Question:
Which is better- Soundgarden or Audioslave.

Choices:
Soundgarden
Audioslave
Both good
Both suck
Hmmm.....well.....its hard to say.....

 

I'm surprise this is even a contest. Soundgarden is better by a longshot. It's like asking,"Who's better, The Beatles or Wings?"

I'll take Chris Cornell's solo effort over both but Audioslave is really, really an abomination. I like Soundgarden but, I agree, there is no comparison here. Absolutely none.

I believe that this is an apples to oranges comparison. Soundgarden and Audioslave are two completely different bands with two distinct sounds. The only real thred between the two is obviouslyb Chris Cornell. I look at Soundgarden as more of an "artsy" of a band, with more exploration of their sound. Audioslave is about something else entirely, they sound more like a traditional RAWK band, with Tom Morello's noodley solos for added flavor. I own the last three Soundgarden records, Chris Cornell's Euphoria Morning, and both Audioslave records, so I feel passionate about this. I like both of the bands, but to compare the two is not really an apples to apples comparison.

quote:

Originally posted by crowdiggs:
I believe that this is an apples to oranges comparison. Soundgarden and Audioslave are two completely different bands with two distinct sounds. The only real thred between the two is obviouslyb Chris Cornell. I look at Soundgarden as more of an "artsy" of a band, with more exploration of their sound. Audioslave is about something else entirely, they sound more like a traditional RAWK band, with Tom Morello's noodley solos for added flavor. I own the last three Soundgarden records, Chris Cornell's Euphoria Morning, and both Audioslave records, so I feel passionate about this. I like both of the bands, but to compare the two is not really an apples to apples comparison.

I wouldn't say the sound is that different. It's not like comparing 50 Cent to Devendra Banhart. Soundgarden and Audioslave are at least in the same general genre.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:

quote:

Originally posted by crowdiggs:
I believe that this is an apples to oranges comparison. Soundgarden and Audioslave are two completely different bands with two distinct sounds. The only real thred between the two is obviouslyb Chris Cornell. I look at Soundgarden as more of an "artsy" of a band, with more exploration of their sound. Audioslave is about something else entirely, they sound more like a traditional RAWK band, with Tom Morello's noodley solos for added flavor. I own the last three Soundgarden records, Chris Cornell's Euphoria Morning, and both Audioslave records, so I feel passionate about this. I like both of the bands, but to compare the two is not really an apples to apples comparison.

I wouldn't say the sound is that different. It's not like comparing 50 Cent to Devendra Banhart. Soundgarden and Audioslave are at least in the same general genre.

Well yes, they are both rock bands, however I think that comparing these two is like comparing Nirvana to Foo Fighters, or Velvet Revolver to STP. I think it is unfair to judge the bands that have had former members in better bands, that's all. The comparison is apt, I suppose, but it pisses me off to compare the two.

No it isn't unfair to compare, Soundgarden was great, Audioslave sucks. (In my opinion)

Yeah, I'm agreeing with the majority here. Soundgarten is in whole different league than Audioslave. Audioslave is pop for the masses.

I do like Audioslave's first album though. There are some solid jams, great guitar, and obviously, superb vocals. But they've accomplished nothing of the caliber that Soundgarten did.

i personally love both. But soungarden always sound more polished and intense. Anyone who knows anything about the mechanics of music would by now have realised that all audioslave songs are in 4/4 time. This doesnt take away from the songs, it just places them on an unmoving plateau. Soundgarden explored different times in their songs. Classic examples are Fell on Black Days which switches between 4/4 and 2/4 and Limo Wreck in 6/8. Limo Wreck is my personal favourite.

I've never really liked Audioslave, so I guess I would choose Soundgarden. That said, Badmotorfinger was the last Soundgarden album I really liked start to finish. I thought the ones after just had some good songs.

I have to emphasize how good Chris Cornell's solo album is. I don't know who provided the instrumentals for him but I have to take that album over Soundgarden and Audioslave. His voice never overpowered the music and I wish he would have chosen to stay solo. Euphoria Morning goes from Folk to Hard Rock and it is solid from start to finish. I hope he drops the Rage-Rejects and returns to form.

I think its fair to say
Soundgarden was created out of the desire to be musicians and make music.

I think Audioslave was created to sell records.

That would mean Soundgarden wins, every time

I don't think. AudioSlave was formed to sell records at all, how about to make absolutly killer evolved 90's rock music. They rawk harder than almost all current bands...and yes you can measure that. Not to knock Soundgarden at all...
Take 1. Queens of the Stone Age <QOTSA>
OR Stone Temple Pilots <STP>

Reviving the topic to discuss Audioslave's new album Revelations. I tend to look at Audioslave as a bit of guilty pleasure, and I went out and bought the record this week.

Anyway, I like it. It's got a little more funk to it, but mainly the songs are better than those on Out of Exile(though that album has its high points). Anyone else?

Even though I like Soundgarden a lot and they have a big legacy behind them, Audioslave will probably surpass them with time since it's a broken up band versus a current one. I didn't like Audioslave at first, but they're growing on me.

By the way, if you like Audioslave and they ever come to your town, they're a great live band. Chris Cornell really knows how to get the crowd pumped up.

Soundgarden has a legacy in place already. While Audioslave are still, for the most part finding their own sound right now.

So Soundgarden are at this stage a greater band. But time will tell on Audioslave.

I think its become clear however that Cornell has now all but completely taken control of Audioslave. While on the first album it seems like a collaberation, now they really do sound like a bunch of guys backing Chris Cornell. So for Rage fans, that must suck, but for me its great. Cornell is a great song writer as well as one of the greatest vocallists of all time for mine.

I wasn't blown away by the last two slave albums. But there is great stuff on each of them. "#1 Zero" being my favorite track of theirs. I think the "sell out" crowd really needs to stop paying attention to the pop leaning single or two and listen to the albums, where the real gems ly.

I love this quote:

quote:

It's like asking,"Who's better, The Beatles or Wings?"

honestly? Soundgarden is clearly the choice here.

and from an above post...you honestly think its unfair to compare Nirvana to Foo Fighters, or Velvet Revolver to STP...these bands are not that far apart.

If you can't compare those, then what can you compare?

Soundgarden wins. However I dont mind the Audioslave. I just cant wait for the Soundgarden reunion tour. You know it'll happen...what the hell is Kim Thyall up to these days? That guy rocked.

quote:

Originally posted by sbarr2:
i personally love both. But soungarden always sound more polished and intense. Anyone who knows anything about the mechanics of music would by now have realised that all audioslave songs are in 4/4 time. This doesnt take away from the songs, it just places them on an unmoving plateau. Soundgarden explored different times in their songs. Classic examples are Fell on Black Days which switches between 4/4 and 2/4 and Limo Wreck in 6/8. Limo Wreck is my personal favourite.

Well, one could say that Fell On Black Days actually goes in 6/8. Spoonman in 7/8 partly, Head Down in 4/4 and 3/4 alternatly. The Day I Tried To Live in 7/8 and 4/4 alternatively. Quite cool.

I have not listened to Audislave though, so I can't compare.