OT: AC/DC or the Rolling Stones

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

There is no wrong answer. It's just a poll.

Click to read more...

 

[yukoner88]

AC/DC

Angus Young is an idol to me.

The band found their groove, stuck to it while not going stale (to me).

When Rolling Stones did that Live Aid event in Toronto (which was super cool of the rolling stones to do, I tip my hat to that), AC/DC absolutely stole the show

 

[brentashton]

Stones.

If not for them, AC/DC and other bands probably don’t exist.

Mick invented the role of rock n roll front man.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Stones AINEC


Remember when they both played at Sarsfest?

 

[Took a pill in Sbisa]

As someone of the age that was too young to experience either band in their hayday, ACDC's best hits are much bigger anthems than the Stones' best hits.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

As someone of the age that was too young to experience either band in their hayday, ACDC's best hits are much bigger anthems than the Stones' best hits.

Not even close.

ACDC in their absolute heyday were the opening act for the Stones when they were washed up 70 year olds.

Paint it Black, Gimme Shelter, and Sympathy for the Devil are the absolute epitome of everthing rock and roll ever stood for.

Stones have their roots in a movement based on a politcal climate fighting for change against capitalism (and the Vietnam War). They're a way more IMPORTANT band that's influence went beyond the music.

ACDC made mindless douchebag music before Nickelback. Sure some of it is catchy, but it completely lacks any cultural or social significance.

Rolling Stones made Art.
ACDC made entertainment.

Comparing them is like comparing 'Apocalypse Now' to Michael Bay's 'Transformers'.

You can like both but one was clearly more important.

 

[JordanGalhanth]

The Flames use TNT for their goal song, so everyone in this poll ought to vote for the Stones as a matter of good conscience.

 

[CageRage]

Not even close.

ACDC in their absolute heyday were the opening act for the Stones when they were washed up 70 year olds.

Paint it Black, Gimme Shelter, and Sympathy for the Devil are the absolute epitome of everthing rock and roll ever stood for.

Stones have their roots in a movement based on a politcal climate fighting for change against capitalism (and the Vietnam War). They're a way more IMPORTANT band that's influence went beyond the music.

ACDC made mindless douchebag music before Nickelback. Sure some of it is catchy, but it completely lacks any cultural or social significance.

Rolling Stones made Art.
ACDC made entertainment.

Comparing them is like comparing 'Apocalypse Now' to Michael Bay's 'Transformers'.

You can like both but one was clearly more important.

The music gatekeeper has spoken. Thanks for allowing us to like both. Try taking yourself a little less seriously.

 

[Paralyzer]

Nickelback. Nuff said.

 

[29Beast97Mode]

If I were to make a list of overrated bands I'd put AC/DC right near the top. Every song sounds the same, their lyrics are dumb, and they're crap live. Bon Scott was a good singer, but Brian Johnson almost sounds like he's whining into the mic or something, I dislike his voice very much. That's just my opinion and it's probably unpopular.

 

[Fourier]

As someone of the age that was too young to experience either band in their hayday, ACDC's best hits are much bigger anthems than the Stones' best hits.

Wow...I would have thought exactly the opposite. For what it is worth the Stone's have I believe 4 songs in the top 50 of Rolling Stone's 2004 list of top 500 songs of all-time. ACDC has none. This is just one data point but it is pretty much what I would have expected.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

Stones

AC/DC is one of the worst band ever to record music...so generic and boring and every song sounds the exact same

 

[Perfect_Drug]

The music gatekeeper has spoken. Thanks for allowing us to like both. Try taking yourself a little less seriously.

I have some terrible taste in music. I like a lot of absolute garbage and I'll be the first to admit it.


But if someone says "ACDC has bigger hits", or in any way was a BIGGER band than the Stones, it's completely false.

ACDC would sell out Northlands (18k fans), whereas Stones sold out Commonwealth (60k)

ACDC literally opened for the Rolling Stones when they were doing their "washed up, lets play our old catalogue" era. It's absolutely no contest who is monumentally bigger and who has the bigger songs.

 

[GOilers88]

Stones for me.

Though AC/DC on sheer rockability is right up there.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I have some terrible taste in music. I like a lot of absolute garbage and I'll be the first to admit it.


But if someone says "ACDC has bigger hits", or in any way was a BIGGER band than the Stones, it's completely false.

ACDC would sell out Northlands (18k fans), whereas Stones sold out Commonwealth (60k)

ACDC literally opened for the Rolling Stones when they were doing their "washed up, lets play our old catalogue" era. It's absolutely no contest who is monumentally bigger and who has the bigger songs.

View attachment 586433
View attachment 586435

A way past their prime AC/DC sold out Commonwealth around 2009. Just sayin.

I think the Stones are undeniably "greater" in terms of their standing in the 20th century music pantheon, but AC/DC is immensely popular. They were still selling out stadiums wherever they went right up to the end.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

A way past their prime AC/DC sold out Commonwealth around 2009. Just sayin.

I think the Stones are undeniably "greater" in terms of their standing in the 20th century music pantheon, but AC/DC is immensely popular. They were still selling out stadiums wherever they went right up to the end.

You know.

I totally forgot Edmonton is pretty much the most craziest ACDC fanbase in the world.
A lot of the their live album was from their performance in Edmonton.

And yes, I totally know ACDC is considered one of the greatest rock bands of all time.

But the Stones probably trail only the Beatles as the biggest rock band in history.

 

[Drivesaitl]

As someone of the age that was too young to experience either band in their hayday, ACDC's best hits are much bigger anthems than the Stones' best hits.

Not sure of this. I pick the Stones. No disservice to AC/DC but as @brentashton mentioned they paved the way. The Stones were also sensational artists in that they kept pumping out stellar tracks and albums for a long long duration of time. From year to year from 1964-19994 the stones were putting out hits. Great tracks.

For instance

The Rolling Stones | full Official Chart History | Official Charts Company

All the singles and albums of The Rolling Stones, peak chart positions, career stats, week-by-week chart runs and latest news.

www.officialcharts.com

AC/DC had nowhere near this kind of timeline of top tracks.

So that the Stones come here in 95, sell out two shows, and they have ridiculously good songs like Love is Strong and You Got me Rocking that are NEW tracks. No other band is like that. One would expect to see washed up artists playing 25yr old tracks but they had strong tracks that were just one year old.

 

[Drivesaitl]

A way past their prime AC/DC sold out Commonwealth around 2009. Just sayin.

I think the Stones are undeniably "greater" in terms of their standing in the 20th century music pantheon, but AC/DC is immensely popular. They were still selling out stadiums wherever they went right up to the end.

It becomes a complex argument of which is the better band, song writers etc. What AC/DC does is kind of unique and they transcend in that people that don't like rock or heavier rock will still listen to them and they get played. Stones are a different beast and straddled all kinds of genres from pop to rock to blues, etc. Stones had a heyday of several decades so that they may not seem like the beast as much now but they certainly were. In terms of albums, hit songs, top tracks its the Stones Ainec. But in terms of being able to put a top selling stadium setlist together and have a hot sizzling list of songs to please their audience then AC/DC do that and get a lot of fame and cred from their monumental Stadium shows but keeping in mind Stones were never slouches in that department either.

Artistically speaking I would think even AC/DC would feel Stones are better. Somebody ask them.

That said for whatever reason the Stones have not translated to younger ears and do not sell as much now. At one time the Stones were top selling band around the Beatles. The Beatles tracks continue to sell, the Stones don't, and AC/DC continue to sell. Perhaps because of simply being older (its often the case with artists) the Stones tend to be forgotten more. Its harder for a young person to play their music when they look at pickled Keith Richards at 86 or whatever he is. Something to be said too that perhaps formats like AC/DC translate more to the way music is played now and streamed from spotify to youtube or whatever. So that AC'DC translates better to mp3. Stones sound ridiculously good on a good sound system but less people play music that way now. Listen to something like Can't you hear me knocking on a big sound system and you get more of the flavor.

 

[Messrules11]

Gotta love AC/DC but The Stones are legendary.

 

[Drivesaitl]

People will be surprised though, and some not pleased, but AC'/DC have sold way more records than the Stones as of now and it isn't even close. Stones as I mentioned stopped selling albums much in this millennium. Probably around 99 Stones would be in top few of all time selling Rock artists. Now they are 10th. in 89 they were 2nd only to the Beatles.

Some bands translate more to younger listeners. All of Led Zep, Pink Floyd, Fleetwood Mac, Eagles. AC/DC continue to sell. Even Metallica passed the Stones now. Time marches on.

The OP has picked an interesting topic with a lot of subtlety. Of course with anything subjective no right answer. I like both, I still pick the Stones but as per usual I wanted to dig for some details.

Only the Beatles have sold as many records as these artists. Thats really odd, take it for what its worth.

Top 10 Best-selling Music Artists of all Time - All Top Everything

Who are the best-selling music artists of all time? Click to see the updated Top 10 of the most successful singers in history.

www.alltopeverything.com

 

[Oilers in NS]

I have some terrible taste in music. I like a lot of absolute garbage and I'll be the first to admit it.


But if someone says "ACDC has bigger hits", or in any way was a BIGGER band than the Stones, it's completely false.

ACDC would sell out Northlands (18k fans), whereas Stones sold out Commonwealth (60k)

ACDC literally opened for the Rolling Stones when they were doing their "washed up, lets play our old catalogue" era. It's absolutely no contest who is monumentally bigger and who has the bigger songs.

View attachment 586433
View attachment 586435

Hard to believe, $21.50.
I went to a 4 day Rockfest in Shediac, NB back in 1999. Great time. Im still hungover from it. There was a All-Star band made up of Benjamin Orr (The Cars), Jeff Carlisi (38 Special) , Derek St Holmes (Ted Nugent) , Liberty Devito (Billy Joel), this band was unbelievable. Not even safe to go to a Rockfest now.

Getting back to poll. I've seen Stones 3 times and ACDC 2 times. Im a huge Stones fan. They have written the book on Rock N Roll

 

[AlanHUK]

People will be surprised though, and some not pleased, but AC'/DC have sold way more records than the Stones as of now and it isn't even close. Stones as I mentioned stopped selling albums much in this millennium. Probably around 99 Stones would be in top few of all time selling Rock artists. Now they are 10th. in 89 they were 2nd only to the Beatles.

I assume that's US only?

 

[ManofSteel55]

In terms of importance to rock and roll, in terms of overall musical ability, and in terms of cultural impact, I pick The Rolling Stones easily.

However, I don't like most of the Stones' most popular stuff. There are only a handful of Stones songs that I actually don't mind, and some I just dislike - it's Mick's voice I think, I don't find it enjoyable at all, which I know is weird because I don't feel the same for Brian Johnston, even though his singing voice is...well...what it is.

So I voted for AC/DC just based on the fact that I enjoy listening to them more, even though I acknowledge that the Stones are better overall and more important to rock and roll.

 

[Drivesaitl]

I assume that's US only?

Nah, I wish it was. Most of the numbers you get are just US sales but this one is more than that. I don't know that theres a perfect list anywhere of world wide sales. In US alone Sales Stones sold 65M and are down the list as well. I figured they would do better in the world but figured wrong.

AC/DC is simpler music and will sell better to audiences that maybe don't go into varying arrangements as much. AC/DC is the pile driver that seems to appeal to ears that lack subtlety. Not knocking it, just that its a pile driver with less range and less types of songs and song structures. AC/DC is essentially Chuck Berry on Steroids with a thousand Marshall Amps. Stones are much more diverse musically. AC/DC is the turn it to 11 stuff.

Somehow AC/DC translates more world wide. People without a Blues range or a love of a ballad or all kinds of musical forms its like they don't even get the Stones. Maybe the Stones require more of a listen. AC/DC its just like throwing a breaker switch. Power on, its not an involved listen but impossible not to notice. AC/DC went for the most noise the better approach and made no disguise of it. Simplicity sells.

 

[AlanHUK]

interesting, in 2014 Forbes had The Stones at 240m sales globally and ACDC at 200m, can't find anything more recent for the stones, but in 2020 Sony music listed ACDC as 200m+ so it seems either they're not bothering to certify anymore or they didn't sell that much in the last 8 years.

also found out when looking for it that 25% of ACDCs album sales are from Back in Black