Talk:Back in Black

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Music Mid‑importance Back in Black is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian music (assessed as Top-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Albums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles Rock music Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)

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.

• 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)[reply
  ]

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

Can someone find a source for this that isn't on a

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

original research? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"[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)[reply]

Eagles Greatest Hits is the most sold disc, definitely. I'd think it should be an album, as well. The article is incorrect.

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 articleBookermorgan 17:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Into" is often seen as a compound preposition and thus would be capitalised per

MOS:CT. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

---

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@

Update: Now one more than there are for hard rock; I have added another.

talk) 19:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Thank you for not wasting another second on it, then.

talk) 20:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]