Talk:Back in Black

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. Thehaikumaster 03:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Second best selling album of all time

Can someone find a source for this that isn't on a Michael Jackson fansite? I'm confused, because they seem to refer to an announcement by the RIAA, but I can't seem to come up with the citation online... -- nae'blis 18:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC) yes the first is thriller of michel jackson the second is black in black http://www.everyhit.co.uk/recordalb.html Record Breakers and Trivia

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

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)

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)

the first eagles greatest hits sold more than thriller

It did in the US, but not world wide. It didn't even come CLOSE.

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)

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)

Steve?

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)

Second or Third?

"[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)

Eagles Greatest Hits is the most sold disc, definitely. I'd think it should be an album, as well. The article is incorrect. john k 15:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

(That is to say, Back in Black is no better than third, behind the Eagles and Thriller). john k 15:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

F word?

I was listening to this song awhile ago and i could swear the F word appeared but Lyrics freak.com say it actually "flack" not "fuck" in the verse "I'm beating the", which word do they actually say? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.72.10 (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

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.

Place source for total disc sales?

Could someone please place a source for the total disc sales in the articleBookermorgan 17:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in the title of a song

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)

• 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)

"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)

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!

Mixolydian?

Mixolydian currently claims this song is in that mode. Is that true? If so add it to the article where appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.79.148.26 (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Heavy Metal?

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

---

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)

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)