Should we consider Audioslave a continuation of Rage Against The Machine, Soundgarden, or neither?

Question

I've always felt that Audioslave is too clean, too accessible, too 'mainstream' to be considered a continuation of either RATM or Soundgarden. I enjoy it to an extent, but for me, it doesn't resemble punk or grunge very much. Perhaps it is closer to modern hip-hop sonically, except with non-auto-tuned vocals. Compared to Soundgarden, it's not very ambitious or experimental.

Should we consider Audioslave a continuation of Rage Against The Machine, Soundgarden, or something 'new'?

---

Audioslave

Like A Stone

Be Yourself

RATM

Killing In The Name

Guerilla Radio

Soundgarden

Black Hole Sun

Spoonman

Answer 1

Any band that takes members from multiple previously established bands should always be considered a new band. If Cornell wanted these songs to be Soundgarden songs, he'd have done them with Soundgarden. But, at the same time, when you have a certain writing style which permeated your previous band, you're always going to sound a little like that band.

So, in summary, Audioslave wasn't a continuation of any band, it was its own entity that combined elements of various bands to create their sound.