Dave Mustaine = Lipsyncer

[DeathBrewer]

Current common vernacular:

Beer includes Lagers and Ales and other Hybrids.

Hybrids (combined yeast or using yeast out of their range) are the only beers that don't fall within the style of lager and ale...and really, they do if you JUST count yeast (unless yeast are blended and even then, you have a style.)

It is actually very straightforward.

 

[DeathBrewer]

I use "watered down" very looseley. It's watered down to the point, that it isn't Thrash. Not just mildly different. By definition? The definition was what was layed down originally in their first recordings BY THEM which they then strayed away from... Your argument is that since they're first recordings are TM, that means all recordings are, regardless of what they sound like.

Slayer has always fallen within that definitions description, and yet you claim they weren't Thrash in the 90s.

 

[MarsColonist]

We're arguing more of subgenres than genres, which leads us to require sub-sub-sub genres. Hell, one could easily argue that Metal is a type of Rock.

Well, Im not arguing with you there... 1,600 "rock" albums leads to lots of sub-sub-sub genres. I feel I am familiar with a large number of underground rock bands, but when we get SXSW over here, and I look at the listings, most of the time I only recognize about 5% of the band tops. Other than listening to samples of every band that is showing up, it would be nice to get some kind of sub genre listing in case there is something I havent heard before that I would like. Had I known what kind of music it was.

Dave Mustaine looks like he lipsyncs.

 

[Endovelico]

Current common vernacular:

Beer includes Lagers and Ales and other Hybrids.

Hybrids (combined yeast or using yeast out of their range) are the only beers that don't fall within the style of lager and ale...and really, they do if you JUST count yeast (unless yeast are blended and even then, you have a style.)

It is actually very straightforward.

Forgot hybrids. In any case, do you agree that it's just as useless to have styles such as American Pale Ale and Porter? I know a TON of people who do.

 

[DeathBrewer]

Well, Im not arguing with you there... 1,600 "rock" albums leads to lots of sub-sub-sub genres. I feel I am familiar with a large number of underground rock bands, but when we get SXSW over here, and I look at the listings, most of the time I only recognize about 5% of the band tops. Other than listening to samples of every band that is showing up, it would be nice to get some kind of sub genre listing in case there is something I havent heard before that I would like. Had I known what kind of music it was.

lol, you mean like "alternative"? Really, it's difficult to define most rock...I personally like rock that is more "classic".

 

[Endovelico]

Slayer has always fallen within that definitions description, and yet you claim they weren't Thrash in the 90s.

LOL. I can't put it anymore simply. They didn't make Thrash albums in the 90's so back then they were NOT a Thrash band because they were making non-thrash recordings despite having previously made TM albums.

Are you seriously arguing that releasing a TM album means every single album they make is Thrash by default? How does that make any sense?

 

[DeathBrewer]

LOL. I can't put it anymore simply. They didn't make Thrash albums in the 90's so back then they were NOT a Thrash band because they were making non-thrash recordings despite having previously made TM albums.

Are you seriously arguing that releasing a TM album means every single album they make is Thrash by default? How does that make any sense?

That's not what I said at all. You didn't read my post, did you?

Why were they not Thrash in 90s when THEY STYLE THEY WERE MAKING DURING THE 90s still fell under the "Thrash" definition?

Even though it's different, it still fell under the definition(s). It just didn't meet your standards, apparently. I just don't think "they don't sound the same" is a basis for determining a genre.

I will agree with you that Metallica's later albums did not fall under the definitions. But they still play some of their Thrash songs, so yes...at that point it's an argument about what determines a Thrash band that doesn't always play Thrash.

 

[Endovelico]

That's not what I said at all. You didn't read my post, did you?

Why were they not Thrash in 90s when THEY STYLE THEY WERE MAKING DURING THE 90s still fell under the "Thrash" definition?

Even though it's different, it still fell under the definition(s). It just didn't meet your standards, apparently. I just don't think "they don't sound the same" is a basis for determining a genre.

I will agree with you that Metallica's later albums did not fall under the definitions. But they still play some of their Thrash songs, so yes...at that point it's an argument about what determines a Thrash band that doesn't always play Thrash.

I see. You're saying it did? But it didn't, thats the point. Not just my definition, which is really not uncommon among Thrashers. And i have never known a Thrasher worth their salt who thought Slayer in the 90's was Thrash. Diabolus? Abyss? Divine intervention? Which album are you looking at?

And about Metallica, as previously i agree with you. You can call them Thrash for releasing a thrash album, what i think is a fallacy is calling every single album they have Thrash because they once released a thrash album.

 

[MarsColonist]

lol, you mean like "alternative"? Really, it's difficult to define most rock...I personally like rock that is more "classic".

Ive got Doom/Drone, Stoner/Desert rock, Progressive rock, Artpunk, Space rock, Post Rock, Punk rock, Classic rock, Psychedelic rock, Noise rock, Garage rock, Death metal, Black metal, Thrash, Grindcore, Avant metal, Industrial, Indie rock, Pop/Radio rock, Math rock, Ambient, Sludge, Surf, Alternative, Seattle/Grunge, Heavy instrumental rock, etc. I try to pigeonhole bands on at least three of these, cuz thats what I do. Lots of sub-sub-sub genres. I dont like having all my music in one folder and necessarily alphabetical. Once I get a bunch of bands in one genre, I just wonder what separates them all, hence the need to sub divide them. Maybe Im just OCD and like to pick nits.

 

[DeathBrewer]

I see. You're saying it did? But it didn't, thats the point. Not just my definition, which is really not uncommon among Thrashers. And i have never known a Thrasher worth their salt who thought Slayer in the 90's was Thrash. Diabolus? Abyss? Divine intervention? Which album are you looking at?

LoL...well, I never claimed to be a "Thrasher worth my salt". I've recently referred to myself as a metalhead, but I don't really like putting labels on myself like that, despite that the majority of what I listen to is Metal.

But yes, I think according to the definitions I posted before, they fall under Thrash. I still haven't heard a definition from you.

And about Metallica, as previously i agree with you. You can call them Thrash for releasing a thrash album, what i think is a fallacy is calling every single album they have Thrash because they once released a thrash album.

I agree. I usually call them teh suck.

 

[DeathBrewer]

Ive got Doom/Drone, Stoner/Desert rock, Progressive rock, Artpunk, Space rock, Post Rock, Punk rock, Classic rock, Psychedelic rock, Noise rock, Garage rock, Death metal, Black metal, Thrash, Grindcore, Avant metal, Industrial, Indie rock, Pop/Radio rock, Math rock, Ambient, Sludge, Surf, Alternative, Seattle/Grunge, Heavy instrumental rock, etc. I try to pigeonhole bands on at least three of these, cuz thats what I do. Lots of sub-sub-sub genres. I dont like having all my music in one folder and necessarily alphabetical. Once I get a bunch of bands in one genre, I just wonder what separates them all, hence the need to sub divide them. Maybe Im just OCD and like to pick nits.

See...now you're making my brain hurt with terms like "alternative" and "indie rock". :cross:

 

[MarsColonist]

See...now you're making my brain hurt with terms like "alternative" and "indie rock". :cross:

Well, both are timeframe dependent radio rock styles. Alternative might be the "classic rock" of the 90s (Toadies, Smashing Pumpkins, Pixies, etc)... Indie might be the newer label for "alternative", for the 00's; stuff like Modest Mouse, White Stripes, The Strokes, Radiohead, etc. I dont listen to those styles often, so I lump them in one big group (alternative/indie/radio rock).

Bottomline, I use the labels to describe and communicate; if I listen to and collect any one particular style for a period of time, I tend to do it, otherwise its not important. I put Johnny Cash and Wilie Nelson in the same category cuz I only have a few "country/blues" bands in my library. But at some point, it does get ridiculous with microanalyzing and labeling bands as it is mostly subjective, and the process is tedious. Id rather be brewing beer these days.

Dave Mustaine lip syncs.

 

[Endovelico]

LoL...well, I never claimed to be a "Thrasher worth my salt". I've recently referred to myself as a metalhead, but I don't really like putting labels on myself like that, despite that the majority of what I listen to is Metal.

But yes, I think according to the definitions I posted before, they fall under Thrash. I still haven't heard a definition from you.



I agree. I usually call them teh suck.

And i gave you a loose definition. And as i said, i wish i knew more about technical terms to aptly describe it. Plus i posted alot of videos with stereotypical Thrash. It has to be fast, aggressive, no jumpy jumpy nu-metal style riffing, solid punk base, no lethargically dragging in the riffs, shredding in the lead guitar, sometimes upbeat, no palm muted riffs, no industrial like heavy pause-riffing, blast beats, gallop drumming etc.

I really want to know why you consider Slayers recordings in the 90's Thrash, i'm not being cute here. Some examples?



Too much discussion, not enough Thrashing. \m/

 

[DeathBrewer]

So just because Seasons in the Abyss is a little slower than some of the previous stuff, it's not thrash? It's the same sound, the same rhythms, it's still aggressive, still fast just not as fast as fast can be

I can't listen to anything at werk or I'd throw some on for comparison. All I've been listening to lately is Death and Necrophagist

Maybe I can download some using the USB drive...

 

[Endovelico]

So just because Seasons in the Abyss is a little slower than some of the previous stuff, it's not thrash? It's the same sound, the same rhythms, it's still aggressive, still fast just not as fast as fast can be

I can't listen to anything at werk or I'd throw some on for comparison. All I've been listening to lately is Death and Necrophagist

Maybe I can download some using the USB drive...

Thats a really mild way of putting it. A big part of defining Thrash is velocity. There just isn't the same style of riffing, the same shreading, drumming, etc. Do you have any examples in mind?



Sorry, just no.

Also bare in mind, that i'm advocating that all bands have to completely comply with the definition there will always be bands that are a tad different or take from other styles. Theres alot of bands that walk the blury line. I'm really not being nitpicky, i just don't see it as remotely close or true to style. This isn't just a over hopped bitter, its a DIPA.

Nothing against them either, i still have an old Slayer T-Shirt and actually saw them live in one of the craziest gigs i have ever been in.

 

[DeathBrewer]

I can't watch youtube at werk, either.

Thinking of Skeletons of Society, though, you'd be right. Love the song, but it's really slow and mellow. But War Ensemble is fast (but is it thrash?)

Definitely check out their new album if you haven't.

Damnit, I can't believe you're going to make me have to listen to Slayer just to point out of how it fits into Thrash I'll put it on while I'm brewing today.

 

[Endovelico]

I can't watch youtube at werk, either.

Thinking of Skeletons of Society, though, you'd be right. Love the song, but it's really slow and mellow. But War Ensemble is fast (but is it thrash?)

Definitely check out their new album if you haven't.

Damnit, I can't believe you're going to make me have to listen to Slayer just to point out of how it fits into Thrash I'll put it on while I'm brewing today.

Cool. While you are at it, check out the Thrash videos i posted, there might be some stuff there you like. Preferably before listening to the Slayer recording. It's all shredding madness, but i'm sure you can take it. :rockin:

 

[Endovelico]

Yeah and War ensemble is a good thrashy song. Hollowed point might be aswell. But thats expected since it was probably the only two songs Hanneman wrote in the freaking album. 2 out of 11 (or 12, cant remember) is really a bad record and it gets worse on further albums.

 

[DeathBrewer]

What about Skeletonwitch?

I have that at work...I think I'll listen to it now.

 

[Darth_Vukster]

I just watched the HDNet Megadeth concert, and I too was brought here via googling Dave Mustaine Lip synch. Amazing for a thread started over two years ago and not posted in for almost a year still tops the google search engines (atleast for DM lip synching).

Wasn't going to post, but I felt that I had to chime in because of the numerous thoughts posted here. So many things to comment on.

First off I have to say that Megadeth garners much respect from me simply from the fact that they did not sell out like their "counterpart" Metallica. I did find it ironic though that Dave was wearing a Kiss t-shirt...who some would say is the biggest sellout band of them all (although I still love Kiss):rockin:.

As mentioned by a couple posters, Mustaine can be a douchbag at times...but I find the members of Metallica to be so more often than not. The comment "divas" was mentioned...it fits!

About 4 songs into the show I was overwhelmingly compelled to google Dave Mustain Lip synching. Reading through the thread, watching the show, I had to bust out laughing to come across a post that admitted ending up here via the same method...then it was followed by quite a few more!

I would like to say that I am still on the fence on this one. I do not want to believe it, but sometimes it really seemed quite obvious. The only thing that keeps me thinking maybe he wasn't is that there were a few times when he spoke to the crowd. When he did this I noticed a couple things:
1. He talks funny to begin with. He doesn't seem to enunciate his words using a pronounced mouth movement as most people do. He could probably be a good ventriloquist with practice. Because of this, it could also make his singing look funny (lip synched)
2. When he talked to the audience, at times he was a bit farther from the mic than you typically see. Some people talked of this tell, which usually IS a give away, but I have to say this mic seemed to pick up his voice pretty well from 6-12 inches. I in no way believe the spoken parts were lip-synched, so thus I have to believe the mic could pick up his voice while singing 6-12 inches away.

As of today, it seems this debate still lives, with this thread being the #1 source of info on the subject. Perhaps someday we may finally get an a definitive answer...it was live with a minorly badly synched audio and video feed, it was lip-synched, there was post production overdub, or just Dave with funny mouth movements. We may never know.

Also wanted to state my opinion that Megadeth and Metallica were never really Thrash/Speed-Metal/Death Metal bands (Slayer could probably fall there, with Anthrax being borderline). While they did have songs that crossed into that area, I do not think that they could really be classified completely in that category. And to be classified as a Thrash/Speed-Metal/Death Metal band, I think the majority of your songs have to fall into that category. This of course is a very gray area and is really a matter of opinion, so it can be debated till the end of time.

 

[McKBrew]

Amazing. Homebrewtalk.com is the best resource for this.

Darth: Welcome to Homebrewtalk, do you like beer. Stick around and we will teach you how to make your own. Or at least enough to make people think you are doing it yourself

I just watched the HDNet Megadeth concert, and I too was brought here via googling Dave Mustaine Lip synch. Amazing for a thread started over two years ago and not posted in for almost a year still tops the google search engines (atleast for DM lip synching).

Wasn't going to post, but I felt that I had to chime in because of the numerous thoughts posted here. So many things to comment on.

First off I have to say that Megadeth garners much respect from me simply from the fact that they did not sell out like their "counterpart" Metallica. I did find it ironic though that Dave was wearing a Kiss t-shirt...who some would say is the biggest sellout band of them all (although I still love Kiss):rockin:.

As mentioned by a couple posters, Mustaine can be a douchbag at times...but I find the members of Metallica to be so more often than not. The comment "divas" was mentioned...it fits!

About 4 songs into the show I was overwhelmingly compelled to google Dave Mustain Lip synching. Reading through the thread, watching the show, I had to bust out laughing to come across a post that admitted ending up here via the same method...then it was followed by quite a few more!

I would like to say that I am still on the fence on this one. I do not want to believe it, but sometimes it really seemed quite obvious. The only thing that keeps me thinking maybe he wasn't is that there were a few times when he spoke to the crowd. When he did this I noticed a couple things:
1. He talks funny to begin with. He doesn't seem to enunciate his words using a pronounced mouth movement as most people do. He could probably be a good ventriloquist with practice. Because of this, it could also make his singing look funny (lip synched)
2. When he talked to the audience, at times he was a bit farther from the mic than you typically see. Some people talked of this tell, which usually IS a give away, but I have to say this mic seemed to pick up his voice pretty well from 6-12 inches. I in no way believe the spoken parts were lip-synched, so thus I have to believe the mic could pick up his voice while singing 6-12 inches away.

As of today, it seems this debate still lives, with this thread being the #1 source of info on the subject. Perhaps someday we may finally get an a definitive answer...it was live with a minorly badly synched audio and video feed, it was lip-synched, there was post production overdub, or just Dave with funny mouth movements. We may never know.

Also wanted to state my opinion that Megadeth and Metallica were never really Thrash/Speed-Metal/Death Metal bands (Slayer could probably fall there, with Anthrax being borderline). While they did have songs that crossed into that area, I do not think that they could really be classified completely in that category. And to be classified as a Thrash/Speed-Metal/Death Metal band, I think the majority of your songs have to fall into that category. This of course is a very gray area and is really a matter of opinion, so it can be debated till the end of time.

 

[MetallHed]

are slayer, megadeth, and anthrax sell-outs now because of the "Big 4" tour?

 

[Darth_Vukster]

Amazing. Homebrewtalk.com is the best resource for this.

Darth: Welcome to Homebrewtalk, do you like beer. Stick around and we will teach you how to make your own. Or at least enough to make people think you are doing it yourself

LOL...although I DO like beer, I probably wouldn't be welcome around here...as my tastes for beer include the likes of Bud, Bud Light, Genny Light, Coors Light, Blue and Blue Light. Try not to hate me.

 

[Darth_Vukster]

are slayer, megadeth, and anthrax sell-outs now because of the "Big 4" tour?

How does a tour equate to being a sell out? I feel the term "sellout" has to do with changing your music to appeal to the masses, rather then to your core fans who appreciated your music for what it was. "Selling out" isn't a completely negative term, as it often leads to more success. It just means that you chose to abandon your roots to go down a path that would gain you more widespread popularity, often at the expense of original fans. Again it is semantics though.

In this case, if these bands "commercialized" the music they were putting out, then I would say yes, they are sellouts. I am not familiar with much Slayer, so I cannot comment on them. Megadeth is still putting out the same music that they started with, so I have to say IMO, they did NOT sellout. Anthrax has been less active, and I am not familiar with their last 2 albums, so I cannot comment on them. Before that they seemed to still keep their edge.

Metallica is one of the bands I have seen most, and their contribution to the popularity and success of metal music is unmatched. But actually, I think the fact that Metallica wanted to re-associate themselves with the other bands only further solidifies their "sellout" image. They probably thought that it might help them to shake the wimpy prima donna diva image that they have developed.

Again though, this is all opinion. And some may feel that bands learn to grow and change, thus they are NOT selling out...they are improving their sound.

 

[Shooter]

are slayer, megadeth, and anthrax sell-outs now because of the "Big 4" tour?

Oh, it's going to sell-out, no doubt about that!

 

[Bobby_M]

LOL...although I DO like beer, I probably wouldn't be welcome around here...as my tastes for beer include the likes of Bud, Bud Light, Genny Light, Coors Light, Blue and Blue Light. Try not to hate me.

I tried and failed. GTFO.





I actually think "sell out" is one of the laziest negative critiques of a band out there. It's one thing to say that you don't think a particular direction a band has taken is appealing for some reason. That's a taste issue. Once you accuse them of making a change in direction to "sell out", it suggests you think you know exactly what motivates people. Sure, it's money most of the time but have your tastes in music ever changed? When you play with the same basic group for 30 years, you're bound to mix it up a bit now and then and you get three different generations accusing you of selling out every few years.

In other words, if your followup album varies at all from your debut, you're a sell out because obviously you've changed it to sell more albums. Then again, if you DON'T sell more albums, you go back to flipping burgers and make no more albums (but save face in light of your idealistically small fan base). Rambling...

 

[Homercidal]

I'll never trust the opinion of someone whose taste in beer includes "...the likes of Bud, Bud Light, Genny Light, Coors Light, Blue and Blue Light."

Although the term sell-out can still apply to this thread...

 

[j1laskey]

Maynard James Keenan defines "sell out" eloquently in "Hooker with a Penis" :rockin:

 

[q2parrot]

I don't think it's uncommon to re-record sections of a song post production. I've even read where Steve Vai talked about cleaning up stuff in the studio after it was recorded for a live DVD.

I watched the video this past Sunday on HDNet, and I was entertained. I thought it was a great performance. Whether you are disappointed or not, they're still extremely talented. Granted, they're not the same today as they were 15 years ago, but still awesome.

 

[pnj]

They aren't the same today as they were 25 years ago either.....