Who is the Greatest of the Big Four of Thrash Metal?
 

Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, or Anthrax.

Metallica has some the most complex music of the four (and most commercially succesful). Many of their songs are consider top contenders for greatest metal songs of all time. However many feel that Metallica sold out for profit with the Black Album and even more so with "Load" and "Reload". And worse yet they were accused of losing touch with the fans completely with "St. Anger". But "Death Magnetic" has been hailed as the "Great Comeback Album" for Metallica.

Megadeth has one of the most unique sounds of the four, both with vocals and instrumentation. They like Metallica stayed thrash for several albums but then diverge to a more radio freindly old school heavy metal sound which included the much disliked album "Risk", they too eventually floated back to their Thrash roots first with "The World Needs a Hero" continueing onward into "Endgame" which is their most recent album.

Slayer is noted for three things above all others. One, they are the fastest of the big four. Two, they parted ways thrash less than the other three.ANd finally the perceived Satanism stand. (which is not true, they are not satanists,) They are also noted for their controvesial lyrics about serial killers and nazis. However one things stands out that can't be argued with, while megadeth and metallica sometimes gets close, the other three can not beat the blistering speed of Slayer. "Reign in Blood" is considered by many to be the greatest of all thrash metal albums (which i personally agree). However Slayer has been accused by some music critics of having a limited range of musical expression and unable to succesfully create a different sound other than the dark Thrash metal.

Finally Anthrax, my least favorite of them. Anthrax is a good band, however they are the least succesful of the four. I haven't as much to say because i don't know as much cause i'm not as big of a fan. However Anthrax is the only one of the "big four" to change lead vocalist, they are also noted for their foray in "Rap Metal". They do have a very unique sound that has contributed to their success over the years and even though not being a fan i'm glad to know that the band did not break up as it was orginally suggested that they would. To lose on of the Big Four would be a terrible loss in the music industry.

Pretty much this about what you think. I tried my best to express what each band was about and what stands out. Ultimately you be the judge. Who is best, Metallica? Megadeth? Slayer? Anthrax?

Here is my list. 1. Metallica 2. Slayer (only just barely do i prefer Metallica over slayer and only because of the beauty that is in some of Metallica's songs) 3. Megadeth 4. Anthrax.

Megadeth all the way. They didn't sell out hard like Metallica and didn't plagiarize their music.

Exodus is the Grand Pappy of them all, but I'm going to go with Anthrax purely for the sake of Scotty Ian's rhythm guitar work. There's never been anything like his style in the history of metal.

i'd put Megadeth tops with Metallica close behind. Metallica might have been more stylistically varied but they lost some of their edge with their experimentation. Death Magnetic is almost overcompensating. on the other hand, rather than branch off into other styles Mustaine found ways to force the other styles into his metal.

Slayer and Anthrax is another kind of toss up. there's no denying Slayer is quite possibly THE metal band of metal bands, but aside from Dave Lombardo they're kind of boring, it's just too much of the same kind of intensity, as such i'd rather listen to Anthrax. i saw Slayer in concert recently and was actually yawning for most of their set (conversely i was screaming along to Megadeth minutes prior...) plus the costumes the guitar players have been wearing for years are getting effing retarded. what the hell is Jeff Hanneman supposed to be? football jersey and catcher's shin pads... since when is random surplus sporting goods metal?

having said that i'd watch Lombardo drum all day any day. the end of Raining Blood was like winding up a clockwork demon or something. mind blowing.

Well, if I had to do an equality it'd look a bit like this:

Slayer > Megadeth >> Metallica > Anthrax

Wow i'm glad to see someone prefers anthrax (once again not my fav of the four) but when i put this on facebook they were the only band that didn't get picked, i was starting to feel bad for them you know. And Mr. Dave, you descibe to a T what the exact critsim of Slayer is.

Metallica- Certainly follow in the line of Sabbath and Maiden as being one the most famous metal groups of all time. To a degree its warranted as their material pre the Black Album was pretty groundbreaking for a metal band, and they went into areas that other metal bands just wouldn`t or couldn`t go to. I also feel that their forays into a commercial sound, dabbling with blues rock influences and experiementing with nu-metal were pretty succesful, making them without doubt the most talented and diverse of the four. For the record I love "Load" and think "St.Anger" is a decent album.

Megadeth- I`d take Mustaine any day over Hetfield as a front-man and their manic sound on those early albums is the stuff of legend. The line ups of Mustaine, Ellefson, Poland & Samuelson or Mustaine, Ellefson, Friedmann & Menza are what its all about!!! The speed and musical ability at times was breathaking, making them for me the best band of the early phase. Sadly though, it was all downhill after "Youthanasia" which actually started the switch to more traditional metal and the truth is they just couldn`t do it. From this period, most of the material is crap to say the least, in fact it took them 10 years to release another great album "The System Has Failed" 2004.

Slayer-Never going too far away from their roots and sticking with what they know best (some people have criticized them for that on here) Slayer are all about intensity, take that away and you lose the essence of the band. They have actually tried to be more diverse on a couple of albums over the years as well. "South of Heaven" saw them slow things down a bit and they were heavily criticized for it, again its an album I love. "Diabolus in Musica" with its Nu-Metal influences was a no no and showed they should stick with what they know best.....intense head pounding metal.

Anthrax- Gimmicky and laying down the basis for the nu-metal movement with their crossover thrash styles a la Suicidal Tendencies. Without doubt the weakest of the four and only ever released one great album "Among the Living" Anyway, how can you take a group that sings about characters like Judge Dredd seriously? Then there is the John Bush era of the band that brought a grungier feel to the band. Admittedly he breathed some new life into them but from there on it was all downhill again.

In terms of who I sooner listen to well it would go as follows, which also indicates who I think are best:

Slayer> Megadeth> Metallica> Anthrax

Both Uknown Soldier and Mr. Dave summarize quite well my own thoughts regarding the 4 big. Anthrax I was never that much into. Metallica I like, but I grew somewhat tired of them years ago. They don't have that much replay-value, I think. Slayer are boring ;) I want my metal with a bit of aesthetics and the full-on intensity approach gets old real quick for me. So;

Megadeth > Metallica > Slayer > Anthrax

Megadeth is without a doubt my favourite of the four. Dave Mustaine is a real interesting character in metal and, although there are plenty of negative things you could say about him, I have a real soft spot for the guy. Plus, he's a genius when it comes to music in more ways than one.





He seems like a really nice guy when he's not angry ;) Also, while Risk may have been a bit of a sellout, I think they're well back in shape. Sleepwalker f.ex from United Abominations (2007) is brilliant! So much more interesting to listen to than what Slayer and Metallica currently do, I think.



Of course the lyrics are ridiculous, but that's also fine :D

I think Metallica is by far the best of the four; their songs vary a lot more than any of the other three bands'. Metallica can pull off power ballads as well as thrash metal anthems, whereas the other three can only do the latter. This was made pretty clear in the Big Four concert broadcast.

Nothing like a good ballad to pull in the masses.

I can definitely see them being at the bottom of anyone's list for the sake of there lackluster career. I actually think that Spreading the Disease was actually a great album as well, but to call them gimmicky is too much. Their crossover, heavily punk-influenced style definitely reflected their influences (they're the only band out of the four not from California, and their sound is definitely very reflective of the New York punk sound that preceded them). But what was their gimmick, the fact that they actually had a distinct sound and didn't wear out the same tired metal cliches that everyone else did? To call them the forerunners of nu-metal is a pretty heinous statement, although I can see where you arrived at that. I mean they did cover the Public Enemy songBring the Noise, but they also covered Joe Jackson's Got the Time. How Brilliant is that?

Anthrax was a band that wasn't afraid to wear their unconventional influences on their sleeves. I think a song about a comic book character trumps ten songs about death and every other evil, morbid cliche made available on a slayer album. I honestly believe that Scotty Ian was the greatest heavy metal guitar player, simply because he devoted himself to churning out riffs that were just amazing in their off kilter timing and pure 'beefiness'. They certainly defied the conventional 'chugging' that everyone else was doing at the time, and is still doing in a much more extreme manner.

To throw them at the bottom of the list is understandable.The other bands on the list definitely have had more consistent and higher quality output over the span of their careers, or in the case with Metallica the first half of their career, but to call them gimmicky and the forerunners of new metal. That's crazy.

Oh, and I think John Bush era Anthrax was terrible. I got a chance to see him with Armored Saint and it was one of the the best metal shows I've ever seen.

Spreading the disease was a good album but not an album to call essential thrash. They may have brought New York influences into their sound which made them kind of unique but the clothing, comic book heroes and a Joey Belladonna as a singer were all gimmicky: The first two display the groups personal tastes, whereas Belladonna who was a great vocalist certainly sounded like a fish out of water with Anthrax.

As for forerunners to the Nu-Metal movement, I think it holds as much credibility as saying Iggy and the Stooges were forerunners to the punk movement.

I'm not into trash metal, but if I have to choose one I'd say Metallica.

ok maybe I should have said metal anthem instead of thrash metal anthem. "A Tout le Monde" isn't really thrash but it's still a metal anthem and not the kind of softer stuff Metallica does really well in "Nothing Else Matters" and parts of "One," "The Unforgiven," and "Fade to Black." Metallica has more versatility than the other bands because of this and I think that makes them better. However, Metallica are way bigger sell-outs than any of the other three bands, and the softer, more radio-friendly songs are a part of that.

But I'm pretty biased when it comes to judging these bands because I'm not actually into thrash metal. I went to the Big Four broadcast with a friend who was really into Megadeth and that was the only time I listened to thrash metal for more than 30 minutes at a time.

^Well, Megadeth have a lot of slower and more listener friendly songs besides the "regular" thrash metal sonic attacks. Tout Le Monde was just an example, Foreclosure of a Dream could be another.



To think less of them because they don't slow down quite as much as Metallica seems more than a bit ridiculous to me. And, by the way, Metallica's ballads is not really my beef with them. Slower songs on Black album like The Unforgiven are brilliant imo. It's when they do stuff like St. Anger that I start to lose a little respect. Anyways, I think Megadeth's thrash metal songs are more interesting than Metallica's, but if that's not a part of the music that you listen to and appreciate with any of the big four, then your opinion may not have much relevance to anyone else partaking in this discussion.

Just because a band puts out softer stuff, it doesn`t make them more versatile and as said it just makes them more radio friendly and appeal to a wider audience. Hair metal acts got in on this idea before Metallica started doing it. Metallica were more versatile due to prog dabblings on "...And Justice For All" blues rock on "Load" and "Reload" and Nu-Metal on "St.Anger"

When Megadeth started getting more versatile they came out with songs like "Use the Man" from "Cryptic Writings" which featured a sampling of an old Searchers songs and it was just plain embarrasing. The "Risk" album as the name suggested, was probably the groups attempt at being really versatile and again the whole thing was a shambles.

Slayer no such nonsense, no compromise or very little, which is why I love them so much.

on a side note, isn't yelling "SLAAAYYYERRR!!" fun

Especially when Tom Araya does it.

If I were to rank these bands according to my personal preference for each band's music it would be:

Megadeth > Slayer > Metallica > Anthrax

If I was doing this based on who I think better defines what it means to be a thrash band it would be:

Slayer >> Megadeth > Anthrax > Metallica

Slayer for me they're just so heavy.

No matter what it seems that Anthrax gets left in the back most of the time. unfortanly i agree with that, however i don't agree that one person suggested that Metallica is weaker than Anthrax in its thrash sound. I mean really, the first succesful thrash band with masterpeice thrash albums such as master of puppets is the least of them all? not likely

when does he do that? I gotta see that.

Never seen him do it, but its just the kind of thing I can imagine him doing.

It doesn't matter who's the best of the 'big 4' is because as soon as we got to the 90s they were all superseded by Voivod.

Metallica are still my favourite of the big four. Their first four albums are, for me, better than anything any of the bands have put out with a little room made for Reign in Blood and Rust in Peace.

However i think Megadeth are the best of them now. They have made some mediocre records themselves but have managed to turn it around with a great comeback over the last few years.

Where I would place Slayer and Anthrax could change on any given day. I don't really prefer one to the other. For every album either band has ever released (there may be a few i'm missing, to be fair) bar one, there isn't much to seperate the two in my opinion. But Reign in Blood gives Slayer the edge i think.

Over all I would say Metallica > Megadeth > Slayer > Anthrax.

But in the present day I would say Megadeth > Metallica > Slayer > Anthrax.

Megadeth > Slayer >>>>>>>>> Metallica > Anthrax

Added a poll to the thread. Hope you don't mind, sixshooter :)

Interesting. I see the two as very, very different. Anthrax is not nearly as dark as Slayer for one thing, actually not dark at all IMO. And there's such a difference in style, definitely an east coast versus west coast aesthetic thing, with Anthrax having been influenced more by Hardcore and Hip-Hop. Hell there's even an ethnic difference between the two that I think informs the music to a certain extent.

I would agree with that. I meant that there wasn't much to seperate them more in my opinion of them rather than similarity musicallly.

Yeah, Slayer's only half Italian :laughing:

I think Slayer is 0% Italian actually. Tom Araya is Chilean and Kerry and King don't strike me as very Italian-sounding names. :p: Dave Lombardo is Cuban and I do seriously think that has a noticeable influence on his style of drumming. As far as Anthrax goes, I mean can you imagine anyone but a bunch of New York Italians playing that music? It funny, but it's also kind of true.

Ah. I see. Still, I think there's a huge difference in quality as well. The best Anthrax has to offer can't even touch Slayer's best.

*sigh* Fine.

But, yeah, Anthrax is about as Italian American as metal can get.

Oh...wait:

http://buzzytimes.com/wp-content/upl...-James-Dio.jpg

I see that and raise you this:

http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/r...enn_Danzig.jpg

No mas, No mas!

Slayer:ar_15s:

i cant really just choose one.

metallica has always been one of my favorite bands, kill em all through master of puppets was pure musical genius...and justice for all was damn good, but not as much so as the previous. then came the black album and theyve lost my respect since then.

megadeth is a great band, i dont own a lot of their music, but i do own rust in peace, and that album is incredible. the solos are so long and technical, yet beautiful in that "thrashy solo" kind of way. i think that in a way dave mustaine did manage to outdo metallica in terms of technicality and especially in the fact that hes not a pussy sellout.

i love slayers' earlier work, but like megadeth, sadly i dont own much of their stuff. show no mercy however is probably my top "oldschool thrash" album of all time. great stuff.

then anthrax. honestly, i like anthrax, but i never felt that they deserved to be included in with these other three amazing bands, they always sorta lacked that musical edge and technicality that made the other bands what they were and the whole "rap metal" thing pretty much destroys any chance of respect. that said, among the living was a great album nonetheless.

For me, Megadeth is the greatest of the four and Rust in Peace is the ultimate thrash album.

But none of the four ever released anything as fun-filled as Exodus' Bonded in Blood.

Slayer's the most metal, but Metallica has been through the most, and they're better people.