Metallica vs Megadeth

DragonQuest3 said:
Metallica sucks and Megadeth is OK. Honestly Kreator owns both their asses. Even at their weakest Kreator never made an album as god forsaken shitty as St anger and Lulu.

AO968 said:


Lulu isn't really a Metallica album, but more a Lou Reed one where Metallica is simply his support band. The band itself doesn't list it as part of their own discography, either, but as collaboration.

As for St. Anger, I personally like it, though it has a few issues (for one, some of the songs are too long and repetitive; second, no solos; third, Lars drumming on what sounds like trash cans). Still, for an album heralding their return to thrash, I think it's decent, especially given the history behind it.

Admittedly, I'm more a fan of the Teutonic thrash bands myself (especially Sodom), but I can appreciate both Metallica and Megadeth as well, so I don't really care all that much about the fanbases arguing back and forth over who's better.

DragonQuest3 said:
Metallica sucks and Megadeth is OK. Honestly Kreator owns both their asses. Even at their weakest Kreator never made an album as god forsaken shitty as St anger and Lulu.

PrimeX said:
Metallica has Enter Sandman so Metallica.

IntervisioN said:


As iconic of a song Enter Sandman is, it is by far the best Metallica song. Do you even Metallica?

LashLethal said:


:) My favourite Tallica song has to be One. Well it was One for ages.

DragonQuest3 said:
Silly things because he just doesn't like the Big Four and thinks it's a cool hipster trait to dislike them.

NTAD said:
Lol@Sandmanfan

No Remorse owns the shit out of Sandman and most of their other songs.

I'd say that Justice is still their most well-rounded album, though.

Cool story bro.

LashLethal said:


Ooooh yes. AJFA is poetry.

gizter13 said:


i just wanted to say i prefered Sodom over Kreator too.. Sodom is my all time favorite thrash band anyway, also the first one i listened too. there is this gig later this year where Sodom opens for Kreator. and its confusing to me, allways thought Sodom where more populair.
honestly only listen to Kreator for little over a year (did hear of them before that, but not that much to be honest), and Sodom for about 4 years now i think.

DragonQuest3 said:
Don't get pissed because someone doesn't kiss your favorite bands asses :D

NTAD said:
But....they're not my favorite bands? I mean I like them and all, but they aren't my favorite.

Favorite Band = Iced Earth
Favorite genre = Thrash
Favorite Thrash Band = Slayer

Second favorite Thrash band would probably be Evile whom I got turned onto a few years ago. They started as a Metallica cover band, but I like their sound much more. I shared them with Intervision recently and I think he'll agree that they are/were (currently on hiatus) quite good.

Anyway, I knew you didn't like Slayer either, or at least didn't like KK and now I see you hold Anthrax in the same regard.

I don't mind listening to someone's opinion when it comes to a genuine difference in taste. But you just spout off that popular bands are bad and the read I'm getting is that you just do it because you think it's cool to hate on popular bands...no big deal. A lot of people do it. But I still won't take you seriously.

IntervisioN said:
Hipster within a hipster.

NTAD said:
But....they're not my favorite bands? I mean I like them and all, but they aren't my favorite.

Favorite Band = Iced Earth
Favorite genre = Thrash
Favorite Thrash Band = Slayer

Second favorite Thrash band would probably be Evile whom I got turned onto a few years ago. They started as a Metallica cover band, but I like their sound much more. I shared them with Intervision recently and I think he'll agree that they are/were (currently on hiatus) quite good.

Anyway, I knew you didn't like Slayer either, or at least didn't like KK and now I see you hold Anthrax in the same regard.

I don't mind listening to someone's opinion when it comes to a genuine difference in taste. But you just spout off that popular bands are bad and the read I'm getting is that you just do it because you think it's cool to hate on popular bands...no big deal. A lot of people do it. But I still won't take you seriously.

DragonQuest3 said:
Assuming people are hipsters just because they don't like certain popular artists is utterly ignorant. I just don't care how popular or renowned an artist is if I think their music is crap I call it crap. A lot of my favorite bands are more cult bands but that's because i like a lot of styles that are not mainstream at all.

NTAD said:
Quell my assumption, then. Why are they bad? Just 'cause you say so? Like I said, you're just spewing bullshit. You're like "RIB was mediocre." You take what is revered as a masterful achievement by many and call it mediocre, but without saying why.

If you just don't like the style, say you don't like the fucking style. If you can't explain what about it made it mediocre, then shut the hell up.

DragonQuest3 said:
Obviously I like the style obviously but Metallica and Slayer are simply dull for the most part. Quit getting pissed over my opinion you ass I never said you couldn't like them but I don't like them and I don't see the issue with me saying I don't. What about RIB is so great? Why not listen to Darkness descends instead? Its got better riffs, its catchier, its more brutal, its got a better atmosphere, and is over all just more fun. No matter what me or anyone says I don't think I'm going to change your mind about Slayer and Metallica. What reasons can I give you other than they're boring and annoying? A large part of why these bands are so popular anyway is because of how well advertised they were.

NTAD said:
Except you DIDN'T say that earlier, genius. All you said was "RIB is mediocre" without any reasoning. Let me draw it in crayon for you:

You say: "I don't like Metallica because I think they're boring and annoying." That's fine. You don't like them because they don't cater to your taste. This makes sense and I can respect that.

You say: "RiB is mediocre." No explanation. That's like posting a review score for something and just leaving it at that with no elaboration as to why you gave it such a score. Nobody is going to give a fuck about what you say if you don't tell us why you think it was 'Yeh', 'meh' or 'bleh', especially if it gains otherwise positive reviews by a greater majority.

And their popularity has nothing to do with their musical talent, which is what we are discussing...or at least I am. Seems like you're just trying to redirect the convo.

IntervisioN said:


As iconic of a song Enter Sandman is, it is by far the best Metallica song. Do you even Metallica?

DragonQuest3 said:


No I'm not being a hipster. I like Megadeth and some of the other bands materials but overall none of them were that consistent or interesting. AJFA is boring as hell I have to quit every time I'm assaulted by that shitty chorus on shortest straw :/

UnoPuntoCinco said:
Fuck you all; Tool>>>Everything

DragonQuest3 said:
What reasons can I give you other than they're boring and annoying? A large part of why these bands are so popular anyway is because of how well advertised they were.

PrimeX said:
you do know that's subjective right?

Charles-Ingalls said:


A little late, but last night I wanted to ask what you mean by "consistent".
What I like about Megadeth and Metallica is their consistency. They both put out good albums that never sounded the same as the last. If you mean that they didn't keep putting out the same album, that's good thing.


TOOL is like St Anger, songs are too long, it's repetitive, and gets boring. The only difference is TOOL has a catchy bassline for some songs and the sound of the drums doesn't leave you with your ear ringing. But that's off topic.



Objective reasons to start. I don't like Slayer and I used to not like Megadeth, but because I find a band boring doesn't mean they're not good. For example above, I don't like TOOL because I find them boring, and I can give a few personal reason why I think so, but that won't change anything why fans might like them.



I feel Ride the Lightning is their best album but everyone chants on about Master of Puppets :( Though I like both, Ride the Lightning had a better quality about their songs in my opinion.

Charles-Ingalls said:


A little late, but last night I wanted to ask what you mean by "consistent".
What I like about Megadeth and Metallica is their consistency. They both put out good albums that never sounded the same as the last. If you mean that they didn't keep putting out the same album, that's good thing.


TOOL is like St Anger, songs are too long, it's repetitive, and gets boring. The only difference is TOOL has a catchy bassline for some songs and the sound of the drums doesn't leave you with your ear ringing. But that's off topic.



Objective reasons to start. I don't like Slayer and I used to not like Megadeth, but because I find a band boring doesn't mean they're not good. For example above, I don't like TOOL because I find them boring, and I can give a few personal reason why I think so, but that won't change anything why fans might like them.



I feel Ride the Lightning is their best album but everyone chants on about Master of Puppets :( Though I like both, Ride the Lightning had a better quality about their songs in my opinion.

DragonQuest3 said:


I meant Metallica wasn't consistent because they didn't put out good release after good release. Even many of their biggest fans only like their first 4 to 5 albums and consider Load, Reload, St anger, and Lulu to be garbage. Most see Death Magnetic as a mediocre call back to their earlier stuff and some lump it with St anger as shit. As far as Lulu not being a Metallica album they performed in it as a collaboration. Its a Lou Reed and Metallica album but it still has Metallica contributing to this god awful mess. If you say Metallica was Lou Reeds backing band well that makes them sound more pathetic really.

Im a lil annoyed you seemed to suggest i might have been upset because they didnt rehash the same album over and over considering I praised Voivod for their transition from sloppy punk driven thrash to a cleaner more mature prog metal.

That said I'm not sure how a band can objectively be bad.

As far as Lulu not being a Metallica album they performed in it as a collaboration. Its a Lou Reed and Metallica album but it still has Metallica contributing to this god awful mess. If you say Metallica was Lou Reeds backing band well that makes them sound more pathetic really.

Charles-Ingalls said:


How I see it then, Metallica has been consistent both ways. Their first 5 albums are great records, all well received from a wide range of audience.
Same could go for anything after the first five, they were consistent that those albums weren't as well received/like by a wide ranging audience.
So 5 albums either way, good or bad, they were consistent.



This line right here seems to suggest you are annoyed at the band, or people who like these bands, for whatever reason.

As for bands that are "objectively" bad, check out Emmure.

DragonQuest3 said:


I don't see how you got that from my last line. I just meant to express annoyance at those who try to put it off as if that album doesn't count like they're so embarrassed by it they put all the blame on Lou Reed. Look I don't care if you guys like the band or not they are well received and commercially successful so why are you all so worried over my opinion? Your not going to convince me they are worthy of their title just like I'm not going to convince you guys they suck balls save a few tracks. I love thrash and have listened to tons of artists. Metallica never interested me that much in fact one of the few I found to be straight up annoying ast times. They don't impress me in the least bit.

That said I find it hard to take anyone seriously when they say Metallica is objectively the best band ever >.<

LashLethal said:


Metallica are the one the most diverse bands out there. They do more than just alternate pick and scream. You can diss Metallica all you want but there is a reason why they still sell out huge arenas and have a huge fanbase. Metallica even said Lulu wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

DragonQuest3 said:


Metallica are one of the most diverse bands out there? Your fucking kidding me right? They're fairly diverse but far from one of the most diverse bands. David Bowie and Swans are far more diverse. The reason they still sell out huge arenas and have a large fan base is because of how well advertised they are and the fact they are quite accessible as a thrash band. They're one of the few thrash bands who made some radio friendly tunes that helped them reach a wider audience. Its not entirely about quality as you may want to think.

Just because Lulu wasn't meant to be taken serious doesn't mean it doesn't suck. They even insulted their own fans for criticizing it. Lou Reed called Metallica fans illiterate. You need to quit letting the media tell you what to enjoy. Don't think because a whole bunch of people like them means they have to then be objectively good. Also FYI the amount of people who see Metallica as a joke is constantly increasing.

DragonQuest3 said:


Metallica are one of the most diverse bands out there? Your fucking kidding me right? They're fairly diverse but far from one of the most diverse bands. David Bowie and Swans are far more diverse. The reason they still sell out huge arenas and have a large fan base is because of how well advertised they are and the fact they are quite accessible as a thrash band. They're one of the few thrash bands who made some radio friendly tunes that helped them reach a wider audience. Its not entirely about quality as you may want to think.

Just because Lulu wasn't meant to be taken serious doesn't mean it doesn't suck. They even insulted their own fans for criticizing it. Lou Reed called Metallica fans illiterate. You need to quit letting the media tell you what to enjoy. Don't think because a whole bunch of people like them means they have to then be objectively good. Also FYI the amount of people who see Metallica as a joke is constantly increasing.

LashLethal said:


What can I say, Metallica are smart and know how to do business. You ever watched The Apprentice? Marketing, marketing, marketing. " doesn't mean it doesn't suck." I didn't even say I liked it...Hetfield is a great poet and he has a good ear for riffs unlike other bands who just alternate pick that 6th string all the time. "Don't think because a whole bunch of people like them means they have to then be objectively good." Erm so tell me about the good reviews they've gotten for their past albums. These elitists say the black album was crap yet it was well received by a lot of people. It wasn't thrash at all but it was still a good album. It's just some elitists need to leave their rooms, expand their minds and try out new music.

Charles-Ingalls said:


They are diverse. Have you not actually listened to their discography?
The reason they still sell out huge arenas and have a large fan base is because of how well advertised they are and the fact they are quite accessible as a thrash band.
That goes for any and every band. Might as well not listen to music or only listen to only "underground" bands. Metallica wanted to expand, and be more accessible, try new things. And now people like you hate them for it. We get it, you're a poser/hipster. You've turned a rather friendly Megadeth vs. Metallica thread into a thread about how much you hate Metallica.

You need to quit letting the media tell you what to enjoy. Don't think because a whole bunch of people like them means they have to then be objectively good. Also FYI the amount of people who see Metallica as a joke is constantly increasing.
Metallica hate is the norm and has been the norm, are you sure you aren't the one who lets the media control how you feel about certain bands?
FYI Metallica's "Black" albums still sells and has continued to be one of the worlds top selling albums in history.

Charles-Ingalls said:
How I see it then, Metallica has been consistent both ways. Their first 5 albums are great records, all well received from a wide range of audience.
Same could go for anything after the first five, they were consistent that those albums weren't as well received/like by a wide ranging audience.
So 5 albums either way, good or bad, they were consistent.

AO968 said:


You got it backwards.

Their last 5 albums (that's including the BA) all became #1 on the album charts shortly after release, so that makes me believe they found a much wider audience.

Compared to those, the first 4 albums sold less and took much longer to became as well-sold as the later ones, indicating that the fanbase was limited and that it took much longer for more mainstream-oriented people to appreciate them.

And if you hadn't noticed yet, it's always the same type of people who whine about Metallica's change in musical direction, namely the old-time fans (the same ones who pretend the last 4 albums don't exist, and whom the band seems to be playing for most of the time, given that they always play the same old stuff and rarely give their newer material the chance to shine nowadays).

DragonQuest3 said:


Oh god dude except that not everyone has to fucking like Metallica! They aren't the good business men their producers were. I'm not the elitist here you are. Your the one who thinks because they get good reviews they have to objectively good. Critics have a thing for pandering to certain artist for being popular. Why do you think Metallica is the only band on earth who doesn't abuse the sixth string? Maybe you need to expand to more artists because it seems like you know little.

Oh by the way Metallica's reviews pale in comparison to the reviews The Beatles got.

LashLethal said:


I've studied the metal world. I had to study all of it for an art project. I know what inspired these guys.You sure you're not just hating on metallica because it's "in" thing to do? People hating on Lars for no reason when they don't even know how to drum smh. Bet you'd be digging metallica if they were underground.

gizter13 said:


you do know the guy you are talking to is into Queen and The Beatles right? aswell as Black Sabbath and Judas Priest. someone who only likes underground bands would probably avoid those..

i also dislike Metallica. why do you have such a hard time accepting that he doesnt like them... if you can't take the critics you shouln't open a thread about the useless Megadeth or Metallica debate in the first place. thats just asking for trouble.

Spinnerweb said:
Megadeth are a good band, but I prefer Metallica.

Maiden would beat both IMO :P

DragonQuest3 said:
They're pretty basic reasons and even if I gave them yod still find reasons to get pissed. Honestly I think you need to chill dude your getting way too upset over musical opinions. I have every right to bash Metallica or Slayer. Its not like I was bashing everyone here for liking them I just blurted out my opinion and you start calling me a hipster which I find ignorant of you.

What reasons could I say I dislike them other than I don't enjoy them may I ask? I said I like Megadeth anyway they're fine. Anthrax is good as well. Voivod is better even though the vocals were poor they were much more creative musically and much more versatile going from sloppy punk inspired thrash to a cleaner more mature prog metal was quite a transition. Also Piggy was perhaps thrashes most unique guitarist and Away was a hell of a drummer.

AO968 said:


You got it backwards.

Their last 5 albums (that's including the BA) all became #1 on the album charts shortly after release, so that makes me believe they found a much wider audience.

Compared to those, the first 4 albums sold less and took much longer to became as well-sold as the later ones, indicating that the fanbase was limited and that it took much longer for more mainstream-oriented people to appreciate them.

And if you hadn't noticed yet, it's always the same type of people who whine about Metallica's change in musical direction, namely the old-time fans (the same ones who pretend the last 4 albums don't exist, and whom the band seems to be playing for most of the time, given that they always play the same old stuff and rarely give their newer material the chance to shine nowadays).

Broeksnoek said:


This ^...nothing else to add xD

LashLethal said:


I've studied the metal world. I had to study all of it for an art project. I know what inspired these guys.You sure you're not just hating on metallica because it's "in" thing to do? People hating on Lars for no reason when they don't even know how to drum smh. Bet you'd be digging metallica if they were underground.

NTAD said:
For the last time, stop with the redirects. "Oh well, it's okay, I like these OTHER guys." I don't care about that.

I called you out because you DIDN'T say you "don't like the band because you just don't like them" I called you out because you called them bad with no reason as to why. An easier example to follow:

You: Metallica sucks.
Me: Why?
You: Because I don't like them.
Me: Yeeeeeeah.

That's the kind of answer you're giving right now. Something that makes more sense would be:

You: Metallica sucks.
Me: Why?
You: I feel like James Hetfield's vocals are lacking. It'd be better if he had more range, but he doesn't and Kirk Hammet's solos sound way too recycled.
Me: Indeed. *Insert further conversation here*

Whether any of that were true or not is beside the point. The idea is that you attempt to back up your statement with reasons.

Please stop making this harder than it really is. And please stop implying that I'm getting pissed off. If someone as ridiculous as you could piss me off, I'd be in jail right now. This is a simple search for a simple answer that you're doing your best to dodge, thereby making it way harder than it needs to be.

One last time, just for the record: Do you have a legit reason as to WHY Metallica sucks, or do you just not like them because you don't like them? Remember, simple answer.