Dave Mustaine Studying 'Crazy Science Stuff' for New Megadeth Album

"This world is so fascinating!" says Megadeth frontman.

Dave Mustaine Studying 'Crazy Science Stuff' for New Megadeth Album
27
After revealing the initial new album plans, Megadeth mainman Dave Mustaine recently shared some of the lyrical themes he's looking to delve into on the next record. "I have been studying a lot of world history and a lot of crazy science stuff for new lyrics," Mustaine tweeted. "This world is so fascinating!" Despite their latest album "Super Collider" being less that three months old, thrash titans are planing to pull another one off and in a way oppose the current trend of lengthy studio breaks between records. "We're planning our next time to go into the studio to start demoing up our next record," the frontman told 93X Radio. "You know, time is short. Nobody knows how long they're gonna live. You see what happened with Jeff Hanneman, so I wanna write as much as I can while I can." The four-piece will also release "Countdown to Extinction: Live" on September 24, a concert record featuring full performance of classic 1992 album "Countdown to Extinction." As the fourteenth studio effort in Megadeth opus, "Super Collider" saw its release on June 4 via Tradecraft, scoring a No. 6 debut on the Billboard 200 chart with 29,000 copies sold in the US within the first week.
So how about those lyrical themes? And do you like the fast pace the band is working at? Let us know in the comments.

85 comments sorted by best / new / date

comments policy
    acefecoo
    Crazy science stuff? What is crazy science stuff for Mustaine? Evolution?
    5t0rM
    What if he would become an atheist after all of the "crazy science stuff". Just imagine the headlines on ultimate-guitar. I bet there would be one new article about Dave every 2 minutes (opposed to the current "Articles about Dave every 5 minutes" trend).
    ChasenPipo
    Evolution? Nah, I wouldn't go that far. He's propably learning times tables...
    jackjb94
    I believe thats maths not science.
    GodzillaRAWRRR
    And how is Maths not a Science? If you did an undergraduate Maths degree it would be classed as a Bachelor of Science.
    BlackDeath92
    In the majority colleges, that is true. Some however will lump you in as a Bachelor of Arts with an emphasis on mathematics.
    BlackDeath92
    *facepalms* Math is a science dude...
    AcousticMetal99
    Maths is not a science. They are just linked very closely. Science relies on maths for large parts. Maths is certainly not a "natural science". If you want to classify it as a science subject rather than as an arts subjects, that makes sense. For a start, look at the differences in proofs and theories between science and maths - scientific theories are always, due to their nature, simply the best guess we have as to what something is or how it works, whereas mathematical theories are logical statements and arguments which do not even need to be based no the real world, or observation. In terms of scientific proofs, they are not necessarily actual "proofs" which are completely irrefutable, except for those which use maths. On the other hand, virtually mathematical proofs are only ever wrong if the person(s) creating the proof(s) happen to be wrong in an assumption of working. Besides that, science is inherently connected to the real world, and observations taken from the real world - all the ideas and theories in science come from observations. Mathematics, however, has no need to deal with the problems & constraints of the real world. Now, you could say mechanics or statistics does deal with the real world and uses observations, but it's easy to counter because, as I mentioned, maths & science are closely linked; some of maths does use observations. In the case of stats, for example, the chi (pronounced kai) group of distributions is purely theoretical... Anyway, those are only 2 sections of maths - what about combinatorics, abstract algebra, topolgy, etc?? Those need no physical contraints or even links to the physical world. For example, in decision maths, it's perfectly possible to deal with, say, 20 dimensions, even though that has no real-world sense; even string-theorists don't believe in that many... So anyway, anyone care to provide some evidence to contradict my points? And yes, you do have to read it all first. Just as a final point, it is possible to be awarded a BSc, a BMath or a BA for a degree in mathematics...
    BlackDeath92
    Mathematics is a science. It's the study of numbers and how they work. The studying of observable phenomenon (even abstract concepts like numbers)makes it a science. Just because it is an abstract concept, that does not make it a non-science. If that were the case, computer science would never progress beyond mechanical gears and vacuum tubes! "Mathematics, however, has no need to deal with the problems & constraints of the real world" Since when? History's most complex problems could have never been solved without some sort of application of math. As for the title of a degree in math, that does not matter. The classification of a degree is based upon criteria set by the university. It has nothing to do with math being classified as a science or not. For example, I study computer science, but my ultimate degree will be a BMath degree.
    AcousticMetal99
    It's more than just a study of numbers. Numbers only get one so far in maths. It certainly takes it a step back from actual sciences. Your point on CompSci is irrelevant - the ultimate goal of CompSci problems & programs is to solve real-world problems, or to find solutions to problems by sheer scale of computation. Note my usage of "no NEED" - I clearly stated more than once that mathematics CAN deal with the real world, just that it does not have to. I would appreciate my words being read if someone is to reply. So, by continuation of that point, your argument about history's problems is also irrelevant to the argument. I would point out that something such as fine art uses sciences - in terms of making pygments for example, or inn more recent days, computer graphics. That same applies to animation. That does not make fine art or animation a science. In further reply to your first point, English looks for patterns in things too, and bases structures and types of literature/poetry off patterns. Once again, although maths looks for patterns, that does not make English mathematical. Also, geography looks for patterns in weather, geology in rocks and their formation... They exhibit scientific sections, but the subject as a whole is not a science. The classification of a degree is somewhat arbitrary. However, it does go to show how a particular subject can be considered. Clearly, I am not the only one who does not believe maths to be a science. You will find the Wiki page on this agrees with me, although Wiki is known to be open to bias. So, are you going to classify everything which looks for patterns, or which applies a logical method, a science? Surely that is rather narrow-minded and unscientific. That is similar to saying all things with carbon in must be, or once have been, living creatures... despite things such as diamond and graphite...
    BlackDeath92
    Science is simply an observation of the universe and learning from that. Since math uses numbers to explain the universe around us, that makes it into a science. Science is an incredibly broad term that can apply to almost anything. Therefore, how is it NOT a science? Just because math can be an integral part of science in general and within specific scientific fields, it does not necessarily mean that math itself can't be a science. A bit of friendly advice: don't ever use a Wiki page as a supportive argument. That's almost as bad as saying "Well, my buddy said..." or even asking any of these commentators on UG!
    AcousticMetal99
    I did mention I was only using Wiki as evidence that my point of view is not alone. Back to the question in hand, by your definition, surely then art can be considered a science, or even music and philosophy? That is simply inane. The point of classification is to be more specific, not more generic. Thus, I conclude that your definition is far too general and thus pointless. What is the use of something which can apply to almost anything? Why not just call it a "thing", or a "subject"? As such, I hold to my earlier points that maths is not a science. The use of a scientific method, or what could be termed an analytical or statistical method just as easily, is not proof that that thing is a science in any true sense. If you want to use a general term such as "scientific in nature", I could accept that. However, not that maths is itself a science any more than any of the subjects I have previously mentioned.
    Muttonjoint
    Everything that is considered scientific has a mathematical explanation as well. Studying physics has showed me that all aspects of nature have elements of geometry, trigonometry, calculus and so on. Music itself exhibits several traits of geometry, and at the level of the simple sinusoidal sine wave, you see nothing but trigonometric explanations, but after all, the word sine itself comes from trigonometry.
    katalyzt13
    Despite Mustaine's unpopular politics/religion, he is actually a very intelligent dude. Every celebrity that almost crashes/burns and gets born again gets weird for a while, he's just had an extended hiatus.
    Creepingdeth89
    Seems like a lyrical fail already. There is no conviction to the song subject if you knows he think it's a load of shite. What's he going to use science for now? Is he going to have a crappy metaphor about changing direction musically and compare it to the evolution theory or something?
    crazysam23_Atax
    You're assuming that Dave (and, I suspect, all Christians) despise science or somehow don't understand basic scientific principles. Obviously, if he's studying up on some scientific concepts, Dave doesn't think science in general is a load of shite. Contrary to what people believe, you can actually believe in Creationism and still have respect for science.
    Creepingdeth89
    Did you read the article about the origins of Super Collider? Where Dave said in an interview that he was "reading up" about the Hadron Collider and was fascinated by the engineering behind it, but didn't believe in it's purpose or that it would prove anything at all? This isn't an attack on Christianity, and in no way did i imply it was. I'm pointing out that the lyrics will hold no meaning, just like the song Super Collider which has no relation to the Hadron Collider. Does it not sound like desperation to you?
    Iommianity
    In what universe is ignoring science respecting it? That's what creationism is. It's ignoring carbon dating, it's ignoring evolution, it's ignoring the fossil record. The thing about science is it doesn't matter if people respect it, or consider it legitimate, so we're not talking about a mere difference in opinion. Creationists respect science up until the point where it works against them, which is immediately. There's a reason there's a backlash against it, and it's not religious bias. It's because it's promotion of ignorance. I think what you really meant is that not all religious people are creationists, which means some do respect science. Fair enough.
    AcousticMetal99
    Just going to point out that even someone who rejects some of science can still respect, and even accept, other bits of science. I've never actually met any Creationists, but I'd suggest that not all of them reject ALL of science. They just object to bits which seem to contradict literal interpretation of their holy texts.
    Iommianity
    That's not respecting science then, is it? To acknowledge that you respect the empirical scientific method when it works in your favor, but reject it when it works against you? That kind of flies in the face of what science is. I think people are too eager to play the role of apologists, just as some people are as eager to put religion down, but people should be able to call a spade a spade. If creationists respected science, they would not be trying to pass of their views as a legitimate alternative with nothing but a pseudo-scientific argument to back it up. That's pretty key, here. I'm not trying to say they don't respect science because they're religious, but I am trying to say that their specific views and goals as creationists kind of negate any way you can rationalize it. If creationists don't want people to think they don't care for science, they should probably stop trying to have their views taken as a legitimate alternative to evolution. It's really that simple. It's wrong to say all Christians are creationists, and thus reject science, because that's not true. But don't make apologies for creationists, because no matter how good their intentions, they're not offering a legitimate alternative that needs to be paid due reverence.
    AcousticMetal99
    It still is. It's not necessary to believe every single theory or hypothesis put out there... Let me give you a few examples of the general scientific community deliberately putting down valid evidence and disregarding it simply because it doesn't fit THEIR views of what should be right: 1) Newton vs Huygens: Huygens' theory of light could explain things Newton's theory could not, yet for a couple of HUNDRED YEARS, Newton's theory was taken to be correct, simply because he was better known. 2) More recently, the paleontological community rejecting clear evidence of dinosaur DNA & blood/marrow cells existing despite fossilisation. The evidence was blatant, and clear. Couldn't be disputed. Nonetheless, the entire community rejected that just because they thought no soft tissues could last through fossilisation. So, what does that tell us? Firstly, that scientists aren't always that "scientific". Secondly, it doesn't stop those people being scientists... they just reject something obviously better... I'm not trying to legitimise Creationist views and ideas, and I like to call a spade a spade. On the other hand, stereotyping can be folly, and I was simply pointing out a flaw in an argument. To your last point, their views need not be respected because, frankly, those views are inane, but it doesn't mean you should show disrespect to the people holding those views, and it doesn't mean those views prevent them from seeing sensible arguments on other areas of study/science/the world in general.
    Iommianity
    Fair enough, you make a good argument with your first two points. I concede that to you.
    BlackDeath92
    I have a friend that is a Creationist. She doesn't reject science for the sake of doing such. She just has her own ideologies and interpretations of the Bible that she is comfortable with. By no means does that make her an idiot, as she does fully recognize many of today's scientific advancements.
    SmurfGenocide
    you realize that carbon dating and all of those other dating methods aren't really an exact science. you can take three samples from the same area and get much different ages so the scientist is free to choose the date that fits most with whatever theory or time table is popular.
    AcousticMetal99
    Yup, I like your points. Science can be highly open to interpretation and inaccurate at times. Same thing with theories such as dark energy and white holes and Higgs' field. Glad to see some other people have a little common sense and aren't just stereotyping.
    jackson4321
    okay i love megadeth, like really love megadeth, but some of their new stuff really makes me wonder what's going on in mustaine's head. i wouldn't mind if they took off 5 years to make a ****ing incredible album, but just churning them out one by one... not the way to go imo.
    MaggaraMarine
    If you feel inspired right now, why not start writing songs? I mean, inspiration may not last that long. Why wait five years? If you don't feel inspired then, the album is not going to be any better. They don't use five years to write a new album. Actually they only use some weeks and they write most of the songs just before they record them. And what's wrong with releasing an album more frequently? Back in the 60s every band did that (though back then recording an album took just a couple of days/weeks). For example Led Zeppelin 1 and 2 were both released in 1969. And both are great albums.
    Rimfrost
    What would a 5 year break change? If they arent working on the songs in that time, then it shouldnt end up much different than if they started working now. Break doesnt equal quality... Id rather they made a new album as quickly as possible since i didnt like SuperCollider, itll probably be better and if it isnt maybe the following will be. If you feel creative and want to record an album, you should record an album. Its pointless to wait unless you are burnt out...
    Nonesta13
    for a while led zeppelin was releasing stuff each year and nobody complained then
    ewolf5150
    i think van halen released an album once a year from 1978-1983. they all pretty much kicked major ass to, except for diver down, but even that had some sick tunes
    ][v][ETAL
    Basically the break allows you to perfect your written work, add or subtract to it, before releasing it. Dave could start writing now, and he could release it after a few years or so after already making sure the shit is amazing as ****.
    EpsilonX
    They should do whatever it takes to write more songs like Sudden Death, Head Crusher, Never Dead, and Dialectic Chaos/This Day We Fight.
    jordo246
    There was 2 years between UA and Endgame and they were both really good albums, it's nothing to do with time it's just down to what ever he feels like writing.
    Shametome
    He's studying the art of taking us high- Okay, no. Not going there.
    0rion2309
    He's studying to find out what a supercollider really is and then he might find that it's nothing that will take him higher.