Why were these five Australians TOP BAND in France, in 1980, just when
I got interested in music in a big way? There they stood, inevitable stepping
stones to the cool world. Their ambiguous title rang out like an “in” code,
carefully traced in black marker on the back of denim jackets, stenciled
onto school satchels, scrawled or carved into school desk-tops, scratched
on the back of toilet doors: unavoidable cabalistic sign, recognition sign
for the cool youth of my generation. Maybe this was the reason they got
so popular, for the mystery of their name. Maybe the kids identified with
lead guitarist Angus and his school uniform (although french kids don't
have to wear a uniform to school).
Whichever way I choose to look at the question, I just can't solve
it. Maybe it was just one of those things, a pure product of promotional
prowess, a case of businessman takes all. True, the utter simplicity of
the band's music, it's basically repetitive sound, the impression of reassuring
“déjà vu” offered by the fact that the simple chord progressions
hark back to an earlier age of the rock’n’roll standard makes AC/DC's sounds
relatively undemanding and therefore easily saleable.
And I recall that there was a lot of “going along with it”. Once you'd
decided to be part of your peer group it was the gospel to listen to it
and say that you liked it.
So were they really just a bit of a rip off or were they Rock’n’roll, as in “the genuine article ? Is it even relevant, in the case of AC/DC to reason in such simplistic terms ?
What to say about AC/DC? Are they to be included in our rock’n’roll
hall of fame or not?
Obviously, they could be accused of milking a set formula all of these
years (since 1974 or so), but what of that formula?
AC/DC songs were and still are mind-bogglingly simple. What we must
strive to find out is whether this simplicity is a positive or negative
value in their case.
What AC/DC play is basically rock’n’roll, very heavy rock’n’roll but
aesthetically rock’n’roll. The difference with original rock’n’roll? Simply
the sound level and the degree of electricity, i.e. guitar effects, distortion
and amplification. Pushing it one might be able to say that the occasional
solo is “atypical” of the basic rock’n’roll format but then again... Now
this is not saying that AC/DC is basically a scam, a rip-off of a time-worn
formula. No, this extra electricity is AC/DC's specific contribution to
modern music and can't be taken lightly. Indeed, this seems to be the most
probable interpretation of the band's name. In slang, AC/DC means bisexual,
however the band have never played on blurring gender issues. Indeed, the
lyrics glorify the “sex, drugs and rock’n’roll” ethic and verge on the
macho cum misogynistic, especially those of the late Bon Scott, the band's
first singer. There is some degree of femininity, o.k., the long hair,
the high-pitched wail of a voice but these elements aren't specific to
AC/DC, they go with heavy metal as a whole and indeed a great part of rock’n’roll.
No, AC/DC should be interpreted in terms of electricity, be it alternative
currant or direct current, the electricity is there. The early albums and
album titles are a testimony to their main feature: their electricity and
through this their energy and rebellion. High voltage, for example, and
Powerage with a cover representing Angus, the band's main guitarist and
emblematic figure, with multicoloured electrical cables entering
the sleeves of his school blazer instead of his hands and his mouth and
eyes aglow, indicating that he is being electrocuted. Some heavy metal
bands have played MTV's famous “Unplugged” show, however AC/DC will never
do so, for in doing so they would lose all that makes them specific. This
music cannot be played acoustically, an approximation of their sound cannot
be given on non-electrical instruments.
So what have they done to the old rock’n’roll format? Amplified it,
of course, but at the same time they can be seen as part-creators of a
particularly heavy sound, characterised by the particularly heavy power
chord repeated endlessly. The basic structure is the rock’n’roll song but
the degree of noise is augmented, as is the distortion level, signifying
to listeners that the signal is electric and being pushed through amplification.
Sound effects often pass unnoticed by listeners in sound engineers’ quests
for a certain “touch” but with AC/DC the signification is blatantly obvious
and voluntary.
Why insist on this point ? Because of this particular reworking of
rock’n’roll that AC/DC were the masters of. It relies on basic repetitive
structures. There is something akin to samplers in this process, taking
little pieces of rock’n’roll dogma, short excerpts, transposing them into
metal mode and then repeating them endlessly in a kind of deconstructionist
ritual. So that's AC/DC, the tricks of rock’n’roll coupled with an endless
heavy repetition. Listening to the albums it appears that this repetitive
reworking of the rock’n’roll gospel was very much a constructed sound,
a heavy uniformity and slightly off balance disharmony achieved by the
combined effect of drums, bass and guitars. And what of the voice ? Bon
Scott's high-pitched wail created a perfect counterpoint to the music's
vital energy and electricity. For his was a voice filled with longing and
unquenched desire. A voice that was nearly always pushed to the limit.
Yes, Scott's was the voice. Once the band had hired Brian Johnson, it
was never quite the same. If Scott had been able to sin on “Back in Black”,
a record he'd apparently written the songs to, it would undoubtedly have
been the band's finest album. Of course this was impossible given that
he had passed away. As it is most people agree on the final Scott Album,
“Highway to Hell” being the greatest one.
Personally my favourite is Powerage. Perhaps this is because my “Highway
to Hell” cd dates from the time before the “remasterised” ones came out.
Although AC/DC’s heavy power chords hit you like a steamroller the album
comes across with sad and even tormented overtones. It's almost a blues
album, not so much in it's musical format that relies on power chords and
boogie but in the subject matter of the songs. The idea is one of falling,
one of damnation (Rock’n’roll damnation, Sin City). The ideas of losing
one's soul, of losing one's self, of being possessed by the loved one,
of obsession and failure run through the album. (This is particularly true
of the second side from the desperate madness of “What's next to the moon”,
through the obsession of “Up to my neck in you” to the avowed sense of
failure of “Kicked in the teeth”). These may have been serious preoccupations
of the singer or he might just have cooked them up because he thought they
made good songs. Whatever the case, Scott's voice makes the concerns sound
sincere and heartfelt. His was a great “torn” voice. You can hear his pain
and that's basically what good rock’n’roll is about, isn't it? He's in
a league with another all-time rock’n’roll great from the heavy metal scene
and that's Ozzy Osbourne. But that's another
story…