Why do most people call MEGADETH a Thrash band?

[quote="Fat Freddy"]

Quote :

Back in the early days the terms "speed metal" and "thrash metal" were more or less interchangeable, anyway.

having been around in the early days, I agree about the genres being less varied. Speed/thrash, Power metal, and even death metal were all more or less catagorized into one big pile and called thrash. Once the death got harder, the thrash more technical, doom metal got doomier, crossover/core got heavier, and power metal became fruitier, the metal family tree just kept sprouting branches into all these sub genres.

"Without Mustaine, there is no thrash metal at all!"
-Scott Ian, Anthrax, Get Thrashed

Mustaine was a key player in the early days of Thrash. He influenced almost everyone. Metallica couldn't even complete their first two albums without his material.

Addy wrote:

I say Who cares, if you like em listen to them

i agree. I dont really care what kind of music you call em - they are good!

I don't know why there is so much opposition on this board about labeling metal bands by the sub-genre of metal they tend to sound like. What is wrong with categorzing things anyways? It sure helps the novice listener and gives them a general idea of what that band sounds like. Maybe I'm in the mood for some early American power metal or perhaps some Gothenburg death metal. Or maybe, just maybe, I wanted to listen to some rap or folk or jazz or whatever. When did it become this uncool thing not to label music? Maybe it's because God is a god of order, and Satan is the lord of chaos. That maybe over-simplifying things, but it could be another aspect of our secular humanistic society.

Cognitive Dissonance wrote:

I don't know why there is so much opposition on this board about labeling metal bands by the sub-genre of metal they tend to sound like. What is wrong with categorzing things anyways? It sure helps the novice listener and gives them a general idea of what that band sounds like. Maybe I'm in the mood for some early American power metal or perhaps some Gothenburg death metal. Or maybe, just maybe, I wanted to listen to some rap or folk or jazz or whatever. When did it become this uncool thing not to label music? Maybe it's because God is a god of order, and Satan is the lord of chaos. That maybe over-simplifying things, but it could be another aspect of our secular humanistic society.

i think the biggest issue is that people start arguing over whether X band is this or that genre. I think the labels are helpful but the arguments that ensue are not.

If So Far, So Good isn't a thrash album, I need to reanalyze what I thought the genre was...

I don't think "Hook in Mouth," "Holy Wars... The Punishment Due," "Rust in Peace... Polaris," "Wake Up Dead," etc could be described as anything other than thrash. After the first four albums, it gets debatable.

As far as genres go, I don't mind genres if they're used to facilitate communication or as shorthand for describing what a band basically kinda sounds like. It's just when people get over-emotional and get into heated arguments on what genre to categorize a band into that it gets tedious and stupid. (Basically I agree with what exact33 just said. haha.)

Cognitive Dissonance wrote:

I don't know why there is so much opposition on this board about labeling metal bands by the sub-genre of metal they tend to sound like. What is wrong with categorzing things anyways? It sure helps the novice listener and gives them a general idea of what that band sounds like. Maybe I'm in the mood for some early American power metal or perhaps some Gothenburg death metal. Or maybe, just maybe, I wanted to listen to some rap or folk or jazz or whatever. When did it become this uncool thing not to label music? Maybe it's because God is a god of order, and Satan is the lord of chaos. That maybe over-simplifying things, but it could be another aspect of our secular humanistic society.

How can you say calling music merely rap, folk, jazz or whatever is the SAME as labeling EVERY genre of metal. Every type of music has many sub-genres. In my experiemce it confuses more than helps. What Alex mentions about folks disagreeing on who gets labeled what only makes it more chaotic.

Your God and satan analogy can basically apply to anything on earth. I keep it as simple as simple can be. There are 2 types of music, stuff I dig and stuff that I don't.

James B. wrote:

Cognitive Dissonance wrote:

I don't know why there is so much opposition on this board about labeling metal bands by the sub-genre of metal they tend to sound like. What is wrong with categorzing things anyways? It sure helps the novice listener and gives them a general idea of what that band sounds like. Maybe I'm in the mood for some early American power metal or perhaps some Gothenburg death metal. Or maybe, just maybe, I wanted to listen to some rap or folk or jazz or whatever. When did it become this uncool thing not to label music? Maybe it's because God is a god of order, and Satan is the lord of chaos. That maybe over-simplifying things, but it could be another aspect of our secular humanistic society.

How can you say calling music merely rap, folk, jazz or whatever is the SAME as labeling EVERY genre of metal. Every type of music has many sub-genres. In my experiemce it confuses more than helps. What Alex mentions about folks disagreeing on who gets labeled what only makes it more chaotic.

Your God and satan analogy can basically apply to anything on earth. I keep it as simple as simple can be. There are 2 types of music, stuff I dig and stuff that I don't.

well said!

I think its good to keep things as simple as possible,especially when dealing with the novice listener.If a young kid who had never heard megadeth asked me what kind of band they were,I would say Thrash.Of course they had some albums that werent but in the end they are thrash.

I think splitting the sub-genres up so much is ridiculous.

I've always thought of the first 4 albums from Megadeth and Metallica as being thrash. Subsequent albums from both bands took on other influences/elements. Megadeth in particular (sans Risk), still retained some thrash elements which have been more prominent on their last 3-4 releases.

Megadeth are indeed thrash. "Endgame" was their thrashiest since RIP.

"Youthanasia" has some good power metal moments though

All Megadeth albums up to Rust In Peace are authentic speed metal/thrash. In the beginning, the names were basically interchangeable (with speed metal being more associated with clean vocals). “Thrash” doesn’t have an exact blueprint of how it should sound… that’s why Anthrax, Slayer and Exodus sound different. Of course they all have songs with speedy riffs and fast tempo drums (but they also have slower stuff that chug along or gallop at mid-pace). Almost every band except Slayer has done a version of a ballad.

Even some of the Megadeth albums in the 00’s include at least one thrash song. Sleepwalker and This Day We Fight are good examples! The recent album has three thrashers: Life In Hell, Night Stalkers and We’ll Be Back. None of the “Big 4” that are still active are 100% thrash anymore. Anthrax was the first to stray with their goofy rap tunes.

This is a decade old thread.

People had/have odd opinions of what thrash metal is supposed to be like. Megadeth is one of the defining bands of the genre, like them or not. Is this some sort of revisionism? "Thrash metal started in 1998 or something with Machine Head. Everything before it was just hard rock." /s

Lari wrote:

This is a decade old thread.

People had/have odd opinions of what thrash metal is supposed to be like. Megadeth is one of the defining bands of the genre, like them or not. Is this some sort of revisionism? "Thrash metal started in 1998 or something with Machine Head. Everything before it was just hard rock." /s

Bumping old threads happens sometimes.

I saw the similar topics suggestions at the bottom of the page.


The guy that started this thread years ago was simply ignorant. He actually sited “Angry Again” as the closest thing to thrash they did. Are you serious?? Even if the dude was born yesterday or post Metallica’s Black Album… that’s no excuse. What the hell does he think Rust In Peace is? How does someone skip that like it doesn’t exist and reference “Angry Again” as what they think thrash is?  

Ignorance is too kind of a word to describe this nonsense. It’s more like delusion. Then again, there is a segment of society into revisionism (as you pointed out).

Gary Holt, Scott Ian and even Kerry King have all praised Dave Mustaine’s skills and contribution to creating Thrash. No one put a gun to their head to say that. It’s a great compliment from his peers.

No, son. Metal didn’t start in 2000 with Slipknot.