The Grammys finally get an AC/DC

So, after the better part of 40 years' trying, AC/DC have gotten a Grammy.

I don't know if they're too ugly, too Australian, not Australian enough, drunk, loud or some combination of the former - but they were just awarded the Best Hard Rock Performance gong and they're still in the running for Best Rock Album.

My question is, who is this rewarding? Is it really an accolade for for the band or are the Grammys' organisers trying to cash in on a massive audience of half-drunk thirty-something Bogans - Cashed up or otherwise.

I can call  AC/DC fans Bogans because I am one. I'll be in Melbourne in a few days time bouncing my head up and down. I'll probably even wear a flanellette shirt for the occasion.

I wasn't always a fan, but into my late twenties, I realised just how much I enjoyed the very things some people can't stand about them. Simple, repetitive riffs, powerful, precise rhythms, really, really good guitar playing and some lyrics that spend most of their time hovering around barely acceptable and some time well below the line.

And I can tell you, I'm not alone. Generation X are cashed up at the moment and that includes Flanno wearing Acca Dacca fans - just the type of people the Grammys traditionally aren't aimed at.

They have also just sold out what is ostensibly their last world tour - mostly to that very demographic.

So, is this really about AC/DC being rewarded or is it about trying to get a chunk of those tens of millions of fans to tune into the awards ceremony?

I hate to be cynical. Wait - no I don't.

Well done, AC/DC - not necessarliy on the Grammy, but on an outstanding four decades of bringing the spirit of  Rock 'n' Roll to the masses.