Back In Black ?

I have mentioned this in other threads and am wondering what others might have to say about it. The question is this: "Do you think Bon Scott had anything to do with the writing of any of the songs on Back In Black ?"


I believe that he did. My basis is as follows.
A)the style of the lyrics have way more in common with AC/DC albums with Bon than anythng done afterwards with Brian Johnson.
B)the vocal melodies, likewise.
C)Bon died in Feb of 80' and Back In Black was released in Aug of 80' . Did Angus and Co. go from having a dead frontman, looking/finding new frontman, new frontman writing lyrics and melodies, recording new songs, mixing/mastering new songs, and have ALL that done in less than 6 months.
And D)Bon had a lil "black book" (according to friends, family, and bandmates) containg lyrics of songs that had already been recorded by AC/DC and ideas for future projects. That book disappeared and to this day has never turned up.

Just think of how much money the band would owe Bon's estate if they were to give credit to him for his contributions ? I have alot of friends who belive the same as I do, but that isn't gonna change anything. I only ask this here to see if anyone else may have noticed, or not ?

Laters everyone and have a killer week-end !

taken from wikipedia

Quote :

After the success of their previous album, Highway to Hell, Bon
Scott and company began developing a new album. Some of the songwriting
had been completed when Scott died unexpectedly from alcohol poisoning.
When Brian Johnson became lead singer, the group decided to finish the
songwriting they had started under Scott and Back in Black was the final result.

Addy wrote:

taken from wikipedia

Quote :

After the success of their previous album, Highway to Hell, Bon
Scott and company began developing a new album. Some of the songwriting
had been completed when Scott died unexpectedly from alcohol poisoning.
When Brian Johnson became lead singer, the group decided to finish the
songwriting they had started under Scott and Back in Black was the final result.

Yet...........do you see anything regarding "credit" for any of Bon's contributions ? I will answer that for you "nope"

I was just answering the question about if Scott wrote any of Back in Black

nothing more

Wouldn't Bon's estate have been crying foul if they didn't receive proper compensation for his work?

Addy wrote:

I was just answering the question about if Scott wrote any of Back in Black

nothing more

thanks

SpectreFate wrote:

Quote :

Wouldn't Bon's estate have been crying foul if they didn't receive proper compensation for his work?

Of course. There really isn't any proof. That is why the disappearance of the "black book" of lyrics poses a question. Actually "Back In Black was released in July in the U.K, about 5 months to do all I stated in the first post. That is a very short time to accomplish all that. Unless you have the majority of the songs already done and somebody comes along and just sings stuff already done ? My biggest arguement lies in that most of the songs that are on Back In Black sound like stuff done on earlier albums than stuff recorded afterwards. You know the style of the lyrics and the melodies. Just look at the next album "For Those About To Rock" and you got an entire album (besides "I Put A Finger On You") that have a different melody and lyrical style than the rest of the album and the albums following it. When the Youg brothers took over sole writing credits later on the vocal melodies and lyrics dipped substantially. Of ciourse, I may be crazy ? Afterall it is just an opinion.

All I know is this and slam me if you want. Brain Johnson era Ac/Dc > Bon Scott era Ac/Dc. Bon Scott did nothing for me vocally and it almost came off as if he was talking. I love a lot of tracks that he was on but there are few and far between.

As far as Bon contributing, you must be a fool if you think he didnt have a hand in some of those songs.

MetalRob331 wrote:

All I know is this and slam me if you want. Brain Johnson era Ac/Dc > Bon Scott era Ac/Dc. Bon Scott did nothing for me vocally and it almost came off as if he was talking. I love a lot of tracks that he was on but there are few and far between.

As far as Bon contributing, you must be a fool if you think he didnt have a hand in some of those songs.

I vehemently disagree!

Bon just totally rules Brian's shrieking vocals. AC/DC could have found any number of vocalists that could sound like Johnson (the guy in Bullet comes to mind). Hell even the singer from Britny Fox could shriek like Johnson.

Besides being a unique vocalist (except for the guy in Rhino Bucket), Bon Scott was also a master showman, much moreso than Brian Johnson IMO.

My favorite AC/DC tracks will always be those with Bon on vocals.

MetalRob331 wrote:

All I know is this and slam me if you want. Brain Johnson era Ac/Dc > Bon Scott era Ac/Dc. Bon Scott did nothing for me vocally and it almost came off as if he was talking. I love a lot of tracks that he was on but there are few and far between.

As far as Bon contributing, you must be a fool if you think he didnt have a hand in some of those songs.

Why would somebody slam you over an opinion ? It is interesting how in alot of your posts, you comment on the importance of melody. Bon may "sound" like he's talking, but he had an upper hand on Mr. Johnson in the vocal melody department. IMHO, the vocal melody on any song from "Highway To Hell" is far better than anything Mr Johnson has ever written or recorded in either AC/DC or Geordie.

James B. wrote:

MetalRob331 wrote:

All I know is this and slam me if you want. Brain Johnson era Ac/Dc > Bon Scott era Ac/Dc. Bon Scott did nothing for me vocally and it almost came off as if he was talking. I love a lot of tracks that he was on but there are few and far between.

As far as Bon contributing, you must be a fool if you think he didnt have a hand in some of those songs.

Why would somebody slam you over an opinion ? It is interesting how in alot of your posts, you comment on the importance of melody. Bon may "sound" like he's talking, but he had an upper hand on Mr. Johnson in the vocal melody department. IMHO, the vocal melody on any song from "Highway To Hell" is far better than anything Mr Johnson has ever written or recorded in either AC/DC or Geordie.

Bands like Ac/Dc dont use melody in the way Im speaking about. Their choruses are usually made up of about 3 words. Its not about the singing even though Im not the biggest fan of Bon and Im not the biggest fan of Brian. It has to do with the direction the music went. A lot also has to do with them not being so old.

MetalRob331: wrote

Quote :

Bands like Ac/Dc dont use melody in the way Im speaking about. Their choruses are usually made up of about 3 words. Its not about the singing even though Im not the biggest fan of Bon and Im not the biggest fan of Brian. It has to do with the direction the music went. A lot also has to do with them not being so old.

Yeah, it is a different melody than most. AC/DC's songs with Bon writing the vocal melody have WAY more hooks in them than those with Brian.

one thing i've learned is never try to argue when it's 2 vastly different age groups--*looks at ages of the 2 posters*
one will never agree with you, for example, younger folks thinking shite aerosmith is better than old cool aerosmith. [/bias] same with bon & brian--they/we are only going to like the one they "grew up with."

that said, i agree with the threadstarter & wonder why nothing was offered by the youngs, or questioned by the parents of bon publicly. who knows though what happened behind closed doors or with an attorney's sought after advice etc.

the lyrics certainly went to smurf poo though with no innuendo, just big dumb obvious statements right after. no offense to brian meant--not saying he's a bad singer or performer & they've had some good moments, but can't keep my attention, (even up close & live lately).

vanillaviking wrote:

one thing i've learned is never try to argue when it's 2 vastly different age groups--*looks at ages of the 2 posters*
one will never agree with you, for example, younger folks thinking shite aerosmith is better than old cool aerosmith. [/bias] same with bon & brian--they/we are only going to like the one they "grew up with."

that said, i agree with the threadstarter & wonder why nothing was offered by the youngs, or questioned by the parents of bon publicly. who knows though what happened behind closed doors or with an attorney's sought after advice etc.

the lyrics certainly went to smurf poo though with no innuendo, just big dumb obvious statements right after. no offense to brian meant--not saying he's a bad singer or performer & they've had some good moments, but can't keep my attention, (even up close & live lately).

It has nothing to do with the ERA or what I grew up on (not with Ac/Dc at least, as I have heard more Bon then Brian) Im not the biggest Ac/Dc fan but production is a huge key and the band just sounds better to me with Brian, and that has nothing to do with him if you understand what Im sayng.

There is no way newer Aerosmith beats old as well and if you think that way then you need serious ear replacements.

Seems the context of my debate got sidetracked

Which version of the band had better tunes or production quality has little to do with my question. Did Bon help create any of the songs on Back In Black ?

Carry on....

MetalRob331 wrote:

All I know is this and slam me if you want. Brain Johnson era Ac/Dc > Bon Scott era Ac/Dc. Bon Scott did nothing for me vocally and it almost came off as if he was talking. I love a lot of tracks that he was on but there are few and far between.

As far as Bon contributing, you must be a fool if you think he didnt have a hand in some of those songs.

I like both eras and I think the whole talking bit is part of the appeal for me with Bon Scott, Actually you could even say that during Bon Scott era that it was more bluesy, where as the Brian Johnson era it got more Hard Rock/Metal in sound. Granted they were not light during the Bon Scott years but there was more of that bluesy sound at least IMO

James B. wrote:

Seems the context of my debate got sidetracked

Which version of the band had better tunes or production quality has little to do with my question. Did Bon help create any of the songs on Back In Black ?

Carry on....

I already gave my take on that question and Im sure we can all agree that Bon def had his hand on some of the tracks on Back in Black. Thats why I sidetracked because it would be dumb to think he did not.

Addy I can agree with you def more bluesy with Bon and more hard rock with Brian...

I think Bon certainly contributed to some of vocal melodies but to lyrics I am not so sure, Bon 's lyrics had a wicked sense of humor and his lyrics where humorous and smutty, the lyrics while are somewhat humorous they are too obvious. 'Given the Dog a Bone' 'What Do you Do for Money, Honey' are just too upfront lyrically to have been written by Bon.

As for Bon's estate I am sure they would have cried fowl but the sales of their back catalog as made the Bon Scott estate one of most lucrative in terms of money making, also like all things associated with AC/DC also lowkey how much money it earns annually.

tohostudios wrote:

even the singer from Britny Fox could shriek like Johnson.

WHAT?

EVEN ???? Dean Davidson is a fantastic singer and has much more range than Johnson ever had, he can do Johnson's voice and others as well. I really have always thought Brian Johnson is terribly overrated as a singer, especially in his more later efforts. (1986 - today) Yea, in all fairness Johnson is getting older and he is bound to start losing his voice, but I would say after Fly On The Wall, it's been all down hill, plus hearing him live during the Fly On The Wall tour was not his finest hour. I will stick up for Bon over Brian anyday.

Personally, I don't think he had anything to do with that album....



Arttie

I've heard this discussed for years. I honestly don't think the Young Brothers would screw Bon's estate. Do you?

That being said even in the last issue of Classic Rock it was discussed that the group had 2-3 songs in rough demo form. Bon played drums and there were no lyrics written. Just song titles....

Rock n roll Ain't Noise Pollution was a title Mal came up with when they realized the album was short. The guys wrote the riff in 15 minutes...

The whole album was recorded in 5 weeks....

I used to think Bon had a bigger influence but I've since come to the conclusion that's not the case.... Bon's estate receives royalties from all of the pre BIB discs....

Yes it's interesting to think and speculate about, but I just think it's speculating.... No harm done....

By the way the rumor I had heard was that FIVE songs were done with Bon's vocal.... Don't think you're the only one to think about it!!




big time AC/DC nut here....

mr electric I agree with most of your post expect the part where Bon did not have a bigger influence, I think the man had huge influence on how those songs turned out, just look at their songs after his passing.

Like mr. electric I do not believe the AC/DC boys would screw Bon's estate, and even if IMO Bon did not write a single note on the 'Back In Black' album, his spirit and presence haunts every track on that album.

I'm with you James. I always felt like Back In Black was a completely different style from the albums that came after it. The Bon Scott years of AC/DC are my favorite. I think his vocals fit the music back then and they also sounded more lively, from For Those About To Rock they started having slower songs and the fire they had wasn't there. Thats not to say I hate Brian Johnson era AC/DC cause I don't I love that too its just it hasn't had the same feel since and you can definetly see a difference from Back and Black to the albums after that.

I like both eras of AC/DC. I prefer the Bon stuff. Overall, there is not a weak Bon Scott album IMO.

As far as Bon's influence on Back in Black, only the band knows, but I agree with those that suggested that the band wouldn't purposely screw Bon's estate.

On another note, I was watching a documentary on heavy metal yesterday and wouldn't you know, AC/DC were listed as one of the world's most influential heavy metal bands.

ultmetal wrote:

I like both eras of AC/DC. I prefer the Bon stuff. Overall, there is not a weak Bon Scott album IMO.

As far as Bon's influence on Back in Black, only the band knows, but I agree with those that suggested that the band wouldn't purposely screw Bon's estate.

On another note, I was watching a documentary on heavy metal yesterday and wouldn't you know, AC/DC were listed as one of the world's most influential heavy metal bands.

I did pass by a documentry either yesterday or friday about Heavy Metal I didnt watch it. I watched the 4 hr Tom Petty documentry on DVD hehe.

I like both eras, I think Highway to Hell is a very strong album though

I've always wondered about this myself and think Bon did indeed write a lot of what became BIB and James B.'s reasons are the same way I feel but I don't think the Young's would try to screw Bon's estate.