Don't understand why people won't let them be their own band, it's getting really tired. They're Audioslave, not Rage, not Soundgarden. Let them be.
The band, besides Chris, are really actively political. So obviously it's still gonna be there. Chris openly said that Cochise was as political as he'll ever get.
Not to mention that the pic is of Tom only, doing promotion for his Axis of Justice foundation.
Don't see how that equates to Audioslave becoming Rage.
That's wrong and you're quite out of line for making such a comment off the back of one album to Rage's 3 (4 technically) legendary albums.
Their first album was excellent, given it was recorded REALLY fast and they hadn't even had the chance to gel.
They're not gonna make Rage-esque music because they're not Rage anymore. So if that's the reason you don't like them, because the music they make now isn't the style they made in Rage, I'd say it's because they're not Rage anymore.
The pic was unrelated, I just posted that because of the "Morello for president" thing at the end of the article. I've never thought of Audioslave as Rage or Soundgarden... But reading that article (and some stuff off the Audioslave site) felt just like reading about some of the less directly rebellious things Rage did in the day.
Musically, no, they're obviously not Rage and I respect that. Just seems like the political element from Rage is showing up more... Outside the music.
Well it's not wrong because it's my opinion, and somebody must've forgotten to send me the e-mail telling me that stating an opinion on a message board has now become 'out of line'.
Anyway, I could compare just RATM's worst, but still great, album (Renegades) and compare it to Audioslave's debut, and yep, still no competition.
That's not Rage's album. It's a collection of re-workings.
I wouldn't go so far as to say no comparison between the bands. To you, maybe. To me that's not the case.
To me it seems pretty obvious that Zack was the deciding factor for you, because 3 4ths of the band are the same. Sure they make different music but that's no reason to claim they are no comparison.
Because I could compare Rage's albums in any ways to Audioslave's one and find many ways in which Audioslave's is superior. They are potentially the superior band and it's foolish to admit otherwise. When Audioslave have an equal catalogue, or possibly before, they will have come into their own and established themselves. Then again, you said to me you don't like that fact that you can't get into Audioslave because you feel like you're missing out, so maybe you're just bitter and unwilling to try. Or have try half-heartedly and gave up. Or maybe the music just isn't to your taste.
I think it's extremely narrow minded that people can't mention Audioslave without mentioning either of it's two pasts.
Well, like you said, it's still technically their album. In any case, it's the worst of their recordings.
Yep, that and the fact that I preferred the funk rock style the musicians employed with Rage.
The better band? How so? They're basically the same band. And you could compare all you want, but nothing Audioslave have done can match the raw urgency, anger and innovation of Rage.
Oh believe me, I've tried many times but to no avail. I don't pass judgement on a band of such potential quality easily. And the reason I feel like I'm missing out is because these are four of my favorite artists ever, and I'm frustrated that they aren't making music that I like.
I very rarely mention the band's pasts, but seeing as the topic of this thread is all about one of them, it's hard to avoid it. And I appreciate your frustration on that account, because it isn't fair to Audioslave to be constantly held up against Soundgarden and Rage, but they were both huge bands, so it's kind of inevitable really.
They've made one album for crying out loud, of course it's not going to zoom past Rage. In my opinion it's very nearly in that are. They're the better band for me because Chris Cornell ranks higher in the list of vocalists than Zack does, if you wanna be technical. But I'm not gonna get into sums of parts because that isn't how things work.
Well I'm sorry you're frustrated. Don't see why that there are A) Rage comparisons or B) Why you are so quite to deny that Audioslave are worth comparing. Although like you said, it isn't music you like.
It's not inevitable. They're not the same band so don't hold them up to them. It's really not hard.
But it could have. There are countless times throught musical history that groups have released their strongest material in their first album, and with the amount of talent Audioslave have, they could have zoomed passed Rage.
Well yeah, because it's music I don't like. It's impossible for me to compare one band I dislike to one I like. Anyway, as we've both said many times, there should really be no comparison between the two.
Tell that to the media. It doesn't matter how much you protest, they're going to be compared, and that's that. I don't like it anymore than you do.
Yeah but they didn't zoom past, that doesn't mean they lack the ability. Maynard and Trent did work together and it was good, just good. Sometimes sums of parts work instantly, sometimes they take time or don't even work at all. Audioslave are the second one because it wasn't instant and it most certainly works.
That's basically a re-wording of what I just said, so yeah.
But music being as opinion-based as it is, it could also be said that it hasn't worked yet. Because for me it hasn't. Doesn't mean I'm ruling them out, it's just that for now, they have yet to impress me.
The other thing is (don't eat my face for this) Audioslave have been playing Rage songs in concert. I don't know about you, but if I wanted to seperate myself from Rage, that's the last thing I'd do. I'm not claiming they're trying to be that, but it certainly doesn't seem like they're making much of an effort NOT to.
Just because they rework some of their previous bands great songs does not imply that they are trying to be either band. The fans have said it'd be great if they covered some, so they have. I think in respect, fans should then let it drop.
They're Audioslave. Rage didn't wanna be Rage anymore, hence the split.
Like I said, I don't think they're TRYING to be Rage, but it's a bit naive to cover Rage songs and not get that response from some people. I respect that they are their own band and think it's cool that they're covering Rage songs at the same time, but it's hard not to be associated in some way with a group whose songs you cover. Especially if you were in that group.
Gender: Male Location: Dreaming...Or am I living...
The band Is 75% Rage...
So they are going to be compared, no matter what...
I think Rage was a better outlet for the musicians, Morrelo strikes me as trying to be like Slash in Audiosalve, and he's simply not that kind of guitarist. I heard part of their album, and I was cringing at things Morrello was doing, that I know, if given the freedom, could have been done, well. more Morrello-y.
I could go on, but simply, its not better music...
IMO of course...
KMC Community Forums
Attachment: 
May 15th, 2005 07:11 PM
