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'?


Like A Stone

Be Yourself


Killing In The Name

Guerilla Radio


Black Hole Sun


1 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.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.