New Megadeth in June of '13

I've had the album for a few days now and I like it. It's not great, not a classic, but memorable and an enjoyable listen. The banjo on 'The Blackest Crow' isn't as bad as I expected. There are no songs on there that I feel the need to skip or anything. It's pretty solid all the way through.

And seeing that I'm not the biggest Thin Lizzy fan, had I not known that 'Cold Sweat' was a cover, I would've just assumed it was a Megadeth song.

I'm happy with it.

How they did Cold Sweat is how a cover is supposed to be done.

This album is better than I thought it would be. It had some moments that perked my ears up. Would've preferred more thrashiness and up-tempo stuff though but it's not a bad album. Not sure how often I will play it because there are so many other great things to listen to.

I'm liking it more and more with each listen.

Me too. The title track, Built for war and forget to remember have grown on me alot since I got it. I just can't help bit singing along for the choruses in these songs. I haven't done that to this many songs on a 'Deth album since the system has failed.

This is simply an enjoyable album, with some good tracks. But i consider Endgame to be far better.

Chart info...

Quote :

MEGADETH's new album, "Super Collider", sold 29,000 copies in the United States in its first week of release to land at position No. 6 on The Billboard 200 chart. The record arrived in stores on June 4 via MEGADETH mainman Dave Mustaine's new label, Tradecraft, distributed by Universal Music Enterprises (UMe). The disc follows up "TH1RT3EN", which opened with 42,000 units back in November 2011 to enter the chart at No. 11. The band's 2009 CD, "Endgame", premiered with 45,000 copies to debut at No. 9. This was slightly less than the 54,000 first-week tally registered by 2007's "United Abominations", which entered the chart at No. 8. 2004's "The System Has Failed" premiered with 46,000 copies (No. 18) while 2001's "The World Needs A Hero" moved 61,000 units in its first week (No. 16).

Ouch! Dave will find some way to blame the Obama administration and/or the Illuminati, I'm sure.

Fat Freddy wrote:

Chart info...

Quote :

MEGADETH's new album, "Super Collider", sold 29,000 copies in the United States in its first week of release to land at position No. 6 on The Billboard 200 chart. The record arrived in stores on June 4 via MEGADETH mainman Dave Mustaine's new label, Tradecraft, distributed by Universal Music Enterprises (UMe). The disc follows up "TH1RT3EN", which opened with 42,000 units back in November 2011 to enter the chart at No. 11. The band's 2009 CD, "Endgame", premiered with 45,000 copies to debut at No. 9. This was slightly less than the 54,000 first-week tally registered by 2007's "United Abominations", which entered the chart at No. 8. 2004's "The System Has Failed" premiered with 46,000 copies (No. 18) while 2001's "The World Needs A Hero" moved 61,000 units in its first week (No. 16).

Ouch! Dave will find some way to blame the Obama administration and/or the Illuminati, I'm sure.

It seems to be the way the music business is at the moment. Album sales are sinking lower and lower.

I'm sorta surprised it sold that many in this day and age.

And look at  the numbers in general. Thirteen sold 42,000, but only managed to reach #11 on the charts. Super Collider sold almost 13,000 less, but went up 5 places on the charts to #6.

Weird, ain't it? He sold less albums, but can say in the press that he has a Top 10 hit!!

MetalGuy71 wrote:

I'm sorta surprised it sold that many in this day and age.

And look at  the numbers in general. Thirteen sold 42,000, but only managed to reach #11 on the charts. Super Collider sold almost 13,000 less, but went up 5 places on the charts to #6.

Weird, ain't it? He sold less albums, but can say in the press that he has a Top 10 hit!!

Yep - the issue is the industry. It really seems like it takes less and less copies sold to get a number one hit these days.....

MetalGuy71 wrote:

I'm sorta surprised it sold that many in this day and age.

And look at  the numbers in general. Thirteen sold 42,000, but only managed to reach #11 on the charts. Super Collider sold almost 13,000 less, but went up 5 places on the charts to #6.

Weird, ain't it? He sold less albums, but can say in the press that he has a Top 10 hit!!

It's always been that way though, Iron Maiden have only ever had one Number 1 hit single in the U.K (Bring Your Daughter To the Slaughter) although they have had many singles that have sold more copies. The reason for this was that they deliberately chose the slowest week of the year historically (1st wk Jan), knowing that die hard IM fans would buy it no matter when it was released. I think it was an attempt to try to force the BBC to play them.

When I listen to Burn, I'm reminded of this:

"Burn baby burn! - Disco inferno!
Burn baby burn! - Burn that mama down
Burn baby burn! - Disco inferno!
Burn baby burn! - Burn that mama down
Burnin'!"      

You mean this? 

How do those sales figures factor in digital sales?  That might account for some of the drop-off in numbers.  Seeing figures like that is always depressing.  This record deserved better sales.

Really my only complaint with Super Collider is some of the lyrics are a little too "rhyme-y" in some of the songs.  Otherwise I love it.  I'm also thinking the bonus track "A House Divided" is my favorite. That track alone was worth the extra bucks shelled out.

I think the most alarming part of the album sale figures is that Thirteen was released less than 2 years ago. In less than 2 years album sales for a prolific band such as Megadeth have nearly halved!

I'm not sure how the figures are looking for far lesser known bands.

It's not good news for music in physical format. You know the day when both Super Collider and Sabbath's 13 came out, both albums were already streaming on Spotify. There is no substitute imo for the physical format and Spotify is no exception for me anyway but I think more and more people are turning towards services such as Spotify because even if you go for the premium service that is what ... 10 bucks per month with unlimited streaming and access to music vs 12 - 14 bucks for a just one single album.

Generally, the trouble for the physical format is that most people aren't, unlike us here, music fans. These same people looked for cheap / free alternatives to obtain music in the past before the internet, when file sharing started and now with various streaming services. It is also convenience - much easier to queue up a playlist from Itunes or  Spotify than physically going to a store, buying a CD, playing on a CD player, changing CDs to listen to the next album etc.

I think for us music fans, there is a difference - you want the tactile experience you want that ever so small slice of the band. For me an album may well be streaming on Spotify but I don't own anything of it and have no connection to it until an original copy of it is physically in my album collection.

I have been through SC a couple times now and it is ok. I like some songs a lot and some are skippers.

I think there is a difference between being a music fan and being a fan of owning a music collection.  In the past they were essentially one and the same, but streaming services and music downloads have changed the paradigm and now we have a couple generations of people who grew up without the physical product having any meaning to their existence.  

Times change.

Why I prefer CDs over DD:

1. Better quality, although this has become debatable as the loudness wars are getting hostile.
2. There's a sense of dedication in taking the extra steps to load a CD rather than double-click.
3. Emphasis of full album over single songs.
4. Less impulse to play ten seconds of a thousand listed songs--I notice kids doing this a lot these days--and a willingness to stay with each song in full.
5. The feeling of obtaining the full, finished product with the artist in mind, as opposed to the sense of artistic detachment a DD tends to provide.
6. Album artwork: it always looks better on the printed page.
7. Liner notes, especially with collector's editions that you can go back years later to read.
8. CD's look pretty cool when you think about it, especially when there's a special print to go along with it (a good example is the top of a beer can for Pride & Glory's release)
9. Since there's a chance of physically damaging a CD, there tends to be a greater respect towards protecting and cataloging them.
10. A sense of ownership. DD's can get tossed around and burned and emailed and drop-boxed etc. CDs...well, I'll say this: I never lend out my CDs or records. Last time I did, I payed for it, and that was a trustworthy party. Purchasing a CD is a big deal, and whenever I commit to that purchase and receive it in my hands, I know it's mine and no one else's. Call me selfish, but hey.

That said, I don't entirely dislike DD's. I think they're an important resource in discovering new and out-of-print music. Samples should be handled with care; I only use them when going in blind to see what an unheard artist sounds like, but never to pass judgment on a new album. Of course there's emerging artists with the opportunity to skip the mass overhead costs of releasing CDs and instead going the bandcamp route or otherwise (Distorted Harmony comes to mind). We can't deny this is a solid opportunity to get found. There's solid logic in taking this route.

TL; DR: CDs are the shit; DDs have their advantages.

These days there tends to be a small percentage of albums I feel the need to actually "own".  Those select titles I will buy on LP or Hi-Rez (ala HDtracks) or blu-ray if available, CD is only purchased when there are no other options.

But honestly, the majority of albums that get released I'm content with spinning them on Spotify occasionally, if I'm only going to listen to a particular album or artist a couple times a year...there is no reason for me to own them.

S.D. wrote:

These days there tends to be a small percentage of albums I feel the need to actually "own".  Those select titles I will buy on LP or Hi-Rez (ala HDtracks) or blu-ray if available, CD is only purchased when there are no other options.

But honestly, the majority of albums that get released I'm content with spinning them on Spotify occasionally, if I'm only going to listen to a particular album or artist a couple times a year...there is no reason for me to own them.

Something funny actually happened to me yesterday along these lines: I became the proud owner of an android smartphone on a 4G network with unlimited everything. Before this I had a Blackberry on one of those piss-poor networks that are slower than dial-up. Now I've got exceptional app support to run Rhapsody (very sketchy with RIM), fast and reliable network speeds, and the ability to plug the phone into any sound system available. Okay, so this is starting to sound like an ad, but my point is, I started asking myself if it was truly necessary to buy CDs in the first place when, well, I have a vast library right here? Sure there are some missing links--no Metallica, for instance, thanks Lars--but this past week I've been able to listen to Super Collider three times without paying more than my 15/month subscription cost. Last night I was listening to the new Evile album and became confused when I realized I was looking on Amazon as to how much the CD was. And, yeah, there's not a whole lot today worth shelling out 10-15 to own at home and listen through once (I will say that 13 was a confident buy, though).

In the end, though, I still love physical media, even if just for the nostalgia factor. Now that my tangent has threatened to derail this thread...

S.D. wrote:

I think there is a difference between being a music fan and being a fan of owning a music collection.  In the past they were essentially one and the same, but streaming services and music downloads have changed the paradigm and now we have a couple generations of people who grew up without the physical product having any meaning to their existence.  

Times change.

times do change. Funny thing is the times keep on changing and what is old sometimes becomes new again.

exact33 wrote:

S.D. wrote:

I think there is a difference between being a music fan and being a fan of owning a music collection.  In the past they were essentially one and the same, but streaming services and music downloads have changed the paradigm and now we have a couple generations of people who grew up without the physical product having any meaning to their existence.  

Times change.

times do change. Funny thing is the times keep on changing and what is old sometimes becomes new again.

Exactly, like LPs suddenly being "hip" again and lots of youngsters grabbing up vinyl as the first physical format they've ever owned.

I've been collecting CDs for about 15 years now. I started initially with collecting a few Sabbath albums, the Metallica albums, Pantera and now I'm well into a very wide and diverse collection to metal albums. For me the CD will always the the format of choice and will always be there notwithstanding the popularity of DDs. I was not of the vinyl generation, I'm not entirely convinced about this format some way it sounds better than CDs - some claim it's a fact - but for me the CD wins on (at least) two fronts: (1) its versatility and (2) its durability.

Prior to mp3s the CD was the most successful portable media format - you could take it anywhere with you with relative ease and play it on any CD player - be it in your car, at home, at a friend's place etc. With the advent of PC CD-Roms additional content could be loaded onto a CD like music videos. The durability factor truly enabled the format to be played over and over without wearing out the material and quality of the audio.

I think the advent of mp3s and different other media file formats the CD has become a collectible and back-up to the digital world. The way I listen to music these days is very different to the 90s - when I buy a CD I rip it to lossless and it gets placed back in the CD case and on my shelf along the rest of the CDs I have collected. In this regard it also becomes a back-up to the ripped files - it is the original source. Should my hdd stop working one day, I still have the CD I still own it in its original condition.

Imagine if all of a sudden Spotify shut down - you'd lose the ability to access those playlists, songs, albums altogether. Same with any other digital streaming service or downloading service (unless of course with the latter you  back up the songs to CD-Rs which from experience generally have a very poor lifespan).

The other great part about the physical format - be it tapes, CDs, or vinyl - is that you own something which I cannot emphasise enough. If you're in dire straits you can sell those albums for a pretty penny. In fact due to the collectible factor of physical format the value can also increase over time. Out of print stuff can be worth quite a bit to a collector.