I liked that. What I recall from the Napster thing was how few bands cared. They weren't getting much because they didn't have good contract.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Megadeth or Metallica?
- Thread starter Zitch
- Start date
I liked that. What I recall from the Napster thing was how few bands cared. They weren't getting much because they didn't have good contract.
Both bands have their positives and negatives, but I have to say that I'm surprised that Megadeth's number is that high. They are a good band, but they aren't Metallica. Ride the Lightening and Master of Puppets are pure genius from start to finish, where as I never got the same every-track-is-great feeling from Megadeth. Plus, I've never liked Mustaine's voice; he's a great player, pretty descent song writer, but just not a singer.
I'm adding another comment here.
Let's not forget THE TIMES when both of them broke out. Thrash was an emerging genre, and very few of the bands of the day were really putting together whole records that were worthy of listening to from beginning to end. I can't even listen to a single Led Zeppelin record from beginning to end, but you'll never hear me deny their place in R'n'R history. Born and raised in the Midwest, where radio basically ignored the genre, finding the good early thrash was a crap-shoot. We were limited to word-of-mouth, record store selection, and album covers to choose what we heard. There were, what, maybe 5 bands to choose from? If you were lucky, there was a good indie record store around that would take a chance stocking this stuff, and most of it was buried in (IMO) piles of un-listenable punk. Metallica was one of the first of the genre to find their way to a major label. Even the "big" metal artists of the day had one or two songs on EVERY record that was obviously made for radio; slow, boring, or even love songs. Metallica and Megadeth had neither (until later). I still say BOTH deserve the places they hold in the grand scheme of R'n'R history, and having an "either/or" view of them sort of cheapens the experience. Of course by the early 90's there was way better metal than either group had to offer, but don't diminish what they did for the genre. Try this: find all of your favorite thrash or heavier metal. Then remove anything that came out before 1987. How much is left that hits as hard as either band's first 3. I'd bet there isn't much left that you could listen to (and enjoy) the whole record.
IMO, YMMV.
Let's not forget THE TIMES when both of them broke out. Thrash was an emerging genre, and very few of the bands of the day were really putting together whole records that were worthy of listening to from beginning to end. I can't even listen to a single Led Zeppelin record from beginning to end, but you'll never hear me deny their place in R'n'R history. Born and raised in the Midwest, where radio basically ignored the genre, finding the good early thrash was a crap-shoot. We were limited to word-of-mouth, record store selection, and album covers to choose what we heard. There were, what, maybe 5 bands to choose from? If you were lucky, there was a good indie record store around that would take a chance stocking this stuff, and most of it was buried in (IMO) piles of un-listenable punk. Metallica was one of the first of the genre to find their way to a major label. Even the "big" metal artists of the day had one or two songs on EVERY record that was obviously made for radio; slow, boring, or even love songs. Metallica and Megadeth had neither (until later). I still say BOTH deserve the places they hold in the grand scheme of R'n'R history, and having an "either/or" view of them sort of cheapens the experience. Of course by the early 90's there was way better metal than either group had to offer, but don't diminish what they did for the genre. Try this: find all of your favorite thrash or heavier metal. Then remove anything that came out before 1987. How much is left that hits as hard as either band's first 3. I'd bet there isn't much left that you could listen to (and enjoy) the whole record.
IMO, YMMV.
Yeah, its just a matter of how you interpret the question.But It's not the same 4 guys who made that first 3 albums, that's why I wote Megadeth. (Jason's ok though, she's a thrash metal genious who unfortunately got stuck in Metallica for too long.)
My all time favorite album is Master of Puppets, still I'd go see Megadeth rather than giving money to that scumbag Lars Ulrich.
On a side note:
There's also the fact that if given the choice, I'd still choose to share a beer with any of the guys from Metallica than Dave Mustaine. Even Lars.
Another reason I hold Metallica in higher esteem is how they transcended just being a thrash band. Now don't get me wrong, I love me some nice primal raw thrash, but Metallica went deeper than that, especially with their instrumental tracks. Megadeth just kinda stuck with it, which isn't a bad thing, but I think it gave Metallica a more versatile edge over your typical thrash band. It wasn't angry snarling and f*** the world all the time. Did Megadeth have a Fade to Black or Orion? No. It just really impresses me how quickly they evolved in just 3 albums, and were pushing boundaries that had hardly even been set yet.
Last edited:
Good songwriting died in Metallica with Cliff's passing. That's not to say Metallica ceased to write any decent songs, but they all took a huge step backward in musicality. Megadeth's music continued to have great moments in musicality, even after they began to take a dive after Youthanasia.
This is basically how I feel as well.
I love both bands but Megadeth edges out for better instrumental prowess. They've got some great songs as well. Rust in Peace gets such high marks because it nails both aspects very well. Metallica does some really awesome stuff (Hetfield's right hand is a masterpiece if you're into rhythm guitar playing) but their bread n' butter IMO is their songwriting. I still think all their post Load stuff sucks though
Neither. As others have said, both bands haven't been very relevant for twenty something years. (although back then, I'd say Metallica)
I vote Exodus.
I vote Exodus.
Last edited:
I totally agree with you. Orion is my all time favorite song.
I see Load and Reload as growing up rather than selling out and enjoy them as so.
I'm sure Metallica saved my life at some point, but Lars? I dispise him, and the way they treated Jason is just wrong.
Also I've seen their playlist for their next concert here.
Tuesday's gone? What were they thinking, if they were at all...
I'd rather listen to some Tornado rather than Tuesday's if I'm paying good money with my limited income, that's all.
Anyone crapping on Hetfield's vocals today obviously haven't paid attention to what Mustaine is doing live these past few years.
We didn't really need a thread about this. All you have to do is go to any Megadeth video on Youtube & this very debate will be taking place. Every single time.
this is the most disappointing poll ive seen on TB.
its odd to see that a forum full of bass players prefers the worst recorded drummer ever over one of heaviest bass players alive
its odd to see that a forum full of bass players prefers the worst recorded drummer ever over one of heaviest bass players alive
It's not their fault. Doubling the guitar riff & being lost in the mix has a funny way of alienating them.
Oh c'mon. Lars Ulrich sucks nowadays and it's not just his lack of ability but his attitude that it is beneath him to actually practice...however, you can't deny his influence by his recorded work in the 80's, especially Justice.
His playing on that, to a LOT of people, was drastically different than what they were used to hearing. His fills and use of double bass in odd places was HIGHLY influential, and he was GOOD at it then. Were there "better" drummers? Absolutely. Were there faster? Crazier? Tastier? Sure. To all of those...but to state that Lar's RECORDINGS were the "worst" is being ignorant. His recordings back then were AMAZINGLY influential...if not for the playing alone, but also for his DRUM SOUND. I remember EVERY band back then wanting those clicky bass drums like on Justice. People forget how Lars started alot of that craze. Even Anthrax on Persistence of Time tried to get progressive after Justice came out. Pantera had those clicky bass drums years later; bands releasing albums right after Justice started focusing on the drums more...all because of Lars. You can't take that away from him.
That being said, he's a complete douche and not even a corn kernal in poop of his former self...and the sad part is that he doesn't CARE that he sucks now. He embraces it.
Regarding Dave Ellefson, sure he's put on some pounds since the 80's, but he's far from the heaviest bass player. That goes to this guy:
