn't even matter if the band step up and say, "We're not heavy metal", like AC/DC have done, because some hack from Rolling Stone says otherwise. It's a very unencyclopedic aspect of Wikipedia. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Dean Winchester once said, what does it matter whether Back in Black is metal or not, it's got the Saving People Hunting Things spirit, and that's metal enough for me. If it's metal enough for Dean, then no one should feel wrong when they see AC/DC tagged as heavy metal. Pagen HD (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Give that genre is such a broad topic and there are some many references, the balance needs to be looked at. On balance, references describe AC/DC as hard rock, blues rock, and rock and roll. Using some references to support a label of heavy metal when the overwhelming position is contrary, is disingenuous. Further, proposed changes to genre need to be discussed here and consensus reached. FlatOut 11:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC) I vouch for heavy metal being put back on AC/DC's late 70s-early 80s albums. Not only do those fit the criteria for heavy metal in those days (it was used interchangeably with Hard Rock, as Aerosmith, Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, Van Halen, Kiss etc. all have heavy metal on their pages) very well, but on the main page it states they are an influence on heavy metal. Even if the band members say they aren't heavy metal, people like Lemmy of Motorhead have done so as well but it's still a metal band. And if you trust the joke that is the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame more than actual journalists than I think you need to hop off this page. 108.81.33.59 (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you have a look at wikipedia guidelines for genre. We go with what the majority of reliable sources use to describe album genre - not what the band days, or one source says, or what you think, or the style of one or two songs. We also edit according to consensus and the genre in this article is based on consensus. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's two sources: http://www.allmusic.com/album/back-in-black-mw0000188862 http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/06/06/heavy-metal-under-the-sea-sharks-act-calmer-when-listening-to-acdc/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.33.59 (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Two sources for what? Neither of those says Back in Black is heavy metal, and the second one isn't even about Back in Black. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"Hell's Bells" is definitely a metal song. I'm adding heavy metal to the Back in Black page because I got citations for heavy metal. Statik N (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus for that genre to be added, per the note you removed. Citations can be found for a half dozen genres; it's not about citations. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Synthwave.94:, there was no consensus for it to be removed, to begin with; prior to this aimlessly constructed thread, the article had the genre cited and placed in the infobox (September 2008, and before). Not until 2013 was it removed, by Bretonbanquet. As of now, there are at least three reputable sources cited in the article to verify the point of view, that this is a heavy metal album, which is two more than there are for hard rock, which I see has not received the same prejudice from certain editors of this article. Dan56 (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Update: Now one more than there are for hard rock; I have added another. Dan56 (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's brutal, blistering heavy metal, just like Priest and Maiden. Some Americans (who never had a clue what metal is) and the Daily Telegraph said so. Wikipedia is constantly hamstrung by people who have no idea what they're talking about, finding cites from other people who don't know what they're talking about, and placing incorrect information in articles. Do whatever you want, Back in Black isn't and will never be heavy metal. Tell you what, go to Powerage and say it's heavy metal too, you're bound to find something to back it up. Don't worry about it being total rubbish. I'm not wasting another second on it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for not wasting another second on it, then. Dan56 (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism by 68.5.225.153 and my rapid undo requests

Hello,

I noticed last night that the IP 68.5.225.153 vandalized the Back in Black page by inflating the sales numbers to 900 Billion and added the string "Best Album Forever" to the album title. I undid these vandalisms. Because I am a newbie with Wikipedia, I did this by undoing each edit by this IP one by one. However, I noticed that my later undo operations were tagged. I just wanted to communicate that I was fixing the result of a vandalism.

Thanks, Dchk (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see an official source for these sales numbers. In Entertainment Weekly's top 25 Albums of all time story from 1996 (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,292340_10,00.html), Back in Black is listed as selling 12 million albums in the U.S. Given their popularity in Australia, UK and the rest of the world it is possible that they sold 30 million albums elsewhere, but not likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomj1969 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Equipement

You need to put a section on equipment used to record this epic piece of hard rock. Start with Angus's gibson SG !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historienne2012 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Back in Black/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Article requirements: Y All the start class criteria Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details Y At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section) Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs Y A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians Y Categorisation at least by artist and year Y A casual reader should learn something about the album. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC) ==Re-assessment== Start class: Y A reasonably complete infobox Y A lead section giving an overview of the album Y A track listing Y Reference to at least primary personnel by name (must specify performers on the current album; a band navbox is insufficient) Y Categorisation at least by artist and year C class: Y All the start class criteria Y A reasonably complete infobox, including cover art Y At least one section of prose (in addition to the lead section) Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs Y A "personnel" section listing performers, including guest musicians. B class: Y All the C class criteria Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details Y A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians Y No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources. Y No significant issues exist to hamper readability, although it may not rigorously follow WP:MOS Y No Trivia sections. Surprisingly follows suit! It needs far more sections on music/style, reception and production to get anywhere close to a GA. But it still seems to satisfy what's needed for WP:Albums. Just without a lot of content, don't be surprised to see someone lower this down to a C-rating in the future. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 08:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should "heavy metal" remain in this article's infobox?

There is a clear consensus to retain "heavy metal" in the article's infobox because many reputable sources currently cited in the article call it a heavy metal album.

Cunard (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In light of recent attempts contesting this, and to resolve any lingering arguments against the inclusion of this genre, I am opening this RfC. Dan56 (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Votes

• Keep - There are nine different, reputable sources who share the interpretation of this album as heavy metal music, all currently cited in Back_in_Black#Release and reception and Back in Black#Legacy and influence. Dan56 (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Remove – Citing any genre you can find a source for is not useful. Some of those sources do not actually describe the album at all. The only genres which should be applicable are ones with full consensus. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  Note - This is a misleading statement; the preponderance of sources verify "heavy metal," all nine describe the album as such, and none of the genres currently in the infobox have "full consensus." Dan56 (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Remove – agree with Bretonbanquet. Sources can say whatever they want, it doesn't mean a specific genre is eligible to be included in the infobox of an article. Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

  This is insane! So what would make a specific genre eligible to be included, if not 9 or 10 sources?? lol. Because I was under the impression reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors, have authority for the content of this encyclopedia. Dan56 (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep It is not controversial that AC/DC are a hard rock/heavy metal band. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Dan56 left me a note asking me to comment here. The sources listed below are more than enough to include "heavy metal" in the genre section of the infobox. I want to register disagreement with the idea that "full consensus" between sources is needed for attributing a genre. If a preponderance of reliable sources describe the album, or the band in general, as heavy metal, then that's enough to use that genre in the infobox. Synthwave.94's comment that "sources can say whatever they want" but we don't have to include what they say is true to a limited extent -- if only a couple of sources, or only low-quality sources, use a genre label, then they can be outweighed by the other sources. In this case we have multiple high-quality sources supporting the label. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• WELL THEY NEVER UNDERSTOOD WHAT HEAVY METAL IS AND THAT ACDC IS JUST HARDROCK AND ETC ETC. But really, what Mike Christie says. Are we actually fighting over this? Who's fighting? I'd like to know. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - I agreed what Mike Christie says. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - After looking at the reliable sources provided, this clearly qualifies as a "Heavy Metal" album. You even see that as one of the listed genres when searching it on Google. I think it's commonly known that AC/DC makes music in this genre anyway, so this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. I should also note that we must absolutely rely on reliable sources when listing genres, instead of relying on editors to decide. --Bobtinin (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep The quality of the reliable sources describing this album as "heavy metal" is outstanding. The arguments for removal are very weak. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Rolling Stone said in 1980 that the album was "the apex of heavy-metal art". That alone is enough for me to say the infobox should include the genre. Binksternet (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

WP:SUBJECTIVE: "Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. Aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjective—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public. For instance, the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered to be one of the greatest authors in the English language. Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to experts holding that interpretation. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide useful context for works of art."

To meet the above standard, and the double standard set in haphazard past threads ([1], [2], [3]) by a few AC/DC fans and apparent rock 'n' roll coegnasceti waving their insider/expert stick against the interpretation of Back in Black as heavy metal music, there are nine sources from music journalists, scholars, published authors, holding this interpretation, cited in the article: a retrospective piece on the album by Rolling Stone, a contemporary review by David Fricke, a retrospective piece on the album by Kitty Empire, a retrospective piece by The Daily Telegraph, an entry in a book by a rock historian, a brief passage in a music scholar/cultural anthropologist's book, a retrospective piece by NME, an introductory piece to heavy metal by Tim Jonze, and a retrospective piece on metal in 1980 by Paul Brannigan of Metal Hammer. All added as part of my efforts to improve and expand that section. Dan56 (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Talking about genre on Wikipedia is as ridiculous as it is futile. One can find sources to describe certain types of music as almost any genre. We're talking here about describing Back in Black as the exact same genre as Painkiller, The Number of the Beast and Metallica. These four albums bear almost no resemblance to each other. If nobody can see how that kind of gross generalisation makes this encyclopedia a laughing stock, then it's time to give up. As one of the aforementioned "apparent rock 'n' roll coegnasceti", whatever that is, I would ask Kitty Empire or anyone at the Daily Telegraph to explain to me the difference between hard rock and heavy metal, and I would be astounded if they had any idea. The fact that they are published does not make them knowledgeable. The fact is that there is no useful purpose in listing all genres that anyone considers applicable. One will do, if we must have genres at all, and that must be one with which nobody can argue. In this case, hard rock. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

One cannot find sources to describe certain types of music as almost any genre; you're being hyperbolic: find me a source that describes this record as acid jazz or Russian chanson; seriously, indulge me. Those other articles have no relevancy here. No one has to prove anything to you; you are not an expert. You are behaving poorly as an editor; I am not sure why you are even here if you do not agree with the spirit of WP's policies and guidelines. Cite something relevant to your argument; your opinion is not. I will: "Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." Dan56 (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way, what ever happened to your "not wasting another second on it"? Dan56 (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Try your very best please to restrict your criticism to editors' arguments, not the editors themselves. If we're going to do that, then I can say I'm arguing with someone who was so intent on using his new word ("cognoscenti"), that he couldn't be assed to go and learn how to spell it. I wasn't going to waste another second on it until you invited everyone to comment. You say I'm not an expert; you know nothing about me. The fact is that, if I were writing for a reliable source (and I often do), I could say that this album was acid jazz, and then you'd want to include that genre, right? Because reliable sources are always right? And suddenly my opinion is relevant. You saying that those other albums are not relevant here is exactly what I knew you would say. Your intent to include this album in the same genre as other albums to which it bears no resemblance should bother you as a Wikipedia editor. It does not. That is all I need to know. You have not made a single comment on why you think this album is heavy metal; just that some other people say it is, so Wikipedia must agree. I said above that you will do what you like, and you no doubt will use Wikipedia guidelines to do that. Finding sources to show that an album is not a particular genre is next to impossible (try finding one to say Back in Black is specifically not acid jazz), and finding so-called reliable sources with inaccurate opinions is easy, so the decision is made before we even started, as in so many other cases. I've already explained how futile this is. As an aside, you seem happy with the astoundingly inaccurate "arena rock" based on one quote from some dickhead at Rolling Stone. So one source is apparently enough for genres now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I've added another for arena rock. And yes, Wikipedia must agree: "Previously published reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors, have authority for the content of this encyclopedia. If this lead description of heavy metal music is accurate, then the albums you've cited do bear a resemblance to each other. Why do you feel their (the nine sources) opinions are inaccurate? Dan56 (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Well done. That description of heavy metal is woefully inadequate, but even so, no, this album doesn't fit that. Little or no distortion and short guitar solos for a start. Even if those aspects were satisfied, they're still nothing like each other. They're inaccurate because in every case, HM is a throwaway, pigeonholing response to any music that has guitars and is loud. Literally everything that meets those two requirements is HM to some people. Clearly you and I know it's more complicated than that? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

According to what's cited here, longer solos were a characteristic of the "new wave" of metal in the 1980s, rather than earlier. There is more to it than that ("guitars and loudness"; also plodding rhythms, machismo and self-aggrandizement, aggressive singing...), but yes, it is a broad descriptor, which is the nature of items in the infobox; to summarize briefly, without nuance, what the body elaborates on. Dan56 (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, credit where it's due, your additions to the main AC/DC article are decent. The quote in the "musical style" section goes some way to explaining the difference between hard rock and heavy metal. Those who call AC/DC heavy metal would do well to read it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I have added more there again, along with here. Dan56 (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Background wording ?

Regarding this passage "By 1979, AC/DC were poised to receive a significant level of success with their sixth studio album..." I'd like to see "receive" replaced with "achieve". This might sound picky, but one does not receive success, one achieves it. You can receive money, accolades, and awards (symbols of success) but you cannot receive success...it can't be given to you. FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Chart overkill

Robvanvee, Synthwave.94, and others interested: Adding annual peak positions for the same chart year after year is unnecessary and leads to clutter. For example, the same Norwegian chart is listed eight times and others are listed 3–5 times. The examples included on WP:CHARTS guideline only show one peak per chart. What is the point of adding peak positions if the album happened to re-enter a chart during later years? If this is noteworthy, it should be explained in a commercial performance/sales section, such as the album enjoyed a sales surge because of a deluxe reissue, use in a movie, the artist died, etc. This is comparable to WP:SONGCOVER and WP:SONGTRIVIA: there needs to be some context for it to be encyclopedic; just because someone recorded a version or it appeared in a TV show doesn't mean it should be noted in a song article. Also, why include Billboard component charts in addition to the main chart? The latter is a better indicator of its overall popularity and is more comparable to other single chart countries. Otherwise, adding a lot of miscellaneous details is just statistics for statistics sake, which is contrary to guidelines. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Ojorojo, as I stated on your talk page, I have no idea how that happened but my reversion was not intentional. I completely agree with you on this. Sorry again. Robvanvee 16:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion on this Synthwave.94? Robvanvee 05:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Potential audio clip

(This is my first attempt in a talk page, I'm a little open to advice.)

The article is in decent shape, I think the addition of a sound clip from one of the songs could provide a brief showcase of the album's sound and production under Mutt Lange. I suggest "Shoot to Thrill" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoWd2KyUro) because in the first 40 seconds we get AC/DC's approach to songwriting, Lange's influence on how the drums sound, and Brian Johnson's vocals. Carlinal (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry

I was trying to italicize the mention of Black to Black in the not to be confused with part of the article, but I accidentally made a mess I do not know how to fix. Sorry again. Ded Meem (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)