![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 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)
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)
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!
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)
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)
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)
"[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)
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.
Could someone please place a source for the total disc sales in the article Bookermorgan 17:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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!
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
I don't think so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.9.145 ( talk) 04:12, 21 September 2008 (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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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:
==Re-assessment== Start class:
C class:
B class:
|
Last edited at 14:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 08:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 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)
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)
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!
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)
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)
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)
"[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)
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.
Could someone please place a source for the total disc sales in the article Bookermorgan 17:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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!
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
I don't think so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.9.145 ( talk) 04:12, 21 September 2008 (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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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:
==Re-assessment== Start class:
C class:
B class:
|
Last edited at 14:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 08:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)