Metallica and Megadeth
 

I love both bands who think they should do a tour together?
Does anyone know the relationship between the mustaine Dave and Metallica?

metallica-vs-megadeth

http://www.musicbanter.com/rock-meta...-megadeth.html

..or if you prefer:

http://www.musicbanter.com/rock-meta...th-thread.html

Nice :clap:

Some of my best work.

They both ****ing suck.

You listen to symphonic black metal. Your opinion is irrelevant.

I'd like to know who "the mustaine Dave" is.... :confused:

Not Metallica.

Yeah I'm sure both bands are just chomping at the bit to spend extended periods of time around each other. I'd love to see it TBH. Regardless of whether or not I saw the show, I just want to see the eventual cell cam footage of Dave Mustaine sitting on top of Lars Ulrich and repeatedly slamming his head against the ground.

Metallica vs Megadeth: this time it's personal!
Billed as the Rust in Anger tour? Alright, I'm going, I'm going...

I'm pretty sure it was always personal.

I bet if we all told Lars we would pay to see that, he'd make it happen.

Metallica as a whole is far better based on the strength of their first 3 to 5 albums.

Mustaine contributed to Kill Em All, which is probably why it is in part so righteous, and Peace Sells Whose Buying is a landmark album, but he engaged into to many odd tempo beats and off time sign signatures for my liking.

A lot of people love Rust In Peace, but I find it to be a boring piece of progressive thrash metal, which for me marked the decline of the genre.

You know, I listened to their fifth album for a review about a week or so ago, and I hadn't listened to it in forever. I wasn't entirely satisfied with my review, so I made a companion piece. I was quite pleased with it.

lol, Yes well, on the strength of Enter Sandman I'll give it a pass. The first three, than maybe 4 & 5, but after that....uhm

:rofl:

Rust In Peace is only boring when Marty Friedman is playing a 5-hour neoclassical solo. When Mustaine is leading the charge in "Holy Wars" or melting faces with "Hangar 18" or the solo at the end of "Five Magics," the album is anything but boring.

Laugh all you want, it one of their most iconic singles that's still played continually as an encore during their live shows.

I wouldn't choose it over anything off their first three albums, but as far as radio rock goes, it did the trick.

Hmmm, well I've tried really hard to get into the album several times, but I'll give it another go.

For me personally, a genre often goes into decline when things get too progressive & technical. (Ie punk to post hardcore)

"The Unforgiven" is the only song on that album that doesn't make me either yawn or punch a wall. I thought that after probably the better part of a decade of not hearing "Enter Sandman" ever five minutes on the radio I would like it again. I did not. It is boring as all ****, and once you've become desensitized to its catchiness there is absolutely nothing entertaining about it.

No, it's just boring.

The popularity of the track means nothing as far as its quality. If you really go by that logic, I assume you love Taylor Swift's 1989? It's the top selling album of the year so far, can't argue with that.

There is no beef between the bands anymore and they should tour together that would be a cool bill

Metallica
Megadeth
Down

I would go to that for sure

I think that a better bill would be Metallica, Megadeth, and Toby Keith.

As a genre, I believe that metal has to continue to have some measure of commercial success, otherwise it will simply fade into being a small niche market for extreme metal fans.

Metallica provided a good rock radio hit at the time.

What does mainstream success contribute to metal? The internet's democratization of music has done far more to make underground metal a viable career choice than anything Metallica ever did in the nineties.

Well that's all fine and dandy but bands that are signed to majors typically have longer shelf lives, and metal was pretty much dead with teenagers in North America, until metalcore rolled in.

You make less as an underground band now than you did back than because your income source primarily comes from live shows, music these days is pretty much downloaded for free, so record sales mean squat. You tour and tour until you start to get rampant tinnitus and burn out. So much for the metal underground.

And those metal bands by and large suck ass and have no credibility to the metal community at large.

As opposed to the one cent on the dollar bands used to make off of their god forsaken record deals? I assume bands lived off money from touring just as much then as they do now.

No actually you could pull in relatively good money from record sales, particularly when you were on the road, via merchandise sales, and many indie labels didn't run on the 1 dollar cut.

The free downloading of music has really knocked the floor under artists. Why bother logging into iTunes and paying a $1 per song when it's easier to log into soulseek and get it for free. I personally don't know anyone that pays for music anymore

And yet metal bands seem to have longer careers these days, since there's a much bigger audience than there ever was before the internet. I remember an interview with Carcass where they commented on how crazy it was just how bigger of a media presence there was covering them when they reunited than back in their heyday. Metal is simply a bigger business now, because the internet has given bands who would have never had a shot at recognition have a chance to get heard without having to sell their souls for halfway decent distribution.

Tried finding that Carcass interview, but couldn't, but I did find another one where Bill Steer kind of backs up what I said...

INTERVIEW: Bill Steer of Carcass

Well when you find a modern metal band that can pack stadiums like Metallica and Iron Maiden did due to the democratization of music let me know.

Last I heard bands like Death Angel go on our tour when they can get enough time off from their construction jobs.

Two bands who got famous when metal was still a creatively dynamic genre. If a tiny percentage of the bands you're talking about got famous, it's probably because they were doing something new in a genre that was still new, as opposed to retreading old ground or experimenting with sounds that nobody listening to the radio would ever have any interest in.

And I'm pretty sure Death Angel were probably working construction and pumping gas back in the eighties too. I highly doubt any small amount of extra money they may have gotten from album sales would have kept them from having to work jobs when they got back from tour, just like 99% of their peers.

And what does Metallica and Iron Maiden selling out arenas have to do with album sales? They'd be doing so (and still do) with or without them.

Of course there still selling out arenas because they had the support of the majors when the record companies were at their peak financially.

But today that support network is gone and it's not the pop stars that have felt the brunt but the alternative bands who no longer get signed because the majors can't afford the loss anymore.

I guarantee you Portishead, Massive Attack and Tricky all made better money in the 90's than they do today. Record companies can't afford the risk on bands like that anymore.

As for Death Angel, I'm sure they did okay back in the day. Afterall Henry Rollins, Danzig and the guys from Rancid all singed to majors and they're millionaires.

Are you trying to enjoy music or make a profit off of it?

I think you have a rather skewed view of things...

http://www.metalsucks.net/wp-content...411qfarq5.jpeg

Neither, heavy metal has always been a commercial endeavor from Sabbath to Maiden to Slayer and on.

When you were signed to the majors at their peak you got a significant amount of support, advanced money for touring and the best recording studios and producers in the nation to put out a historic album

Here's case in point

Metallica - Master of Puppets
Slayer - Reign in Blood
Megadeth - Peace Sells

All three classic metal albums that people still talk about to this day, and most likely will for decades to come.

Discharge - Hear nothing, See Nothing, Say Nothing
The Exploited- Troops of Tomorrow
G.B.H. - City Baby Attacked by Rats

All three classic British hardcore punk albums that influenced the above, on small indie labels, all pretty much forgotten relics of the past with poor production quality.

If you want metal to be the former than it has to garner enough interest by the major record companies to take a risk. Those bands get the funding and support to make a good record.

If you want the latter than go for the democratization of music, and you can watch metal die as a niche market for $hitty pagan metal bands over in Europe.

I have different expectations for metal than I do punk. Punk is dead and I really couldn't give a f)ck!. Metal on the other hand (until black metal) always demanded quality musicianship.

I don't want metal to be regulated to some backwater musical genre for fans of gore movies. I want it to rule the fu(kin world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think I'll stick to ranking bands higher on a scale of how much I enjoy their music as opposed to some guideline that I should like bands that more people prefer. This is mostly because music happens to be subjective, interestingly enough.

Three albums from a very short period of time when a single metal genre was commercially viable, at a time when gateway bands like Motley Crue and Iron Maiden were also popular enough to allow bands which would have otherwise been ignored to have some kind of success.

That time period ended with grunge, and barring another brief moment when people thought death metal was a novel concept, there hasn't been a time since when the public cared about any metal worth caring about.


People who don't care about metal do not talk about these albums because they are thirty-years-old. People who do talk about Bonded by Blood, Pleasure to Kill, and Speak English or Die about as much.

I have a tiger-deterring rock. The proof is that there are no tigers in my general vicinity.

Metal has always been a niche market because there are only so many people willing to listen to it. If there are brief periods where it pokes its head above ground, they are just that. Brief. There's a reason why Slayer is the only band you first mentioned who don't have a platinum album: because there are far fewer people who are willing to listen to Reign in Blood, and yet it is respected just as much, if not more than Peace Sells and Master of Puppets.

I do not want metal on major labels if it means my favorite bands have to release **** records like The Black Album instead of awesome records like Reign in Blood. The nature of underground metal means that it can only be so "true to its roots" before it has to "shape up or ship out" in order to sell, and if you think that "educating" the public on how to listen to metal with watered down crap is going to bring them over to our way of thinking for longer than six months then you're kidding yourself.

Death Angel was on the right course and doing all right after being signed but that bus wreck where Andy Galeon was severely injured in 1990 pretty much put an end to that.

The popularity of musical genres in general run a short time span. Yes the high mark of metal was definitely in the 80'a but nu metal & metalcore on the have been fairly successful genres.


People still talk about those albums because they are endearing classics that have stood the test of time, the same way AC/DC's Back n Black, Black Sabbath's Paranoid, and every other notable hard rock and metal album.

And the one thing they all have in common, is they were all signed to major labels. Heavy metal isn't a genre riddled with socialists who wanted to preach politics like punk. It was made by guys who wanted the rich rock n roll lifestyle so long as they didn't have to sell out.

There are no classic metal albums on indie labels that can rival the big names. Your not going to hear people rave a about the latest Windir album 20 years from now. "Hey! did you check out that awesome riff on the classic Windir album? "Ya I heard it was made in some guys basement in Finland,"

Metal has always been a niche market because there are only so many people willing to listen to it. If there are brief periods where it pokes its head above ground, they are just that. Brief. There's a reason why Slayer is the only band you first mentioned who don't have a platinum album: because there are far fewer people who are willing to listen to Reign in Blood, and yet it is respected just as much, if not more than Peace Sells and Master of Puppets.

I do not want metal on major labels if it means my favorite bands have to release **** records like The Black Album instead of awesome records like Reign in Blood. The nature of underground metal means that it can only be so "true to its roots" before it has to "shape up or ship out" in order to sell, and if you think that "educating" the public on how to listen to metal with watered down crap is going to bring them over to our way of thinking for longer than six months then you're kidding yourself.[/QUOTE]

Whether you like it or not Slayer was on a major label, as were every other notable thrash band during the 80's. Yes Slayer is respected because they didn't sell out their sound, but they still had the corporate backing of the major labels to front them money, put them on tour and try to make them as big as f'n possible. Just like Metallica, Maiden, Motorhead AC/DC ect.

You have to have some commercialization & mass marketing to make it appealing to enough teens, or it will simply die over time.