Audioslave
 

Their last album was realesed in what, may? And already they are working on a new CD, dang...I would at least give it 8 more months, but fuck.....what the hell do I know?

yeah, they're going old school like Led Zeppelin (as they recorded one of their earlier albums on the road), and, from what I've heard, they plan on recording the third one while they're on tour for the second one, so, then, they'll take a little break after the tour, then back on the road to support the third one...

Yeah, I remember reading a Cornell interview on that subject, about how these days, there is so much pressure to make money that there is way more time taken between CDs so as to ensure profit. He was liking the old days, when bands would just keep 'em coming, good or bad. From what I have heard of the new songs they played on the last tour, the third album sounds like a good one. I didn't like the second one as much as the first one, so I'm hoping I'll like the third one better.

Cool. Third album be something to look forward to :)

Hmm....alter bridge should do that.

I agree...

Well, then I might see them again in 2006/2007! :D At least I hope so!

Oh I think so, Yea.........that would be killer :smokin:

if you look at bands across the board, it really doesn't seem to make that much of a difference. today, 2 years is about standard. sure, back in the day, lots of bands put out a couple albums a year perhaps, but not all of them were excellent. sure, bands like the Stones and the Beatles come to mind, but there was prolly no dearth of average bands that came up with new material once or twice a year. today, it seems like there's some indie bands that try and go with this idea but, although some of them may be striving for a Zeppelin-feel inasmuch as they put out new stuff every 12 mos, I can't say I'm particularly fond of most of them. On the other hand, there's great bands like Boston that have put out, what, 4 or 5 albums in a good 30 years. sure, they might sound a little calculated, and they sold pretty well, but they're still solid.

i know exactly what you're saying... i thought perhaps i was one of the only ones who actually preferred their debut. most reviews i read were saying how it's obvious now that they've been together longer, and they play more as a group rather than Rage fronted by Cornell, but to be quite honest, I kind of got sick of most of the songs (all but one or 2) on OoE after only a handful of listens. On the s/t, however, I still listen to a lot more songs of that one, and I don't change the channel on the radio if I hear one of them come on (for Be Yourself and Doesn't Remind Me, I definitely do this)

Ahh man, Doesn't Remind Me is one of my favorites off the second album. That was my favorite when I first got the album. I agree with the above comments though that the s/t is much better than the second album. I like just about every song on the s/t album. I think I skip one or two songs and that's it.

I think Doesn't Remind Me is quite nice, 'cause it's different from the rest of their songs. But Audioslave to me is more like the first album! Or songs like: "Man Or Animal", "The Worm" and "You're Time Has Come", off the second album!

Have anyone got their DVD "Live In Cuba"? It's insane! :D Very good! Although, I prefer comming out to one of their shows! :)

Well, also back in the late 1960's all the way through the 70's and mid 80's studio time was expensive as hell and the reason why led zeppelin, pink floyd etc put out the albums they did was because when your manager is pyaing big bucks to have you record an album it only makes sense that the effort and thought prossess it put in. Today, with the conveinent advantage of the home studio bands today can and I think put out overwhealmingly medecre records because they don't have to pay for studio time. However, I do see somewhat of a paradox here. With all of these bands with home studios I think it would be much easier to put out nourmours albums a year. Thats just my view I could be wrong.

well, there are bands out there that take 2 to 3 years to put out an album and they're STILL mediocre, so, I dunno, I like the idea of quick turnaround on occasion. I would like to hear a "quick" album that's a little raw because, well, that's what the band sounds like...I mean, back to LZ for a moment, some of their songs sound much cleaner LIVE than they do on the album, anyway, so, yeah, with Audioslave, I think that is a good idea as well because their sound is so raw anyway, and Chris' vocals are so raw live that I think a "raw" album would represent them very well...and, as for AB, I would really love a "dirtier" sounding album for a change, which makes me wish that they would get someone like Bob Ezrin to produce the next one...

I think the reason bands these days tous instead of record is the album money for the most part goes to the record company... the touring money for the most part goes to the band...

That said, I yearn for the days of mroe than an album a year, instead of this "let's see just how long we can take before our fans start revolting" crap.