Are the best years of rock behind us?
 

Dunno if this has been discussed but here I go. I may rant so forgive me.

Todays music for the most part sucks. Sure there's some good bands around but most of them have been around for awhile or are bands made up of older great bands. But the "new" shit really sucks. I see nothing new right now that's gonna influence music for the next 10 years. Last decade was a great decade for music. I can go on and blow off more than 10 bands that came out that had some type of influence on music. Right now we're just getting a rash of "emo" bands that for the most part just sound the same and look the same. I can't see some of these bands being around for more than 3 years max. They'll all flame out eventually. Don't get me wrong, there's some good music comming out but I just dont see the "next big thing".

Am I missing something? Is there a rock band right now that's making a difference? If there is please enlighten me.

velvet revolver may very well be this new band that changes things once again. Although their still similar to stuff that was from over 10 years ago.
i agree with you on most new bands not doing so hot. I feel the problem is not with the music itself, but the image of the band for their marketing and their GOD AWFUL singers. Ill watch a music channel or listen to radio every once i na while and youll hear an awesome sound and then all of a sudden this whiny little punk starts singing about how his life sucks or that he just wants to die.
And then theres the metal band singers who would be ok if the singer or should i say screecher didnt just yell stupid crap into the microphone.

Rock is dead. It's been dead since it was invented. There's always a decline in "good" music, because music is always changing so much that we often don't like what it changes into. Plus, rock is just plain fucking dead.

Laptop is the new rock.

are the people who loved the era of Metallica and Guns 'n Roses going to like the Postal Service? probably not. but I bet the people who love the Postal Service will be listening to it in 10 years the same way those 80's mullet people still listen to metal bands.

Simply put, the music industry itself is responsible for the decline in the quality of rock music since the 70's. Via disco, to hip hop, and now the complete dominance of hip hop on most of today's youth, rock is losing ground, and is less profitable, therefore, less record deals, etc. So, yes, rock is fucked.

Atleast, thats how i see it.

Agreed. All that has come since has been derivative of what came first. Kids these days remember Nirvana as a great rock influence, but they were influenced by the Pixies who were influenced by Husker Du who were influenced by the Ramones who in turn took their cue from the Beach Boys and Iggy and the Stooges, etc, etc.

Rock is fucked, and bands like Jet from Australia are probably the most current representative of why this is so.

Personally, I listen to Tenacious D. They rock my ass and make me laugh, and that's the most I can really ask for nowadays.

I have a theory. The theory is that you offically become "old" when you start saying that all of today's music sucks and music was better "when I was growing up".

Yes, commercial radio sucks for the most part. That's why you have to dig deeper for the good music. There is always incredible and fresh music out there to listen to, you just have to know where to look.

I'm almost 30 years old, and I still buy new music. In just the last week or two I've bought "To the 5 Boroughs" by the Beastie Boys, "Now Here is Nowhere" by Secret Machines" and "Revival" by Reverend Horton Heat. I'll probably pick up the new Franz Ferdinand disc at some point too.

As for a band that really matters, I'd point to Radiohead. They may not be mainstream, but they are shaping music as we know it.

If I judged music by whats played on the radio I'd never listen to anything again. As a child of the 80's I of course love my hair bands...but as an example...as big a Ratt fan as I am...to me the "radio" song as I call it, Round and Round was really one of their worst songs. I love Enuff Z'nuff just as much but their "radio" song Fly High Michelle wasnt as good to me as any of the other songs on their 11 cd's.

I find that most of the newer bands might have something on the radio to peak my interest enuff to check them out but its the "non radio" songs that I always get attached too.

I think major label music is dead, but not music in general. The good stuff has simply moved to other outlets. The major labels are putting out crap, and nobody's buying it. Oh well, good riddance to them if they can't figure out how to provide a good return on the consumer's investment. Besides, who really wants to give $20 to the kind of people who sue children and the elderly anyway?

People always say "music doesn't suck, you're just getting older", but I can assure you, today's music SUCKS.

Having your grandma say "Led Zeppelin is a bunch of noise" is vastly different than people today who say "Hoobastank sucks." Reason being.. Led Zeppelin was an EXTREMELY talented and influential band. Hoobastank isn't... or pretty much 99% of bands out today.

Tool, Marilyn Manson, Radiohead.. there are a lot of good bands out today, but none that are the BEST at what they do.. not like Guns N Roses in their day or Nirvana in theirs.

Rock isn't dead. The next batch of incredibly talented and influential musicians are currently the ones growing up, learning music, and getting fed up with today's shitty music.

Give it time. They will come.

I think a quick look at the Billboard charts may kill that argument.

Okay, let's split hairs then. Some people are buying it, but not in the huge volumes they were in decades past. The RIAA is pissing and moaning about the huge decline in record sales everywhere you look. I don't think these Top 40 lists really reflect the whole population's interests any more than a handful of "Nielsen families" accurately depict the whole population's TV watching habits.

I think MTV has a large share in the blame as well. Compound that with the labels always looking for more money and it just becomes a style contest. Yeah Nirvana was good, but then we get hundreds of bands that just try to come out and be "the next nirvana". That's what it was with that whole bands saving rock (ie Strokes, Hives, Vines, White Stripes).

I think there is still lots of really great music being made now, you just won't find it on MTV or radio because now more than ever it's just about making money. There is more money to be made now so less people are willing to take the risks it seems. But if you get into the underground where bands still tour in a van for years and years there is some great stuff. Mainstream stuff is always going to be about 95% utter crap, but that doesn't mean the good stuff isn't still around.

I bet if I looked at a top 40 list I wouldnt know more than 10 songs MAX in it

It would probably be less than 2 in my case. I gave up on radio a couple of years ago. The crap music, endless commercial breaks, and babbling airhead DJs just got to be too much. It's like hell on earth when I get in a car with someone who's blasting the radio. I'm like, "How would you know if something mechanical was going wrong with you car with all that racket going on?" Sometimes silence really is golden.

They should have just bought up a bunch of Radiohead's Pablo Honey CDs and stuck new labels on em. It'd be easier and the end result would be the same. I wonder if they'll be ripping off Kid A in 10 years?

Music really sucks now. It all either copies bad 60s rock, or bad 80s metal, with a nice dose of hip-hop thrown in to make it even more irritating.

Pablo Honey is better than New Found Glory at any rate.

My wife is a radio listener, and it drives me nuts. I listen to CD's in the car exclusively (unless I'm listening to sports talk radio, but that's another thing entirely)

I listen to MP3s exclusively. I keep my CDs in their cases after I rip them so they won't get worn out. Every song on my playlist is a song I want to hear, with no fillers.

Ah. Then my little brother is 14 years old. :)

I'm going to agree that mainstream rock is objectively horrible compared to, say, in the late 70s. But rock in general? Nah. The good stuff's just not in the spotlight right now. And eventually the spotlight (MTV, radio, what have you) will get lucky and find a marketable trend that produces good stuff, as it happened with grunge and radiohead.

But I hope it's something better than Modest Mouse or the Postal Service.

Just think of numetalpoppunkhiphop as the disco of the late nineties and early zeroes.

I don't think luck will have much to do with it. They'll eventually get a clue that the crap they're pushing doesn't sell because it sucks. When that happens, they'll quit trying to make stars in whatever Hollywood image they've dreamed up and start taking a chance on some real talent again.

MTV and the music companies have not helped the quality of music - but there has been pop schlock since the beginning of Rock & Roll.

Fortunately, we have more of an opportunity than every before to find good indy bands, given the resources on the internet.

KFOG 104.5 (a San Francisco radio station I have listened to for years) features new music each Thursday. Their music director has excellent taste - I recommend checking out them out. Their website has some great resources.

The thing is... the crap they show DOES sell, however, it's the type of music that will be forgotten in 3 years, but it DOES sell. If it didn't, they wouldn't show it.

One thing I DON'T understand is... why push shitty music? Why not actively seek out and find talented bands? It's just as much, if not less, work than taking a no talent goon and giving them an image to sell (Britney, Avril, etc). The talent IS out there.

MTV is no longer ran by people in the know, and that's the problem. These old people think that Avril is the next best thing, when really... it's fuckin NOT. It's like those parents that try to be all cool and you can tell they're just really TRYING. I wish they'd wake the fuck up.

If they REALLY wanna get money, they'd have a younger generation person running the show.. someone that can spot real talent.. something that will sell not because it's a trend, but because it's good fuckin talent.. something that will keep on giving year after year, not just a temporary fad that fits well in the next 2-3 years.

Ah well.. one day.

Well, Hollywood and Madison Avenue cater to the lowest common denominator because they want volume sales. American business in general tends to pursue short-term profit nowadays instead of laying the groundwork for a loyal customer base over the long haul; and record company executives are businesspeople first and music lovers second, if at all.

I agree with most of you. MTV can be blamed for most of what's out there. They ram it down our throats on a hourly basis. But if it wasn't for them I wouldn't have bought the new Yeah Yeah Yeahs album. They played it before the local radio station did.

Also, Velvet Revolver. Great band, great album. They bring the best of two great bands into one. Unlike Audioslave, althougb I liked the album it's not gonna have the staying power Ratm albums have.

My friends and I all hate pop music, and we like to think the majority of the people out there agree with us. But as the name suggests, 'pop' music is popular somewhere. Most likely, the teen boppers are driving this pop music to where its name implies, popularity.

In the eyes of Columbia, BMG, and most other labels: Simple music is good music. Bring an unknown person with a pretty face, pay them little (because thats what an unknown deserves), write a catchy song with four notes, put it on a cd with a several other 4 note songs, and sell it to the teen boppers at $17 a pop. The record companies make millions, and in a few years, that 'star' with be featured on a VH1 "What Ever Happened to..." special.

The most money is made where the music will appeal to the largest consumer base. And this music, unfortunately, is catchy pop.

Why don't they push talent? This is my theory.
Its all about control. The Beatles influenced millions over with their music. And because the Beatles were talented and had a brain, they were less prone to listen to producers and rather just did as they pleased and believed in what they believed in. As such, their fan base did much the same as the Beatles. Do you think a label could get John Lennon to wear a coon-skin cap just because they believed it was right for him? I don't think he would, he'd do whatever the hell he wants.

Untalented goons do as the record company says just because of the "I made you and I can destroy you" mentality. They'll wear the clothes, drive the cars, say the right things, have professional writers pen their lyrics, and convince the masses that Hilary Duff is a good role model, and as such, masses will buy the clothes, drive the cars (honestly, do you think the H2 Hummer would be as popular if various artists pulled up in a different vehicle at award shows? We all know its a very economical means of transportation in the 'urban jungle' where four-wheel drive is necessary for stop lights, sewer grates, and pulling into the grueling uphill course known as the parking garage. But I digress.).

Thats my opinion I guess..do as you please with it.

you may want to check out 90.3 KEXP ( www.kexp.org for archives & streams), based out of Seattle. New Music ALL the time! and their site was named "best website" by the Hauge courts or something, more listeners world wide than anyone...
/end nonaffileated plug

Once again, the point is that it doesn't sell nearly as well as the good music they were pushing in years past. If it was, they wouldn't be suing grandmothers and little kids over file sharing to make up for lost profits.

That said, another angle we haven't looked at is how the music industry goes through these dry periods about once every decade where nothing seems very interesting or inspired. We may just be in the middle of one of those right now.

MTV hasn't been about promoting good music in a long time. Shit, they barely play videos at all anymore. They just want the quickest buck they can turn.

Until ClearChannel stops running the show, you might as well rip the radio out of your car and replace it with an iPod.

I quit watching MTV years ago. It's been about nothing but spoiled brats' wacky lifestyles and leftist political grandstanding for a long time now. I don't know anyone in the real world who can even relate to it.

No doubt! :lol:

rock IS NOT dead

people are just lazy and ignorant.

people are just willing to close their ears and label everything. everything they hear on top40 charts is immdiately representitive of all music. no one is willing to find good bnads any more.

go to a club, go to a show, make and trade mix tapes.


word of mouth is still the best "chart" cound down there is.


i like and listen to tons of bands, like them all as much as i do zeppelin, cream, floyd, PJ etc. why? because i'm willing to open my ears and find these bands.

Every generation develops its own taste in music.

My parents in the 60's and 70's did not get into Sinatra and the big bands like their parents did.

I got into 60's music and some 70's but I also liked the 80's, which my parents abhorred.

Today, the kids are listening to the next step. (And as much as I hate to admit it a lot of what is considered country (which outsells everything) would have been considered pop-rock in the 80's).

As for rock, in the 60's with the Beatles the 50's kids yelled rock was dead.

In the 70's with Disco and Punk the 60's kids said rock was dead.

In the 80's with the hair bands, the 70's kids said rock was sold out.

It just keeps going because a generation identifies most with the music they listened to.

Granted, I don't see many bands in pop music today sticking around much, but neither did many of the previous decades bands.

Very few bands last after a few big hits. Been that way since the beginning of rock.

Also the blame that now the record companies don't take chances like they used to. They manufacture bands.

To some degree has merit A&R isn't scouring the clubs for bands anymore (mainly because not many clubs have live music like before, I blame the DUI laws people are scared to go out anymore and have a drink or 2.)

But bands have always been manufactured to some degree, record companies and management are always telling artists what they need to do. Hence, a band style changes or their look changes or their whatever is different all of a sudden.

The one thing I will say is CC and Viacom (MTV, Infinity Broadcasting and so on) do have a lot of say in what gets played but there are a lot of indie radio stations left. Just as you get older you get tired of listening to FM music and either play your own CDs in car or listen to talk radio.

Thanks for the tip! I will definitely check this out!

That's true to some extent, but that argument only goes so far. I grew up in the 1980s, but I can relate to a lot of music from the 1920s all the way up till about 2001 or so. It's not reasonable to assume I suddenly stopped liking new music for any other reason than the stuff I've heard on the radio in the last couple of years genuinely sucks.

They're too busy suing people for downloading music that should have passed into the public domain ages ago. The record companies subverted the copyright laws so that they can reap a perpetual windfall from old music instead of turning out new product. No other industry on earth gets away with sitting on their fat asses and raking in massive profits on stuff that was created decades ago. Consumers aren't playing along with having their cultural heritage held hostage anymore, and that pisses the record companies off. They have their own greed to blame for that though.

A lot of mainstream music is not authentic and that's why it is not good. Most of us could not hold a normal conversation with these people, they are phony's and fake.

Rock has gone downhill. I listen to everything and yes I like the whole emo genre, (there are both bad and good emo bands,) but I grew up on Metallica and Rage. I mean look at the Ozzfest line up for this year. Horrible.

Somewhere some kids are practing in a basement and will change the face of Rock music, I'm dieing for something heavy and meaningful.

I don't think rock is dead! Music is always
evolving!
As a teenager I loved rock and roll but my
parents hated. Today as a parent I can
tolerate hard rock, but feel uneasy listening to rap.
Perhaps its because I'm aging and becoming more like my parents. But I DO NOT think that today's artists are as creative as the Beatles and other rock groups of the 60's and 70's!

So if rock is dead (who knows, maybe in its traditional form, it is, though I think The White Stripes makes some damn good rock...Jack White also knows how to play guitar...)

But if it is dead, quit griping. Listen to Led Zeppelin and Cream, but find something new, because there is plenty of new good stuff out there to be heard.

New stuff I have heard that is nowhere near the pop mainstream includes:
Hip hop -- Eyedea, Immortal Technique, Atmosphere (well, he has gotten onto radio, but I still like him), Aesop Rock. And saying that hip hop sucks because of 50 cent or Ja Rule is like saying rock sucks because of Nickelback.
Jon Spencer Blues Explosion
Rjd2 - imagine if Moby was cool
Even the White Stripes I first heard before they made it big.

The point is to not wait til MTV plays it, because then it will just get annoying anyway. Go out and find some new music for yourself, because there is plenty of awesome stuff with no air time. Or go back - dig up some Muddy Waters or other blues.

There is more to music than MTV and other good genres besides rock.

Remember, a lot of the big record companies have "boutique" labels that sign and distribute the smaller bands. It's not Top 40, and the marketing money isn't poured into them, but they are there.

Remember Interscope back in the early to mid 90's? It was (still is?) a boutique label under Warner Bros., and carried bands like Nine Inch Nails, Primus, Reverend Horton Heat and Marilyn Manson, and at one point bought Sub Pop records as well. The label is a little more mainstream now (they carry Audioslave, 50 cent and All American Rejects among others), but the record companies aren't completely ignoring rock bands.

Oh, and just because a good band like The White Stripes appears on MTV, it doesn't suddenly make them suck. That's an ignorant standpoint (not pointing the finger at anyone in this thread, but this sentiment has been voiced on TFP in the past...)

Would you explain to us old farts who have been hiding under a rock what the "emo" genre is? http://bluehole.clarkworx.com/chrome...s/icon_huh.gif

I agree. Unfortunately, I don't have the patience to sit through all the crap on MTV waiting for them to play something good. :lol:

Im with you, man. Grew up on talented 70's-80's Metal/Punk bands, now waiting for the next Iron Maiden or Clash or AC/DC.

Maybe it has to do with all these lazy kids with shit guitar and songwriting skills.

Maybe it has to do with guitar makers jacking up the prices of instruments out of sight in the last decade or so.

The White Stripes, or any other good band, isn't necessarily ruined by being on MTV, but the problem arises when MTV, or a radio station or whatever plays the song so often, over and over, and then other wanna-be songs that sound just like it start getting played, and it makes you so prematurely sick of the song. There is nothing worse than great songs getting played ad nauseum.

The only decent music scene is old music and underground. I have two ways I answer the question, " What kind of music do you listen to?" When asked:

In the past I’d say, “"Probably things that you've never heard of,” as I tug down my too-tight vintage argyle sweater and turn my toes to each other in my plaid skirt and black thick soled Mary Jane’s.

Now a days it’s more like, “I listen to all music, with the emphasis on "all.” This cop-out never works. So I am hard-pressed to either sound like some aging hipster or pretentious snob: "I listen to a lot of underground stuff: punk, pop, noise, dance…”

Bottom line, today’s mainstream rocks sucks, and has for a long time. If you want good tunes, you gotta dig for ‘em.

Addressing the question what is emo, this definition seems to do it best.

Emo is Hardcore Punk music with sensitive and emotional lyrics. The music is epitomized by post-Grunge, edgy rock with explosive energy mixed with sensitivity. Emotional lyrics about sadness, love and even anger are common lyrical theme.

Thanks, theusername. I got into the "dream pop" branch of punk in the 1990s. Stuff like Lush and My Bloody Valentine. Some people would put Cocteau Twins and Curve in that category too, but Curve's early stuff was more like techno with heavy guitars, and Cocteau Twins had been doing their own thing much earlier.

You hit that one on the head BIG TIME.

All you see now are a bunch guitarist (I use this term losely) strumming out cords with angst. That's it.

I guess you can link the bad music to the loss of the guitar solo.

I love all that stuff! Good taste... ;)

Were we separated at birth by any chance? :lol:

Being one with less mainstream tastes, I'm keeping an eye on the growing momentum of the underground American Black Metal scene. I love the intense, heavy sound, and many of the bands are not signed to labels and never will be because they focus on the music and not the money they can make from it. I just hope that the new incarnation of the genre isn't as litered with violence as its European predecessor. I really don't think a musician stabbing another dozens of times out of fear that someone else is gaining too much recognition will go over too well. Same with killing band members and eating their brains. One such incident
would draw so much criticism and ire from far more than just the ultra-religious that it would cripple underground metal in this country, most likely permanently.
Can someone please tell me what's so great about the White Stripes? I can see that some of their stuff isn't bad, but I odn't see what the huge hype is about. I should try to remember and paraphrase the 20-minute rant I started when Jack white made Rolling Stone's greatest guitarists list. I mean, he's got some talent, but just as an example, there's no excuse for putting him at 17 and David Gilmour at 82

As for the White Stripe they're just a good band that doesn't take thier music too seriously . I say they're one of the most original bands out at the moment imho. The Elephant album was a nice addition to my colllection.

HAHAHAH are you fuckin kidding me? Holy shit did they just lose a shitload of credibility... that's sad. And here I thought Rolling Stone was the last of the rock mags with some dignity.

Like I said in another thread.. the guy can play guitar enough to have a mainstream musical career, but he's nothing special. If you put him at 17, then why not the guitarist for Nickelback/Papa Roach/Staind at 18? They have about the same amount of talent.

Seriously, not to knock anyone who listens to him, but his solos are SLOPPY. Anyone could pull off the same sound by accurately hitting random frets above the 12th fret with some bends and a bit of speed. There's no feeling to them.

It's not the fault of people who buy disposable music from disposable artists who do nothing more than polute the music scene with their uninventive dribble - those bands will always exist. There will always be good and inventive bands, it's just that people are too lazy to look for such bands and with the way things are set up - it's impossible to rise to any kind of fame without the right connections and a fan base the size of Wisconsin.

Black and death metal are great examples. You've got amazing black and death metal acts that've reshaped the entire market and they'll never be known outside of black and death metal enthusiasts simply because people are far too lazy to venture out and find something new. Death practically invented death metal - almost every death metal act today pays homage (whether they'd like to or not) every time they step on stage and play. These bands have existed and will exist until the last note is ever played - it's just a matter of getting off your ass and looking for the music instead of expecting it to come to you.

What's with all the emo hate in this thread? Half the "emo" bands in this thread that are hated against aren't even emo. There are a number of talented emo and emo-core acts out there that write songs with a purpose and do more than drone on about how Mommy threw out my Twisted Sister records and daddy left. because I didn't make the football team. Also, for a 2-piece band White Stripes (isn't it sans the -the?) are an amazingly versatile band - just listen to "Seven Nation Army". The whole song was done on the same guitar...

What everyone is listening to might suck but what's popular almost always sucks - look and you'll find the good music is there just waiting in antipation to be listened to.
Black and death metal are a great example. There are some amazing black and death metal acts now who continue to reinvent the market every time they put out an album. You've got bands like Death who are known by everyone in the scene but not many people outside of the scene eventhough they're one of the biggest influences on death metal.

See, matter of opinion. It sounds like you equate good guitar playing to precision. I'd venture a guess that you're a fan of Joe Satriani and his ilk. I think White plays with reckless abandon, and no matter how "sloppy" you think it is, I think it's full of passion and just balls out rock energy.

Comparing him to the guitarists of Nickelback or whoever is insulting. Guitar "skills" vs. originality is a huge thing.

That said, I think Gilmour should have been #1 on Rolling Stone's list, but that's a pipe dream, as his guitar playing isn't "sexy" enough for anyone to give him the credit he deserves.

Whenever I hear Jack White's solos, I don't get the impression that they have a lot of feeling behind them unlike other players such as Slash or Jimmy Page.

Whenever they (or most other very talented artists) belt out a solo, it always seems to fit right in. I haven't heard all White Stripes songs, but the ones I HAVE heard have solos that sound so totally out of place.

It's definitely a matter of opinion, but also a matter of what one considers art and talent. For example, an artist can paint a simple stripe on a clear canvas. Some people might look at that stripe and go "wow, that is the most beautiful piece of art I've ever seen" while others say "...it's a f'n stripe. Paint something like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and then we'll talk.."

rock....jeez.....first, i no longer know exactly what it is.
aor?

assuming i know what i am talking about:
for myself, when i was younger, i was glad this music was out there.
at that point, most of it was new to me.
it did not represent a kind of stagnation.
now it does.

whether this sense comes from radio, from mtv, from having the records--from repetition--or if it is a quality of the music itself, i can no longer tell.

sometimes, if i have not heard something for a long time, i'll be able to listen again----e.g. "tomorrow never knows"---other such music i can deal with in a wallpaper sense if i am doing something else---e.g. led zep in a bar (except for stairway to heaven, which i loathe)....

i still listen to newer bands and sometimes like them--radiohead since ok computer for example--broadcast (mostly because i liked stereolab and then got bored with them and broadcast uses the same basic sound with cooler electronics)...and i like a clutch of japanese bands that work out of the general space of rock (psycehdelic variant)...particularly acid mothers temple.

acid mothers is the only reason i can still remember why i liked rock in the first place.

i have music from lots of styles on my i-tunes playlist. sometimes, when something straighter turns up in the collage, i rather like it.
sometimes, i delete it.

i dont feel badly about this, really--i dont feel like i loose anything because of it---it is simply a fact.

sigh.
The best music ever is the music you were listening to between ages 17-23.
From that point on you will be disappointed in and bitch about all new music.

"Why do they have to have new bands? Everyone knows rock music attained
perfection in 1974, it's a scientifically proven fact!" - Homer Simpson

actually, for what its worth, i know about music that is much more interesting and much more emotionally involving to me now than i had any idea existed when i was 17-23.

rock was never the best music i listened to.
for example, it was hard to get worked up about the dead when i already knew later coltrane.
rock was one option among many. and it is an option that has simply stagnated, that i lost interest in.
no nostalgia for it.
and still less for being 17-23.

best "mainstream" solo to come out in the last 8 years?

Audioslave- Like a stone


im a huge rage fan, and a big soundgarden fan, but not a big audioslave fan.

that solo may be easy as fuck, but man, the tone tom morello gets out of it is fantastic. very very epic.