AC/DC or Guns and Roses

Malice

AC/DC

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

I agree it's got an aprostrophe in there but as a grammar issue I think there should be two , no ?
Ah f-uck it

This is going off-topic but anyway, yes, I'm inclined to agree with you as the 'n' is being used as an abbreviation of "and". In the same way that "I'm" indicates one letter is omitted between the 'i' and the 'm' and "isn't" indicates one letter is omitted between the 'n' and the 't', you could argue that because two letters are being omitted, two apostrophes should be used. Maybe someone who knows grammar better can explain it .

Red Sleeping Beauty

AC/DC

I'll ask me bird, she's good with words

---

Back on topic :
Can we have an album vs album comparison? Or a song by song comparison ?

Highway to hell vs Appetite for Destruction ?
Use your Illusion vs Back in Black ?


I don't know if it's interesting of note but the Guns' tune Out ta Get Me is very reminiscent of AC/DC I think.
Bit of a more punk version though. That's what Guns had, they'd more scope, more range and they weren't just a cheesy "classic" rock band. Although I agree that some of the Use Your Illusion tour could been seen as utter Spinal Tap. But they did it with conviction and were knowingly of the Spinal Tapness.

Well, everyone except Axl

Big Wave

AC/DC

Grammatically, yes it 'should' have 2 apostrophes - but that's not how they spell it. They use one, therefore it is spelt with one.

Either way, Guns "and" Roses is just wrong. Clearly the OP voted AC/DC, as he doesn't even know how to spell GNR.
It's like those idiots that say "I love The Family Guy" - eh, WTF? Where did you get "the" from? Clearly you don't love it, as you don't even know what it's called, FFS!

The BOFH

Pub07 wrote: »

If you are talking technically better then yes Axel is technically better than Brian Johnson and Bon Scott. And GNR's rythym section is technically better. When it comes to guitar I wouldn't consider Slash technically better than Angus, I'd rate them about the same. But at the end of the being techincally a better band has feck all to do with being the better band in general.

I would have to completely disagree with the rhythm section comment; the classic Acca Dacca lineup with Young/Williams/Rudd is easily the best rhythm section of any hard rock band ever, they are/were like a machine.

GnR? Brilliant first album, might even be better than anything AC/DC have done although Powerage will always be my favourite album. But they were one of the victims of early success, AC/DC didn't really start seeing a lot of success until just before Bon died & had spent at least 6 years slogging it out with albums being released every 12 - 18 months. GnR hit the big time with the first album and burned out.

The Bon Vs Brian debate is endless, nowhere more so that Australia.

If you went to the Bon Scott memorial service in Fremantle cemetery & stood up & claimed to like Brian Johnson you'd be lynched but I like to offer the consideration; should they have picked another singer? who? would you have preferred that AC/DC split up after Highway to Hell and never have recorded Back in Black? The lyrics and direction suffered badly after they ran out of Bon's back catalogue and Brian reckons he only had 2 albums worth of songs in him and has been coasting along since. Young & Young don't have the wit that Bon injected despite being very talented so the songs turn out puerile instead of clever & amusing. But they still rock harder and play more consistently than pretty much any hard rock band half, or even a third their age, Brian is in his 60's FFS!

This is my prized possession:

Dublin Spur

The BOFH wrote: »

I would have to completely disagree with the rhythm section comment; the classic Acca Dacca lineup with Young/Williams/Rudd is easily the best rhythm section of any hard rock band ever, they are/were like a machine.

GnR? Brilliant first album, might even be better than anything AC/DC have done although Powerage will always be my favourite album. But they were one of the victims of early success, AC/DC didn't really start seeing a lot of success until just before Bon died & had spent at least 6 years slogging it out with albums being released every 12 - 18 months. GnR hit the big time with the first album and burned out.

The Bon Vs Brian debate is endless, nowhere more so that Australia.

If you went to the Bon Scott memorial service in Fremantle cemetery & stood up & claimed to like Brian Johnson you'd be lynched but I like to offer the consideration; should they have picked another singer? who? would you have preferred that AC/DC split up after Highway to Hell and never have recorded Back in Black? The lyrics and direction suffered badly after they ran out of Bon's back catalogue and Brian reckons he only had 2 albums worth of songs in him and has been coasting along since. Young & Young don't have the wit that Bon injected despite being very talented so the songs turn out puerile instead of clever & amusing. But they still rock harder and play more consistently than pretty much any hard rock band half, or even a third their age, Brian is in his 60's FFS!

This is my prized possession:

Amen to that my friend

The BOFH

PS. Please pardon my gravedig.

Riddle101

AC/DC

Guns 'n' Roses for me. Never really cared much for AC/DC but meh