To start off:
I'm a HUGE Metallica fan. In fact my first 5 years of playing electric guitar was solely based on Metallica. I started off playing Bluegrass guitar with my dad, even though my soul wasn't bluegrass.
My first exposure to Metallica was hearing "Nothing Else Matters" on MTV before school waiting for my buddy to pick me up for school. I asked my brother if he had ever heard of them, and of course he had. He handed me a tape that had zero information of it. in that all the 'font' (for lack of a better word) was gone. It was a simple 'blank" tape. It was weathered, and the only thing I could determine that it was a Metallica tape was simply my brother's word. It was Master of Puppets Within 4 weeks, I had owned everything of Metallica and had thrown bluegrass by the wayside.
Long loving Metallica fan for years; devoted. Having heard Megadeth and loving a few of their songs, I was still committed to Metallica. However, years later, I've discovered that I may have been premature in my categorization of music.
Years had passed since I had really 'listened' to Megadeth. Years, as in 10+. Then, I stumbled upon a Megadeth record. While it escapes my memory at this point, the collective memory of the tunes has lead me to the belief that Megadeth is better than Metalica.
While some, to what degree I don't know, may have always held this belief, the discovery of Megadeth is a new one for me. After listening to many records, Im beginning to feel more confident in saying that Megadeth is better. Obviously, it's subjective.
Metallica's "Black" Album is equivalent to Pink Floy'd "The Wall" in terms of impact. However, Megadeth's "Symphony of Destruction", has been severely over-shadowed by the 'Black" album of Metallica. Subsequently, as it had been up to that point, Megadeth had fallen by the wayside. "Symphony of Destructions' release around the same time, was over-shadowed by the Black album.
After what was a universal success of the Black album, Megadeth seemed to finally have received the kill shot. But, if we are to look at the records and time frame comparatively, I think Megadeth got the short end of the stick.
Since then, Megadeth has sustained their status despite radio and marketing support. I've listened to several Megadeth albums/tunes from the "Black" album going forward, and I must say they are not getting the credit that is due. In some aspects, they blow Metallica out of the water. To be honest, they are quickly surpassing Metallica.
I've always been a huge fan of Megadeth since the Mechanix type songs. But since Peace Sells Who's Buying album, Megadeth has gotten the shaft. By a LONG shot.
I'm not a huge thrash fan - in fact, Megadeth is really the only band of that ilk that I absolutely love. I like Slayer too.
My absolute fave is Sabbath, and the Dio incarnation is my favorite Sabbath lineup. I'm also a huge Priest fan. For new bands, I like Queens of the Stone Age and The Sword.
Josh Homme is a hero of mine (loved Kyuss back in the day) and I like the Sword too. Solid jam bands.
I dislike Dio Sabbath immensely. I like Dio's solo stuff better.
Early Sabbath was essentially stoner rock, which is right up my alley. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Reaper16:
On the first point, yes. You're right. I was always expressing that this was my tastes, my opinion, what works/doesn't work for me.
Noodling does not equal riffing. And I listen to a fair amount of rock. I don't expect metal when I listen to rock. When I listen to metal, well, I expect metal. In large part that means either great riffs, song structures, or atmosphere. Preferably all three. When it comes to thrash metal, that means bands like Heathen, Anacrusis, or Vektor. But you don't need all three. With thrash you just really need a good riff quotient. Listen to Dark Angel's album "Darkness Descends." It's got like 150+ riffs over the course of the album. That's an incredible riff quotient. The very opposite of what bores me.
Well, I know noodling doesn't equal riffing.
I don't hang up as much about genres. Actually I can't stand people who try to define music entirely by genre, as it's attempting to put art into a neat little box. It shouldn't work that way.
Again, I like Pantera. I don't listen to it because that shit seriously got old for me over a decade ago. They are far from being pure 'thrash' metal, so comparing them to bands like that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
You're lost, my son. Hopelessly lost.
Yeah, generally not a fan of Dio.
In many ways, I dislike pure heavy metal. I personally find much of their imagery silly moreso than 'dark' and their voices, in spite of being outstanding in terms of range, make my ears bleed.
Much respect their talent and influence, but I don't care to listen to it. Dio was the heavy metal prototype singer, so if you're into that type of singing, he's a legend.
As I said, I'm more into slow jammy bands or more elaborate progressive rock. Blues rock. Stuff like that. Given my tastes, it makes perfect sense. [Reply]
Originally Posted by WhiteWhale:
Yeah, generally not a fan of Dio.
In many ways, I dislike pure heavy metal. I personally find much of their imagery silly moreso than 'dark' and their voices, in spite of being outstanding in terms of range, make my ears bleed.
Much respect their talent and influence, but I don't care to listen to it. Dio was the heavy metal prototype singer, so if you're into that type of singing, he's a legend.
As I said, I'm more into slow jammy bands or more elaborate progressive rock. Blues rock. Stuff like that. Given my tastes, it makes perfect sense.
Yeah, I'm not a big blues rock guy myself. I prefer more classically influenced stuff. To me, the ultimate "pure" metal bands are Judas Priest and The Scorpions during the 70's. [Reply]
And for the record, I personally feel like Sabbath, while heavier and darker, was still a heavy blues band like Zeppelin and others during the 70s. A lot BETTER IMO, but still a British blues band at the core. They weren't a "metal" band until Ronnie arrived. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
And for the record, I personally feel like Sabbath, while heavier and darker, was still a heavy blues band like Zeppelin and others during the 70s. A lot BETTER IMO, but still a British blues band at the core. They weren't a "metal" band until Ronnie arrived.
Agreed.
It was tuned down, slowed down, and of course Ozzie had unique imagery in his vocals... but yeah that's pretty much on point. They doomed it up. That's why I love 'em. [Reply]
It was tuned down, slowed down, and of course Ozzie had unique imagery in his vocals... but yeah that's pretty much on point. That's why I love 'em.
I like Ozzy immensely. Don't get me wrong, for me Dio Sabbath is 1a and Ozzy Sabbath is 1b (and Dio and Ozzy solo are 1c and 1d really). There's not a ton of separation.
But like I said, I like a lot of classical music and those types of arrangements. Tony Iommi said it best:
"Dio would sing across the riff, whereas Ozzy would follow the riff, like in "Iron Man". Ronnie came in and gave us another angle on writing." [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
I like Ozzy immensely. Don't get me wrong, for me Dio Sabbath is 1a and Ozzy Sabbath is 1b (and Dio and Ozzy solo are 1c and 1d really). There's not a ton of separation.
But like I said, I like a lot of classical music and those types of arrangements. Tony Iommi said it best:
"Dio would sing across the riff, whereas Ozzy would follow the riff, like in "Iron Man". Ronnie came in and gave us another angle on writing."
Again, Ronnie is/was very talented.
It's just that I find what he does annoying. It's the pitch of his voice... that whole style of singing. I can't stand it. I know it's hard and I know they're hitting high notes and their voice is an instrument and part of the arrangement. It's simply that it annoys the ever lovin' hell out of me. :-)
To the guys in Sabbath (except Geezer) simply wanted a better singer than Ozzy. He was, for the most part, uninvolved in the entire process. I mean Geezer wrote the lyrics. Ozzie just did the vocal melodies. Ozzie had no input on the song structure or arrangement, whereas Ronnie did.
Ronnie was far more talented than Ozzy, but even knowing that his voice is still annoying as hell to me. [Reply]
Originally Posted by WhiteWhale:
Again, Ronnie is/was very talented.
It's just that I find what he does annoying. It's the pitch of his voice... that whole style of singing. I can't stand it. I know it's hard and I know they're hitting high notes and their voice is an instrument and part of the arrangement. It's simply that it annoys the ever lovin' hell out of me. :-)
To the guys in Sabbath (except Geezer) simply wanted a better singer than Ozzy. He was, for the most part, uninvolved in the entire process. I mean Geezer wrote the lyrics. Ozzie just did the vocal melodies. Ozzie had no input on the song structure or arrangement, whereas Ronnie did.
Ronnie was far more talented than Ozzy, but even knowing that his voice is still annoying as hell to me.
Ronnie's voice is annoying but Ozzy's isn't? I find that strange. [Reply]
Originally Posted by WhiteWhale:
They are far from being pure 'thrash' metal, so comparing them to bands like that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me either, but YOU WERE THE ONE WHO QUESTIONED MY PHRASING AND ALSO INVITED CROSS-GENRE COMPARISON IN THE FIRST PLACE WHEN YOU ACCUSED ME OF BEING UNABLE TO APPRECIATE ROCK & ROLL so I was just working with what you gave me. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Reaper16:
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me either, but YOU WERE THE ONE WHO QUESTIONED MY PHRASING AND ALSO INVITED CROSS-GENRE COMPARISON IN THE FIRST PLACE WHEN YOU ACCUSED ME OF BEING UNABLE TO APPRECIATE ROCK & ROLL so I was just working with what you gave me.
Man I was just giving you shit because you were calling someone's art 'garbage' just because you didn't like it and were essentially comparing it to straight thrash metal and it's lack of riffs or whatever the hell. "If it's thrash, it needs this many riffs per song". They did what they did. How guys like you quantify it isn't the concern of most artists.
The fact that you don't like it, or don't appreciate it, does not in and of itself make it garbage. You are not an authority on what is or is not good music no matter how much of it you listen to. That is the ONLY point I was making. The same thing applies to movies and TV by the way. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Ronnie's voice is annoying but Ozzy's isn't? I find that strange.
Ozzy may try to sing in a similar style, but he's so bad that he can't get to that high pitch that annoys me and Ronnie seemed to really enjoy STAYING there all the damn time. He doesn't have to, but I guess adding some bass to it wasn't his thing. He could have, because his voice was quite literally an instrument for music.
Again man, it's personal taste. I'm sure if I quizzed you enough you'd say something that made no sense to me too. It's weird like that. [Reply]
