New Audioslave album

Woah woah woah, calm down. I didn't mean anything by it, its just as you said, the image and the music are both part of a larger whole, and by focusing so much on just one aspect it seems like we're missing the bigger picture. And well, for me, the reason I like or dislike a band will largely be about the music they play, not the image they have.

And it wasn't specifically directed at you to comment on the new single ... just in general. Yeah, I like to hear people's opinions on music, that's no secret, its why I used to post so many polls over in General BJ discussion. I like it because it makes me notice things in music that I may not have noticed before, and maybe lets me see it in a new light. So i just want to know what people think of the song, I don't think there's anything wrong with that ....

Now that should teach you a lesson in 'how to piss spunky off'


hmmm, generally I would be in agreement with you wholeheartedly, but somehow this doesn't seem true in this particular instance. hmmm.

Ok, here is why I think the music above all principle does not apply equally across the board:

Take a band/artist that is 'in it' for the music and the music only. The musician will make music regardless of current events, popularity or mainstream taste. Listeners will appreciate the music and won't care about the artists current hairstyle, spouse, or political views. Those are the Satrianis, Gary Moores, Pink Floyds. (though technically speaking, the lack of image is definitely a form of image )

None of us really give a rats ass about their lifestyles or world views and we either like their music or not. Most of the bands/singers I listen to, I have no clue what they look like, where they live, what they think or how old their spouse is. I don't care because "they" are all about their music and don't expect any more or less from me but to either like their stuff or not.

Then, take a band/artist that is 'in it' for the package. The money, the fame, the chicks, the popularity .... Their fans are very much attracted by the image that is being sold and if the artist grows fat and ugly, the fans will move on and rightfully so. After all, the promise that was made (namely being trendy and popular, pretty and smooth, coooool) has been broken. Kind of like when your current jeans designer changes its cut to one that just ain't quite as popular as you need it to be, you won't be buying any more of those jeans. You're done with it because it's not what you were after in the first place. It's the Ushers, The Killers, the Britneys.

Those are two extremes, but there are a multitude of subclassifiactions when it comes to music.

The sex pistols for example were very much all about image. They represented something their audience was looking for and their music expressed it. Their image was expressed in the clothes they wore and the music they made. Liking the Sex Pistols is more like subscribing to a movement than appreciating the lack of instrument skills they bring forth. To say one likes the Pistols because of their music can never be true, because from a musician standpoint, there is nothing there. People who say they like the Pistols music, really mean they like the attitude it brings forth and the provocations to society and loudness, etc. It's ALL about image.

Countless bands and singers are still riding on that '**** you all' attitude image and once they change to a 'let's make love and pick flowers' attitude, most of their fanbase will move on (and perhaps come back when the artist reverts to its previous style). Ie. Green Day.

Thus, a band that puts itself on the radar and in your face based mostly on their attitude and views, is all about image and the music they make exemplifies that. A punk band very much has an image and people will be drawn to the band/genre because they identify with that image.

This was very true for all the hairbands in the 80s. There was a very definite image sold and record companies put clauses in their contracts that ensured the bands wouldn't inadvertently change their image and thus lose the fanbase. Fans bought their music because it corresponded with their desires and feelings and image they were after. Once the 80s hairmetal went out of fashion, so did the musicians. The ones desperately holding on to what once was will play casinos and clubs, drawing a crowd of people who too are still holding on to the flavor of the 80s.

As much as the 80s were about image, the 90s didn't lack behind. Grunge is the epitomy of selling a certain image. Or anti-image that is. Same thing really, just a different term to attract a different segment of the population. There is no grunge band that didn't completely and utterly subscribe to a certain fashion style (even the anti-fashion style is a form of fashion..) and the band members looks, clothes, life styles had to mesh. Grunge and all it's dominant players promised something so new and powerful, something so many of the people were yearning for without even knowing it, it had to draw an immense crowd. A crowd, however, that seemingly and wishfully demanded 'truth and equality'. Completely different from the ditsy 'party all night' and glitter glamor crowd who adored the hairbands. Or, perhaps, a crowd that gradually but steadily became severly disillusioned about the promises made about happiness and blissful living and thus felt like they've met their savior in the Nirvanas and Soundgardens and Stone Temple Pilots.

The lyrics, the melodies, the decibel level, the rythm were all part of an image and the holy rollers of grunge were making powerful promises. Pretending to offer their souls along with some catchy choruses. There was no Kurt Cobain who 'merely made the music he always wanted to' ... it was a Kurt Cobain who was pissed off with the current stylish people and lashed out on them, making unspoken promises to the people listening to his songs. There was a young Cornell who had but one goal in life: to be in a band. Painstakingly, deliberately and with many sacrifices, he made it. Though not as an accomplished and admired drummer like a Neil Peart (who nobody really knows or cares what he looks like), but as a singer with a message and a most definite image. Starting out as a drummer, taking vocal lessons and paying careful attention to NOT styling his hair or wearing clothes that might associate him with any other 'movement' than the one he felt part of. Being very vocal about his views (which were very much anti-fashion and anti-heroism and anti-rock star), it was those views that made Cornell who he is today. Or perhaps who he was last year.

Surely, we all grow up and possibly change our views and most of us don't have the same 'image' at 35 that we had when we were 15. Thank god for maturity

Though, most of us are not in the business of selling our souls. Most of us don't sell promises and attitudes, though if we were, we'd have to switch our target segment everytime we switch our products. Understandibly, many of our old customers wouldn't be happy about the change in product and certainly would vocalize that. While we might claim to honestly just love that fancy coffee drink, we really subscribe to the entire Starbucks image, not just the bitter taste of their coffee. And, no, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

A more relative example would be Pearl Jam. A band with a very defined image. Their music being a product of world views, political views, criticism on society, personal emotions, etc. If Vedder would stop being Vedder and cut his hair to a style more appropriate for a CEO than an agenda pushing loudmouth, while going on bear hunts and attending fundraisers for George Bush, surely the music/lyrics/live performances of PJ would be that of a completely different band. Surely, the fans of the band for some 15 years would be appalled and outraged and the suggestion of 'stop talking about image and focus on the music' would be rather proposterous?

I gathered, hence my over the top reaction.

I actually did check out the song - only listened to it once, mind you and while being emotionally charged. All I can say is that Alex put it perfectly "Aerosmith rip off". Nauseating. Not because it is aerosmith rip off music, but because of what it signals about the band and specifically Cornell. It's a whiny song that longs for substance but fails to deliver. It's a shell of nothingness. It's a faint imprint of a long removed window sticker. It promises nothing and delivers even less.

A great disappointment for someone who identified with and believed in the messages and images portrayed over sooo many years by that very same artist.

What got me hooked on Cornell and Soundgarden was a little picture in a music magazine I saw some 17/18 years ago. A picture, that drew me into a world I knew absolutely nothing of or about and a world that would comfort me and be part of me from then on. A picture that spoke louder and much more clearly than any interview or analysis could. A picture that made me re-evaluate my past and set the course for my future. A picture of a band that promised so much and took a stance for something for soo long. An image, a promise, an offer, a prophecy ......... revoked, taken back, stepped on, lied about, cheated on, traded for, made a joke of..........

You see that sometimes clothes and hair styles are sooo much more than just that - a pair of jeans. To say let's forget about image and focus on the music at hand is often a complete oxymoron.

In time I will definetly give that the proper answer that it deserves, but for now I'll just say that I heard the song again yesterday and I really don't see the Aerosmith comparison ...

Marie... you really should be writting some articles for magzins.. they are just great.....

And by the way.. didn't go nuts before second albums released and when i heard Be your self...?

I can hear the Aerosmith link quite clearly. It's not a great song that's for certain. I'd almost go as far as to say it's a poor as Be Yourself which I thought was extremely dull and uninspiring from the moment I heard it. This song sounds like it's trying to be something it isn't (if that makes the slightest bit of sense).

This isn't going to stop me from buying the album. Like before with Out of Exile I was initially put off by the debut single, but on a full listen of the album there were plenty of gems to keep me interested. Doesn't Remind Me, Heaven's Dead, The Curse were all good songs.

I am, however, still a little bitter that I won't be able to see them this year at Leeds Festival. Ah well, still got Pearl Jam and Wolfmother.

It does make sense -at least to me- cause I feel exactly the same about it.

Wouldn't surprise me. Though, I am too emotionally drained in regards to AS to have any kind of reaction.

Will whatever suffice?

Oh, I do have something to say: (lol. like I'd ever be without words lol) I really do like Morello and as much as I loved Cornell, I never did understand the relationship.

Exactly. When I read that news, first thought was 'I don't even know if I care anymore'. Bah.

Would not suprise me in the slightest if they were to split after this release. That was my initial thought when I heard their tour had been cancelled.

However unbelievable it is, this news makes me go all giggley and warm inside;
"Word is the three remaining members nixed a seven-figure offer from promoters to reunite as Rage Against The Machine with ex-lead singer Zack de la Rocha amid rumors of bad blood."