Rage Against The Machine Vs Audioslave

admin

February 19th, 2009 at 6:53 am -

Ok, I know these are essentially the same bands with different singers. But, Rage was more “metal” whereas Audioslave had more melodic songs to it’s credit. While I was a fan of Chris Cornell while he was in SoundGarden and Audioslave, his apparent fear of performing and wanting of a solo career has always caused strife in the bands that he sings in.

While I really, really like Audioslave, nothing beats “Killing in the Name” or my personal favorite “Know Your Enemy”.

RAGE for the win.

Rate This Post:

8 Comments

Matapiojo
February 19, 2009
#1

RAtM

No doubt about it.

They are simply more intense. Audioslave was a good experiment, but that is NOT what these guys are meant to play. Their best stuff is the one that gets you worked up enough so that you go and RAGE.

Im glad Cornel and the crew split ways. Now if only RAtM decides to get back to songwritting….
=[BF]=JimmieRox
February 19, 2009
#2

RAGE! They are amazing, was so p’d off I missed Leeds festival for no better reason than lack of funds!
Matapiojo
February 20, 2009
#3

BTW, I completely agree with admin on “Know Your Enemy”. That song owns!
Baron Somebody
February 20, 2009
#4

Actually Sleep Now In The Fire was cooler, but that’s just me
The One Sin
February 20, 2009
#5

I think the question here is who do we like more: Zack de la Rocha or Chris Cornell?
Matapiojo
February 25, 2009
#6

Zack, no question about it. He is much more passionate. Chris just SHOWS that he tries too much to fit this persona of cool, collected, and mysterious.

Irritating really.
The One Sin
February 26, 2009
#7

What ever happened to zack anyway? he just fell of the face of the planet. You don’t hear about him……ever now.
Space marine
March 7, 2009
#8

I actually find Guns and Roses to be better then Rage…