I mean, I felt like AC/DC focused more on brand recognition when Brian Johnson took over after Bon Scott died. Their music were aiming for radio appeal, not that no musician should because it means being successful, but it almost was formulaic. Thunderstruck for example, became a staple for sports soundtracks and stadium like events.
And they’re a victim of their own success as you’ve talked here, where someone who didn’t grow up with the band, will only focus on the popular songs. Despite them having grown up with at least a couple albums that AC/DC did release, like their last album ‘Power Up’ was in 2020. It’s the same deal with Nirvana, always wearing that double-X smiley shirt or having the poster and only saying they cared about Nevermind. The same for Guns 'N Roses where it’s always both of the Appetite for Destruction albums and songs like Welcome to the Jungle and November Rain.
I think it honestly just speaks about a fan’s depth as to how much they like bands. An actual fan likes a band and addresses both flaw and success. A casual fan only likes what was popular and nothing else for cheap nods.
Aiming for radio appeal and catering to the masses is ok, as long as you do it from the start.
Every musician/band I know of that changed their sound to be more radio friendly has given up their own sound.
The first example that comes to mind would be Kevin Parker; the first two Tame Impala albums are amazing, but since then he went full pop. It worked for a few songs, but recently his features in other songs were better than his own stuff (i.e. New Gold by Gorillaz and Neverender by Justice) IMO.
As far as AC/DC goes, I grew up with Black Ice, which is a decent album (albeit a bit bloated) but nothing I would necessarily would want to revisit any time soon. Pretty much all of their (popular) stuff sounds so big, yet lacks real depth in my opinion.
Agreed.
I mean, I felt like AC/DC focused more on brand recognition when Brian Johnson took over after Bon Scott died. Their music were aiming for radio appeal, not that no musician should because it means being successful, but it almost was formulaic. Thunderstruck for example, became a staple for sports soundtracks and stadium like events.
And they’re a victim of their own success as you’ve talked here, where someone who didn’t grow up with the band, will only focus on the popular songs. Despite them having grown up with at least a couple albums that AC/DC did release, like their last album ‘Power Up’ was in 2020. It’s the same deal with Nirvana, always wearing that double-X smiley shirt or having the poster and only saying they cared about Nevermind. The same for Guns 'N Roses where it’s always both of the Appetite for Destruction albums and songs like Welcome to the Jungle and November Rain.
I think it honestly just speaks about a fan’s depth as to how much they like bands. An actual fan likes a band and addresses both flaw and success. A casual fan only likes what was popular and nothing else for cheap nods.
Aiming for radio appeal and catering to the masses is ok, as long as you do it from the start.
Every musician/band I know of that changed their sound to be more radio friendly has given up their own sound.
The first example that comes to mind would be Kevin Parker; the first two Tame Impala albums are amazing, but since then he went full pop. It worked for a few songs, but recently his features in other songs were better than his own stuff (i.e. New Gold by Gorillaz and Neverender by Justice) IMO.
As far as AC/DC goes, I grew up with Black Ice, which is a decent album (albeit a bit bloated) but nothing I would necessarily would want to revisit any time soon. Pretty much all of their (popular) stuff sounds so big, yet lacks real depth in my opinion.