1

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

3

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.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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