Top 10 Reasons Why AC/DC Sucks

Remember this is just my opinion, however, I've grown to really not be a fan of AC/DC at all. This list is mainly for people who agree with me on AC/DC, let's begin.

The Top Ten

1 All of their songs sound the same

Literally the same thing on repeat. Their entire discography is one long enormous song.

I agree if we're talking about Brian Johnson era AC/DC. It's what killed them in my eyes. The vocals all sounded the same; same energy, same tone, same volume. But during the 70s (Bon Scott era), AC/DC had such diverse music for only being in one genre. The only Bon Scott songs that sound the same to me are "T.N.T." and "Dirty Deeds". And that's because they are exactly the same song aside from the lyrics. But you take any other selection of Bon Scott songs and no two sound the same. Take "The Jack", "Whole Lotta Rosie", "Sin City", and "Shot Down in Flames". "The Jack" is bluesy and deliberate. "Whole Lotta Rosie" is energetic, powerful, and fun. "Sin City" is deliberate at points, but then explosive at the flick of a switch. And "Shot Down in Flames" is as energetic as "Whole Lotta Rosie" while still sounding different due to the instruments. But for this, I definitely criticize Brian Johnson era AC/DC rather than the 70s material. - Aweso

They were the best with Bon Scott. - Userguy44

Even though I like this band, I respect your opinion

2 They never stray away from the straight up rock n roll idea

Kinda related to reason #1. They never want to even step any feet out of just being a generic hard rock band. Because the idea is incredibly repetitive, so they have to stray away from the idea sometimes just to not be extremely repetitive.

3 They are not very talented

Malcolm was the most talented I think. The rest was ok. - Userguy44

I'm not saying that they have no talent, however, I am saying that the band is not very talented by any means.

4 They're generic

With Brian Johnson, they are so boring and overrated. Back In Black was only good because the band allegedly used Bon Scott’s ideas with giving him credit. Every subsequent album with Brian Johnson is the same boring album. Bon Scott was a great frontman and a far better songwriter than Malcolm or Angus put together and when he died and the Youngs ran out of material from Bon to use, they went stale. They are also so boring live.

They can be incredibly boring, and generic sounding, and never stray away from the same repetitive formula.

5 90% of their lyrics are about sex, drugs, and rock n roll

That's a sign a bad band for me, is if they only sing about those subjects. This reason also just adds to the repetitive nature of this band.

6 They are not very creative

They are far from creative when it comes to their music, with their generic instrumentation, and generic lyrics.

7 Bon Scott has no singing talent.
8 Their instrumentation is shallow

This just adds to the generic nature of the band. Their instrumentation sounds incredibly generic and shallow sounding, and you can tell that they are just trying way too hard sometimes in their music.

9 Their lyrics are shallow

Even when their songs are not about sex, drugs, and rock n roll, their lyrics still sound very generic, and the songs lack creativity.

10 Their singing is mediocre

Even Bon Scott was a very mediocre singer in my opinion. All of the singing in their music sounds really generic and is the same sounding bluesy, rock n roll type of voice, which lacks any sort of depth.

The Contenders

11 They are a party band

I honestly feel they are the best for big get to gathers, with the music just playing in the background. That way you really can't care that much about the music's quality. Their music is also very simple, and samey, so it's perfect for parties.

BAdd New Item