Penn State football fans woke up Sunday morning hung over and pissed off about PSU's loss against Ohio State. I woke up hung over as well, but I wasn't pissed off. No, no, I was excited.

Last Sunday, October 28, was the release date of the latest installment in the Guitar Hero franchise, Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock. I woke up around nine and immediately rushed to my computer to look up the opening times for Best Buy.

Walking into Best Buy, I felt a little out of place what with all the 10-year-olds and their parents buying the same game that I had so eagerly awaited for the past two months.

All embarrassment aside, however, I couldn't wait to get home and try it out. This game probably has the best track list so far out of all the games. Songs you can play this time around include "Paint it Black" by the Rolling Stones, "Bulls on Parade" by Rage Against the Machine, "My Name is Jonas" by Weezer, "Even Flow" by Pearl Jam, "Sunshine of Your Love" by Cream, "Slow Ride" by Foghat and a list of other artists too long to mention.

All in all, there are 71 songs available for play. Probably the coolest part of this latest installment is the battle mode. Throughout career mode you will have to face off against Tom Morello and Slash and, basically, have a guitar duel like in Crossroads (no, not the Britney Spears film).

Also, the final level features a guitar duel with the devil himself, Lucifer. Fittingly, you play a speed metal version of "Devil Went Down to Georgia" and, in terms of difficulty, this song is more impossible than a Philadelphia sports team winning a championship.

But if, like me, you're playing the Playstation 2 version, be prepared for terrible graphics. Honestly, I don't know what happened but it seems like once Activision acquired RedOctane and ditched Harmonix, the original developers of this game, they let little things slip. The new meters are harder to read, the drummer in your band looks like a robot and for some reason the notes on the fretboard are just blocky and not as smooth looking.

But for a game like Guitar Hero, the graphics aren't really an issue. The gameplay is so addictive for music and video game enthusiasts alike. It's the digital form of crack. Not that I know what doing crack is like.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm stuck on "Cult of Personality" and I won't sleep until I beat this level.

-- Rich

First of all, before I declare a moratorium of talking about Radiohead for a while, check this out.

Best.

Band.

Ever.

Ok, on to new business.

I was at the Bouncing Souls show the other night, and while it was a decent show, I was dismayed by the mosh pit.

Now, I've been to a ton of shows, and I've seen a ton of mosh pits. In this case, it was actually even kind of appropriate, relatively speaking. But that's assuming mosh pits ever make any sense at all.

As an outside observer, it's always seemed to me that moshers are moshing independent of the music. Sure, they'll slam dance to some of the harder songs, but I've seen people mosh to the most mellow songs in a band's catalogue, and I've even seen people throw down during the between-set house music played over the PA.

Are you kidding me?

But I'm not here to judge. If you want to buy a ticket and ignore good, live music, that's not that big a deal. What bothers me is that it ruins the show for anyone nearby. Regardless of the size of the venue, I've always somehow found a way to be standing right next to the pit when it opens up, and as a result, protecting myself takes priority over enjoying the show. And I'm not a little guy; won't someone please think of the children (and/or various undersized adults)?

I don't think I've ever been to a concert where I didn't see at least one or two people doing something with which I completely disagreed. Maybe they've gotten into a fight, or maybe they're just being way too hipster. Whatever the case, so long as it doesn't hurt me, I don't care. But your freedom ends at my face, and if your having a good time is contingent on me having to fend people off myself in lieu of focusing on the concert in front of me, well, that's not really fair.

I tell ya, being a music critic isn't as easy as it seems.

Apparently I'm "biased," I "suck at life," I "should stop being a journalist because it's obviously too hard" for me, I "should take the silver spoon out of my mouth" and I "should turn up the Soulja Boy on my iPod."

This is what you could ascertain about my personality if you read my e-mail inbox last Tuesday night. A handful of Korn fans (or maybe they'd prefer Children of the Korn?) unleashed holy hell on my inbox after I said they "provided a great show for their fans complete with an impressive light show and plenty of intense, high-energy rock." I even called the fans "winners."

It's like the old saying goes, "You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't."

So what exactly prompted this slew of hate mail I received after last Tuesday's Korn cover ran? One reason is apparently biased reporting.

Let me tell you something: Everyone is biased including us humble newspaper-folk. But we keep our bias out of reporting. However, when a music critic (such as myself) is asked to review a live performance, I review what I see and I experience.

How effective would a review be if all I said was, "The bands played music that the fans loved"? When it came to Korn, I said they put on a great show and if you missed that fact, then God help you. But, c'mon. When Five Finger Death Punch (I still say Five Finger Fruit Punch is a better name) kept threatening the crowd to mosh or else, do you expect me NOT to report that?

Yes, I get it. It was a hard rock show and the tone for the night is supposed to be angry. But if a band is good, they don't have to act like that guy at the bar who is trying desperately to bring a girl back to his place for some sub-par lovin'. That's how it felt during their entire set. C'mon Fruit Punch, show some respect for your selves! You call yourselves a metal band?

Then there's the other issue: incorrect facts. In one hate letter I received, a kind gentleman informed me that Jonathan Davis has been sober since 1998 and when I said that Davis was slurring his words, apparently it irked some fans. I immediately scoured the Internet for some source to back up this claim, and I found an interview with Davis saying he has been sober since 1998. So I take back my claim that Davis was drunk on stage. While the arena was completely dark when someone asked the crowd, "Who wants a beer?" I'll take Davis's word that it wasn't him who was sloshy.

I'll be honest: I was surprised to get all this hate mail. Believe it or not, I use to love Korn. When I was 13 or 14, I had all their CDs, posters, shirts and other random merchandise. Once I hit 16 I grew out of that phase, but when I was asked to cover the Korn show, I got a little excited. I never saw them live as a fan and maybe it would be fun. And surprisingly, I did have fun and was really satisfied with Korn's performance.

I guess what I'm trying to say with this rant is that being a music critic isn't easy. Anyone on the street can have a conversation about music and it's okay if there are differing opinions. But the minute you print something the tiniest bit subversive to popular opinion, things get crazy and people start making wild claims about you as a person like that I eat from a silver spoon or that I listen to Soulja Boy.

And contrary to popular opinion I don't like Soulja Boy. Crank on that.

October 1st was a great day for Phillies fans but if you're a Radiohead fan, it wasn't just a great day. It was a miraculous day.

Granted, Radiohead fans didn't have to wait 14 years for a new album, but with the rumor mill constantly spinning, diehard fans checking Web sites daily, and listening to bootleg live tracks of "15 Step," it sure as hell felt like 14 years. On October 1st, Radiohead.com's latest news update simply read,

"Hello everyone.

Well, the new album is finished, and it's coming out in 10 days;
We've called it In Rainbows.

Love from us all.

Jonny"

If this simple 25-word passage wasn't enough to get you excited, then further elaborations surely would.

Essentially, the album is being released in three ways: You can wait until early 2008 to purchase the actual CD, wait until December 3rd and get an 80 dollar "discbox" (including artwork, lyrics, the vinyl, an enhanced CD with bonus tracks, the actual CD, and two 12" heavyweight vinyl records - quite the package) or wait until next Wednesday and download the album from the band directly for a donation of your choice.

That's right. For all intents and purposes, you can pay whatever you feel like for this album. Out of the kindness of my broke-ass heart, I threw the band three bucks for their efforts. It was the least I could do (Literally, it was. You can't go any lower than one pound and there's a 45 pence charge - roughly three bucks).

So what does this all crazy spontaneity mean? It could mean bad things for the music industry as we know it. It's one thing to have some band no one cares about dissing on the higher ups and telling their fans to illegally download their album. But to have a band that's as popular as, well, Radiohead to spit in the face of convention and actually leak their own album and make a profit, is just genius. Call me a fanboy, say they're just trying to be edgy, whatever.

If other big artists start to follow in Radiohead's footsteps, this could lead to a musical revolution of sorts. Maybe the RIAA would stop suing people and for once start focusing their efforts on utilizing this wonderful technology called the Internet. Musicians, their fans and technology are evolving. Radiohead's big stunt showed us that much.

One can only hope the music industry will evolve with us.