...and this is coming from a guy who rates them as one of his favorite bands and hold their run from "Let there be rock" to "Back in black" as one of the strongest in rock. I also enjoyed their last two albums a lot. At the same time, it's quite telling that I haven't really played those records since they were released whereas I play their best shit-including "obscure" stuff like "Live from Atlantic studios"-on an almost monthly level; those albums were more "Yes, they can still make good music" than stuff that really improve their legacy and measure up with the peak material.

More importantly however is that wer'e dealing with a band who has made three albums of new material in the past 20 years; you have to look towards a certain Lesson-favorite to find a "relevant" (?) act less inactive. I don't really think of them as a functional band anymore but more like an "event"-type band who release a record every now as an excuse to go on a long tour and then stay silent for another decade or so.

HOWEVER, it's also worth pointing out that they still had the core lineup intact (well, Bon Scott is dead of course but that happened in 1980) and also they didn't really slide into irrelevance like many other veteran acts do. No, when they *did* release a new album, it sold well, even many more casual fans bought it and the tours were VERY well attended, more so than in the mid-late 80's actually so it's not really a Jefferson Airplane/Starship-type scenario. They may have been way past their prime but compared with, say, Rolling Stones or-LOL!-the Who, I think they still had something left to give even if it waouldn't be something earth-shaking or anything.

Anyway, I agree that it is a bit ridiculous with older guys rocking out on stage but AC/DC never made a "We built this city" like Slick or remixes with Pharell like Rolling Stones; they weren't really embarassing themselves or trying to remain relevant; I think they aged quite gracefully (well, as graceful as you can get while playing cock-rock)...