Rage Against The Machine And Audioslave: A Guide


PDA

View Full Version : Rage Against The Machine And Audioslave: A Guide


duncang
10-31-2005, 11:59 AM
Well, I will start with Rage Against The Machine.

Formed in California, RATM consist of rap-vocalist Zack de la Rocha, guitarist Tom Morello, bassist Tim Commerford and drummer Brad Wilk. They burst onto the scene, practically inventing rap-metal, and in Tom Morello, they raised the standard set my Jimi Hendrix for guitar effects and wizadry. Their debut is one of the best rock albums of the 90's, certainly the best metal record of that decade. Using different formulas for songs, but keeping the same unique sound all the way through, mainly recognisable with Zack's Chuck D tinted voice. RATM were inspired by different bands, depending on who you look at. Zack's obvious influence is Public Enemy, Tom's Jimi Hendrix and Led Zeppelin. Tim and Brad are pretty normal players, with similar influences to most modern metal bands. Rages sound had grinding bass, with occasional slap-funk, amazing varied guitar sounds, and a lot of different drumming used. Songs like Killing In The Name and Bombtrack sent them to the top. They waited years before they released their follow-up, Evil Empire.

With so much pressure on them, they knew they had to impress. The first 4 tracks of Evil Empire were the same quality of their debut, but the sound was very different. People Of The Sun was closer to hip-hop than anything on RATM, Bulls On Parade is a Rage signature song, but it is different to a lot of other stuff. Vietnow and Revolver are great songs, but they don't have the raw power of, for example, Know Your Enemy. The rest of the album is good, but it just didnt live up to their self-titled. They had to do better next time, or they would fade.

And boy did they do better. They focused themselves for Battle Of Los Angeles, with a catchy riff/solo in every single song. Unlike both their debut (yes, I hate Settle For Nothing) and Evil Empire, there is not one bad song on that album. Thats the one that got me fully into Rage, a lot of Rage fans got hooked by Guerilla Radio, but Testify did it for me. Rage are a great band, with a unique guitarist, vocalist and sound. Did i mention the lyrics ****ing rule too?

They also rush-released Renegades when Zack quit the band, which was pretty good, but it was all covers, so it didnt have the lyrical power of the other albums.

Now onto Audioslave...

Audioslave are basically Rage with Chris Cornell of Soundgarden singing. But Cornell has had a lot more influence on the band than the 3 Rage guys have. That can be seen as a good thing, and a bad thing. A lot of the riffs still kick ass though. Their debut album is pretty good, but it lacks just what made Rage so special. Zack.

Dont get me wrong, Chris Cornell is a great singer, but without Zack, you dont have the same chemistry. Audioslaves second attempt, Out Of Exile, is a massive improvement, despite being even more Soundgarden-like than the debut. Songs like Doesnt Remind Me show that Cornell has almost eradicated Rage Against The Machine. Audioslave are more mainstream than Rage were, mainly because the lyrics won't disgust anyone, like Rages did.

So, Rage or Audioslave? Which do you guys think is better?

GuitarJunkie
10-31-2005, 12:03 PM
RATM allllll the ****ing way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PistolPeet
10-31-2005, 12:05 PM
Raaage!!!!

duncang
10-31-2005, 12:05 PM
Heh, my thoughts exactly.

Rocko Mummble
10-31-2005, 12:23 PM
Personally I thought the lyrics were the worstpart of their music. The words were all biased, repetitive and reliant on shouting "****" in the middle of everything. And they didnt really disgust most people.
But I do like the music of both the bands.

lost_it_again
10-31-2005, 12:25 PM
Rage: What better time than now?

i also hate settle for nothing, that's the worst song on the album.

Malmsteen07
10-31-2005, 12:26 PM
Erm.... that article was horribly brief and lacking any real detail... You didn't really mention anything... release wise, dates, why Zack quit rage, and you had a lot of unnecessary opinionated comments. Your Audioslave section wasn't worth reading... NO information at all. This looks like an essay a 12 year old with no serious knowledge of the bands wrote in 10 minutes. If your gona write an article about a band you should at least know more than the basics first!

lost_it_again
10-31-2005, 01:45 PM
^ yeah i meant to mention that, do remember that rage have a much larger history than adioslave, try adding some of the band members back grounds like family etc, it has all the basic info required though, just more detail needed

duncang
10-31-2005, 01:55 PM
Erm.... that article was horribly brief and lacking any real detail... You didn't really mention anything... release wise, dates, why Zack quit rage, and you had a lot of unnecessary opinionated comments. Your Audioslave section wasn't worth reading... NO information at all. This looks like an essay a 12 year old with no serious knowledge of the bands wrote in 10 minutes. If your gona write an article about a band you should at least know more than the basics first!

Im sorry, I suppose ill just have to age a few more years, and have a bit more than 10 minutes on my hands :D , you see, I am 12, and actually, that was pretty half-arsed, but that isnt because I am 12, look up a few of my album reviews, and most of them are actually quite a lot more detailed than a lot of the stuff on there. I was just insanely bored, so i decided to write an arcticle, and I admit it is crap, I'll try again with dates, families..........snore..........

Rankles
11-01-2005, 05:02 AM
Don't rush your articles, and this isn't a forum for debate.