Talk:Back in Black

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: , , "According to the RIAA, it's the sixth-highest-selling album of all time". But perhaps that only refers to the US. The entire basis for the claim "second best-selling album ever" seems to be just the statement "It reached No. 4 on the Billboard 200 and has gone on to sell more than 50 million copies" from the same source combined with List of best-selling albums listing only Thriller as having more claimed sales. There's a 20 million gap between 29.6 million certified copies of Back in Black and the stated 50 million, but maybe they sold crazy in India, China, Japan or Russia? Or the 50 million includes re-releases or something. At any rate, if this is our basis for saying it's the second highest selling album, isn't that original research? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second best selling album of all time 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Steve? 

message: "[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)
thread_title: Second or Third?

message: 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)
thread_title:  F word? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)

text: "Into" is often seen as a compound preposition and thus would be capitalised per MOS:CT. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

text: "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)
replies: text: I have used the titles and syntax used at allmusic. Cult of Green (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake in the title of a song 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mixolydian? 

message: I don't think so!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.9.145 (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do! FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Update: Now one more than there are for hard rock; I have added another. Dan56 (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Thank you for not wasting another second on it, then. Dan56 (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy Metal? 

message: Hello,
I noticed last night that the IP  68.5.225.153 vandalized the Back in Black page by inflating the sales numbers to 900 Billion and added the string "Best Album Forever" to the album title. I undid these vandalisms. Because I am a newbie with Wikipedia, I did this by undoing each edit by this IP one by one. However, I noticed that my later undo operations were tagged. I just wanted to communicate that I was fixing the result of a vandalism.
Thanks,
Dchk (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by 68.5.225.153 and my rapid undo requests 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Equipement 

message: Substituted at 08:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: * Keep - There are nine different, reputable sources who share the interpretation of this album as heavy metal music, all currently cited in Back_in_Black#Release and reception and Back in Black#Legacy and influence. Dan56 (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes 

message: Regarding this passage "By 1979, AC/DC were poised to receive a significant level of success with their sixth studio album..." I'd like to see "receive" replaced with "achieve". This might sound picky, but one does not receive success, one achieves it. You can receive money, accolades, and awards (symbols of success) but you cannot receive success...it can't be given to you. FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background wording ? 

message: , , and others interested: Adding annual peak positions for the same chart year after year is unnecessary and leads to clutter. For example, the same Norwegian chart is listed eight times and others are listed 3–5 times. The examples included on :WP:CHARTS guideline only show one peak per chart. What is the point of adding peak positions if the album happened to re-enter a chart during later years? If this is noteworthy, it should be explained in a commercial performance/sales section, such as the album enjoyed a sales surge because of a deluxe reissue, use in a movie, the artist died, etc. This is comparable to :WP:SONGCOVER and :WP:SONGTRIVIA: there needs to be some context for it to be encyclopedic; just because someone recorded a version or it appeared in a TV show doesn't mean it should be noted in a song article. Also, why include Billboard component charts in addition to the main chart? The latter is a better indicator of its overall popularity and is more comparable to other single chart countries.  Otherwise, adding a lot of miscellaneous details is just statistics for statistics sake, which is contrary to guidelines. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , as I stated on your talk page, I have no idea how that happened but my reversion was not intentional. I completely agree with you on this. Sorry again. Robvanvee 16:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have an opinion on this ? Robvanvee 05:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart overkill 

message: (This is my first attempt in a talk page, I'm a little open to advice.)
The article is in decent shape, I think the addition of a sound clip from one of the songs could provide a brief showcase of the album's sound and production under Mutt Lange. I suggest "Shoot to Thrill" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoWd2KyUro) because in the first 40 seconds we get AC/DC's approach to songwriting, Lange's influence on how the drums sound, and Brian Johnson's vocals. Carlinal (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential audio clip 

message: I was trying to italicize the mention of Black to Black in the not to be confused with part of the article, but I accidentally made a mess I do not know how to fix. Sorry again. Ded Meem (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry