Page 1 of 1

Audioslave: Review

Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2002 1:53 am
by Ben
I visit my grandparents once every two weeks or so. This has declined from the nearly weekly visits I used to put in when I was living back in the Valley. I do this not to be a "good grandson", to ensure a healthy portion of the inheritance. Well, not just for that. Truth is, I enjoy their company. They are both very funny, quirky, enjoyable people to be around. And they provide a remarkable glimpse into the minds of people who grew up and lived their lives two generations away from anything you've experienced. It's not just a one-way discussion either, a real-life caricature of the old man telling the young one, "Back in my day..." No, there's dialogue here. "Here's how it was in my day. How is it in your day?" It's nice. It's educational. It's enlightening. And at the end of every discussion, an obvious thread has been sewn across the generation gap. Something both sides can grab onto and say, yes, I recognize that, I feel that, I understand that. Universal truths. Galactic sure-things. Perennial positives.

This theme stretches to nearly every subject. Nearly every subject except music.

These people have never heard a rock song. Not all the way through, anyway. I've heard them explain what rock music sounds like to them, and why they have no need for it. My grandfather will bang his fist on the table repeatedly (in remarkably precise 4/4 time, I should add -- he was a musician himself) and tell me, "This. This is what it all sounds like to me." And they've no sense of time as far as rock music is concerned, either. Play them a Beatles song, and they'll scoff, spit through their dentures and exclaim disgustedly: "See? See the crap the young people are listening to today?" It is hopeless.

They simply do not understand.

It's difficult to explain rock music to someone who doesn't understand it. In many ways, they have a point, banging their fists in time on the heirloom dinner table. That's primarily it, when you get right down to it. You're either with it, or you're not.

I shocked more than a few friends of mine a few years ago when I came forth and proclaimed that Rage Against the Machine was the greatest band to come along in the last twenty years. This white kid from the Maryland boonies who spent his whole life studying movie soundtracks and going to private schools and learning how to shovel stalls in a horse barn, came out and said that this... this RAP/METAL group was the best one around. Well, sure.

Thing was, the "rap" part of that duo was more of a novelty than anything else. I hadn't listened to much rap since the Beastie's first album, which I remember laughing to with my private school buddies as we bussed home from the latest lacrosse match, or whatever it is that rich white kids did in 1986.

But that band. I had never heard a band that had so willfully decided to take ROCK AND ROLL, set it up in a big pot on the high burner, reduce it until it was thick and dark, and then pump it down your throat until your insides had seared away. They took rock and got it as close to the fist banging on the table as possible, then turned the fist into a 1000 pound anvil and shattered that fucking table into dust. The music of that band is rock and roll at its most purest, rarely straying away from the pentatonic scale, because it didn't need to. It just turned up the volume and kicked your ass. If you don't get rock, you don't get this. If you do, you need look no further.

But then, they broke up.

And Soundgarden, which had itself started to recapture the ghosts of Zeppelin and shape them as their own, they'd already broken up.

That sucked.

Then you know the story after that. Cornell, the finest voice in rock, teamed up with the non-rapping portion of RATM, and jammed for awhile. And in 19 days, they'd written 21 songs, echoing stories that had been told over 30 years previously when a Yardbirds guitarist named Page hooked up with a few guys named Plant, Jones and Bonham. And shortly thereafter, they recorded an album.

And then the businessmen got into it, and they fucked it all up. The greatest group that never was.

I don't know the specifics behind it, but apparently somebody wised up, or the art just demanded to exist on this earthly plane, and the business stuff was resolved. And all the management companies and agents and PR reps and record labels crawled back under their respective rocks, and let the band get back to it and finish their album. Their FIRST album.

The band? Audioslave. The record? Audioslave.

Right. I was supposed to review it at some point, wasn't I. Okay, I'll start now.

I am assuming that if you're even considering purchasing or otherwise listening to this album, you're a fan of either Rage or Soundgarden, and probably closer to both. Or at least you've got familiarity there. So, here's what I recommend to you: Listen to it twice.

The first time, the backstory and "significance" is too distracting. It's virtually impossible to listen through the first time without picking the pedals from the rose, dissecting the sound -- Yup, there's Tommy on the geetar. There's Chris! Whoa, he sounds just like back in Soundgarden! Remember that band?? -- and I think it does a disservice to the music. But, it's gotta happen. So, listen through once, get it out of your system. Then go back later, after a touch of Safeway "Safeway" Safeway Safeway "Safeway" Vodka, blast that fucker up to 11, let it all blend together, and soak it up for all it's worth.

Then spread the word to all the Nu-Metal geeks and Emo whiners and white boy Rap-Metal thug wannabes and dinosaurs still buying new Stones records and White Stripes nouveau-hipsters:

This, motherfuckers, is what ROCK sounds like.

Come up with five notes, wring 'em through 40 years of blood, sex, and fire, and this is the album you get on the other side.

There is lightness here, primarily Cornell's influence, I'm guessing. Here the Rage boys get a chance to continue, ever cautiously, exploring out from their straight-ahead comfort zone as they'd started to do on Renegades, the last (and arguably greatest) Rage album. But right about the time you're getting ready to put a flower in your hair and move to San Francisco, good ol' Los Angeles rears its ugly, heavy head and knocks your ass back in your beer-stained La-Z-Boy. Morello's sound is unmistakeable, and he continues to do what he does best, and does better than anybody in rock for as long as you'd care to remember: 1. Play killer riffs as loud and funky as you could possibly care to imagine, and 2. Do weird shit with his guitar and make it sound like a vacuum cleaner shoved into a laundry dryer and then shot into space and interpreted by aliens into their native tongue. Never less than fascinating, and rarely less than shattering.

Cornell's voice is as raspy and full as ever. It's easy to forget what a real rock singer actually sounds like, with the parade of growling Eddie Vedder clones and nasal teenage whiners parading across the airwaves.

The rhythm section stays in the pocket and breaks out the noise just on time.

The one key track, I think, the one that strays furthest from both the Rage and Soundgarden roots is "Hypnotize". A constant, dare I say, hypnotic buffet of rhythmic experimentation, it is new, it is unexpected, and not surprisingly, it grooves like a mother. If, Lord-willing, this is not the last we've heard from Audioslave, I could see this being the track that links the old with the new and pushes the envelope even further. Although in a rock-starved musical landscape, this is about the one band I would forgive for staying right where they are and kicking out the jams for as long as their hearing held up.

Look in the liner notes, and there it is again, Rage's musical maxim: "All sounds by guitar, bass, drums and vocals."

That's what rock is, baby. In your face, blow your mind, nuke the world aural power. If you don't get it, you don't get it.

If you don't, just pound your fist on the table a few times. You'll get the idea.

Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2002 2:05 am
by Bad Emo Fan
Then spread the word to all the Nu-Metal geeks and Emo whiners and white boy Rap-Metal thug wannabes and dinosaurs still buying new Stones records and White Stripes nouveau-hipsters:
We listen to Saves the Day and Dashboard Confessional, thank you very much.

Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:49 pm
by Worm
You ever listened to Monster Magnet? I think you'd really like them Ben.

If Audioslave sounds like RATM I'll probably pick it up.

Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2002 10:10 pm
by loafergirl
Bad Emo Fan wrote:
Then spread the word to all the Nu-Metal geeks and Emo whiners and white boy Rap-Metal thug wannabes and dinosaurs still buying new Stones records and White Stripes nouveau-hipsters:
We listen to Saves the Day and Dashboard Confessional, thank you very much.
Do you visit Delusions of Adequacy on a regular basis by any chance?

Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2002 4:33 am
by Ice Cream Jonsey
Nice to see Pitchfork Media pipe up with their worthless opinion -- 1.7 out of 10. Here's the link:

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-re ... lave.shtml

Is this thing getting killed by the critics, or are these guys just being as pretentious as they normally are?

If you are unfamiliar with them, this says it all: they recently released their "100 Best Albums of the 1980s" update. #1? The number one album from the 80s was "Daydream Nation" by Sonic Youth.

I had never heard a single track on this album before reading that list. So I hopped on DC++ and downloaded it. I have listened to it a number of times, and I can SAFELY say that, JESUS CHRIST, this was not the best album to come out of the frigging 80s. Goddamn... not even close.

Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2002 4:51 am
by Ben
That is, seriously, the dumbest thing I've ever read, and reason enough to unplug the internet right now.

If the best they can do is to criticize the friggin' LYRICS, then I don't think they're really getting the point here. Were these same people criticizing the original Rage album for such "inane" lyrics as: "FUCK YOU I WON'T DO WHAT YA TELL ME!!!"

I guess it's fun to hate things, though. More power to 'em.

Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:12 pm
by Ice Cream Jonsey
Ben wrote:If the best they can do is to criticize the friggin' LYRICS, then I don't think they're really getting the point here. Were these same people criticizing the original Rage album for such "inane" lyrics as: "FUCK YOU I WON'T DO WHAT YA TELL ME!!!"
We had some complete piece of shit that absolutely blasted that song as the bunch of us were moving into our dorms the first week of college. The "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me" one. The guy who blasted it probably thought that everyone would really enjoy that song, so it would be best if every single human, pet, and plant on the fourth floor of Sadler Hall got an earful of it.

Anyway, I went over to Fodge's room, out of the blue, and said, "Hey, man, Fuck you! I will not do what you tell me." And I kind of accented the "Fuck you" part. As it so happens, Fodge's roommate was moving in (I didn't notice because of how the rooms are set up) and the kid's dad pokes his head to our side, taking note of what he perceived as the complete piece of boytrash that just swore quite loudly for no apparent reason.

But I hear you on the lyrics thing. As I've said before, I am of the belief that music can NOT be "reviewed" like movies and games can be. One reason why -- aside from the fact that if a song sounds good to you, there is nothing some self-styled critic of music can do to change that, even if they really, really try to -- is that music critics are by FAR the worst when it comes to doing an actual assessment. They, to a man, seem to love pulling off a single lyric said in the last minute of track six and hold it up as the Poster Child of what is wrong with the entire disc. They act like weasels in this regard. I mean, Jesus Christ, a band filled with RATM members and Cantrell there had a TRITE LYRIC! SWEET FUCK NO! THEY OUGHT TO BEST TAKE IT DOWN FROM THE SHELVES!

The other thing is, the two Eberts who vomited up that thing spend some time ripping on the band's name. Tell me that didn't factor in to the final score. Tell me! I won't believe you if I do. I look at band names like I do installation procedures for video games -- with one exception. A game can have a great install procedure, like Command & Conquer did. It shouldn't get any points in the final score because of it. Similarly, a band can have a great name as well. It doesn't account for anything. However! If an installation procedure for a game has you putting each disc of six into the drive to "confirm" that you didn't pirate the game, and then it has you put the first one back in at the end, I do take points off. It would be the height of idiocy to take points off for a band's name, though, no matter how bad it is. The name is just that. It does not factor in to your enjoyment of the product in question. I get the sense that it does somewhat matter with the guys who wrote that review.

I give that site some credit for reviewing just about everything that comes out. And certainly they would not go and give a New Found Glory CD two stars while in the same fucking week giving the latest N'Sync disc three, like Rolling Stone did. But it's pretty transparent that they were going to give that disc a score under two no matter what was on it, and that makes the site a waste of time.


(Note: I have not heard a single note of this Audioslave CD, and am completely without bias as to its contents.)

Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:28 pm
by Ben
I look at band names like I do installation procedures for video games
You know, I deeply and truly believe this. From anyone else, I'd be skeptical.

Jonsey, Tommy is all for music sharing, so if you're curious, I can W4R3Z a song or two and ship it over for your bemusement (including the one that those two idiots said ripped off both Simple Minds and Aerosmith. Each one of those charges is fully laughable in its own right, as you will see. Or rather, hear.)

Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2002 5:54 pm
by AArdvark
Lemmee thow my 2 cents in here.

First I gotta agree, the critics dint like the band before they even listened to them . A name is a name is a name. Granted, a handle is just a handle but some can burn you if you don't use a pot holder.

Critics cannot listen to music for you. God knows they try but it's the same as asking someone to go use the bathroom for you. No can do. You gotta do it yourself.

Speaking of which.....


Much better now. Anyway, since I have never heard of this band before, I will have to look up some of thier stuff on Kazaa and check it out. Then, If I like what I hear, I will get the whole album (or albums) Hence the usefulness of free music sharing.

Hope they are as good as The Trans Siberian Orchestra.
(which I just discovered)


THE
12 NOTES
2 EARS
AARDVARK

Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:10 pm
by Ice Cream Jonsey
Ben wrote:Jonsey, Tommy is all for music sharing, so if you're curious, I can W4R3Z a song or two and ship it over for your bemusement (including the one that those two idiots said ripped off both Simple Minds and Aerosmith. Each one of those charges is fully laughable in its own right, as you will see. Or rather, hear.)
I'll grab it tonight off one of the various P2P networks (with the understanding that I will buy it if I like it, yadda yadda and so forth). I will go in with an open mind, but the main thing which determines whether or not I like a piece of music is the existence of melody -- that "No Shelter Here" song is the song of RATM's that I most like. This is probably like a fan of the Cure saying that "Friday I'm In Love" is his favorite or something, but I likey what I likey.

However, my brother bought Chris Cornell's solo album there and while I was not a big Soundgarden fan, the songs on the guy's solo album were decent enough, as far as my musical tastes go. So, we'll see. Every grandparent of mine is dead, though, so I will not be able to structure my comments in a similar fashion.

Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:12 pm
by Ice Cream Jonsey
AArdvark wrote:Hope they are as good as The Trans Siberian Orchestra. (which I just discovered)
Er, these guys aren't actually from Siberia, are they? Because that'd just ROCK if so.

I can't think of anything that ever came from Siberia, culturally, now that I think about it. I mean, at least the Ukraine had that one Seinfeld skit when Kramer and Newman were playing Risk on the subway.

Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:49 pm
by Worm
How much is this CD? Because unless it is going for like 7 bucks I'm waiting for my brother to buy it.

Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2002 10:02 pm
by AArdvark
Like I said, a name is a name...

They sure as hell dont sound like they are from Russia or even close to Europe. wait a sec...

http://www.trans-siberian.com/bio.shtml

This'll help a bit

man, do they rock


THE
LOUD SPEAKERS
AARDVARK

Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2002 1:45 am
by Ice Cream Jonsey
Worm wrote:How much is this CD? Because unless it is going for like 7 bucks I'm waiting for my brother to buy it.
I bought two CDs at Borders today (one of them was not Audioslave, it was just a coincidence that I was there). New CDs were going for $16.99 a piece. Ridiculous, of course. I bought a pack of those "music" CD-Rs a while back and paid the dipshit tax to the RIAA so I feel no guilt over MP3ing it, but I did want to grab the two CDs that I did, because I had been listening to them over and over again for the last couple of months. Anyway, when they are priced at 17 bucks a pop it does nothing but encourage "I'm never buying a CD again, blah blah" sentiment.

Also: HACK THE PLANET

Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2002 11:25 am
by Worm
My buddy was thinking about going out to EB buying FDNY Firefighter and exclaiming as he brought it back that he doesn't need the CD anymore because he cracked it.

The only CDs I'll dish out more than ten dollars are something I know I'll like such as Monster Magnet, Mister Bungle, and old stuff like Warren Zevon.

I just am dead on cash right now so I guess that is that. I never even went out of my way to buy a RATM disc I would just steal my little brothers.

Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2002 11:33 pm
by Da King
Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:I had never heard a single track on this album before reading that list. So I hopped on DC++ and downloaded it. I have listened to it a number of times, and I can SAFELY say that, JESUS CHRIST, this was not the best album to come out of the frigging 80s. Goddamn... not even close.
I bet that all Hall and Oates releases were better?

Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2002 4:25 pm
by Ice Cream Jonsey
Verus what was on that Sonic Youth album? Yes. Yes indeed.

Of course, when the website that made that list has Hall & Oates listed as one of the very things they are out railing against (they described them as "vanilla soul" which is either racist-but-racist-against-whitey-so-it's-not-racist, or a desperate attempt to discredit the mass appeal that they had) I don't put much stock in their opinion.

They didn't have a single CD there from Crowded House, either. If you're going to be pretentious, "Pitchfork Media," then be fucking pretentious. But I suppose that since Crowded House's album had a single that sniffed the general vaginal area of the Billboard Top Ten it had to be instantly discounted.