Metallica vs Megadeth

Wait...did I just go there? I think I did.

In all manner of speaking, this is the musical equivalent of the Mac vs PC debate. There is no conclusion, each side has fanboys with massive raging hard-ons for their chosen side, and everybody is wrong.

So lets have some fun.

 Everybody knows the story. Metallica kick Dave out of the band, hire Kirk, get really really famous. Dave starts Megadeth, gets really really famous, but on a smaller more exclusive scene. Dave hates Lars (as everybody does).

Jump to present day, this is all the same.

So the big question is, since I'm blogging about this...what side is the author of this post on?

I prefer Metallica. To be specific, I prefer Metallica up until the end of the Reload album. But neither band are better than the other, because they are both very different.

Let me start with Megadeth. I have listened to lots of Megadeth, I've even seen them twice in the flesh and watched a DVD. I still have a couple of their albums on my computer. I've given them as many chances as I could. But I don't enjoy their music much.

Thats not because I don't like Megadeth in particular. I'm not the biggest fan of thrashy, shreddy metal anymore. I'm not 16 anymore. I recognise that the Deth made a huge contribution to modern metal music, but it doesn't appeal to me.

But the real reason is Dave.

Dave makes me laugh. He's arrogant, egotistical and more opinionated than most people in existence. Normally I'd have no problem with this, except it comes through his music. You can hear it in his awful, awful singing voice.

I'm sorry, this is not an opinion. Dave cannot, and should not, be singing. In fact, if you like Dave's "singing" but you don't listen to all this punky emo mallgoth faggoty emo trash because of the "whiney nasal vocals", then you need to go and think about your life.

Dave is worse than them.

Not to say that Hetfields outrageously redneck gruff is any better. Its the opposite end of the scale, its like saying piccolos sound better than Moog synthesizers. Comparison is futile.

Which, aside from bashing Dave, is what I'm getting at. Metallica may have started out as a thrash band and Megadeth competed in their wake, but I hold Metallica in high regard because they have done a few things that Megadeth can't and probably won't ever do.

Firstly, they reinvented themselves. Or at least tried. First, the Black Album. The OMG THEY SOLD OUT O NOES!!!1111 album. Then Load and Reload. We got a different Metallica, one that was willing to take risks to try something new and get more fans. It all went downhill with St Anger and Death Magnetic, but you get what I'm saying. Megadeth is still making Dave-thrash.

Secondly, they remained (on the most part) a unit, a band. Sure, their first (counting from Cliff, Ron is pretty irrelevant here) bass player died and the second one quit because Lars is an asshole. Or something like that. On the other hand, Megadeth has pretty much always been Megadave. Its a constant revolving door of session musicians playing Dave-thrash.

This is the reason why I think Metallica has stood as a constant pillar of well-established metal, wheras Megadeth fade away and come back and seem to be talked about only in that small circle of die hard metal fans. Lars may be the shittest drummer on this earth, but take him away from Metallica and you've lost a huge part of what makes their music. Same with Kirk - his solos are very simplistic and very over-laden with Wah pedal, but like it or not, you'd miss it if he was replaced. Megadeth were never interesting after Marty Friedman left, but who else in the lineup is so memorable that nobody can really fill their shoes? It always has been, and still is, MegaDave and the Dave-ettes.

But hey, thats just my opinion. I know that MegaDave fans are always the most enthusiastic flamers. So I'm not expecting ANY discussion on this post.

So...discuss.

Keep loving music,
Vinnie