Thrash metal
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: General Music Discussions
Forum Description: Discuss and create polls about all types of music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=48033
Printed Date: December 12 2024 at 10:26
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Thrash metal
Posted By: Horror Bull
Subject: Thrash metal
Date Posted: April 21 2008 at 17:04
so.... does anyone here listen to thrash?  IMO, the more obscure the band the better I like stuff like: Morbid Saint Kreator Doom Megadeth Watchtower Artillery Destruction Sadus etc... |
Replies:
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: April 21 2008 at 17:06
| Used to be into it more in my youth - my favorite all-time thrash album would have to be Rust in Peace. |
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: April 21 2008 at 17:09
|
I used to, too, two or three years ago. I paid most attention to Voivod, Carnivore and Doom (perhaps we mean the same band here), which is why I ended up on these boards instead of metal-archives ones. *giggles*
I think Watchtower are included here, and I always found them interesting too. ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: Horror Bull
Date Posted: April 21 2008 at 17:12
|
I love Doom, I mean this one: http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=24606  |
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: April 21 2008 at 17:14
|
Yes, them! What a wonderful band :) I always loved their fretless/stick-style bass playing. ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: April 21 2008 at 21:11
| I like Megadeth or Slayer every now and again, I suppose. Doesn't drive me particularly wild, but its occasionally rather fun. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: April 22 2008 at 00:49
Pure Thrash like in early Megadeth and early (really early, like their first album only) Metallica and Anthrax is not my favorite metal... I much prefer progressive metal which has lots of thrash elements (starting with Metalllica's masterpieces) and also death and black metal. I don't care much for the vocal style of thrash nor for the tone... I prefer the darker tones of more sinister genres.. ------------- 
|
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: April 22 2008 at 18:57
|
The "classic" 4 are/were good. The third and fourth Sepultura albums are fantastic thrash (first two were fantastic death metal!) Death Angel I like Testament, but they were relatively inconsistent. Viking - Man of Straw |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: April 22 2008 at 19:02
|
yeah I forgot Sepultura... but i consider their classic albums more death than pure thrash... -------------
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 22 2008 at 19:07
|
proto-Thrashers Raven a favorite.. just reviewed Colin Marston's Indricothere which has considerable Thrash leanings |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 23 2008 at 04:41
|
All Hail Priest - inventors of thrash... and Randy Rhoades, who wasn't far behind (in terms of rhythm...).
I was completely smitten by all the different flavours of thrash when it burst through in the UK - spearheaded by the band beginning with M that we don't mention, with Anthrax, Slayer, Megadeth hot on their tails.
The bands that came through after that were no less amazing at the time; Kreator, Testament, Death, Possessed, Dark Angel, Celtic Frost, Exodus, Napalm Death, Tankard, Whiplash, Helloween, Lawnmower Deth - all exploited the thrash style and I'm not going to go down the subgenre trap - they were all amazing and had unique styles. That's what really got me about it - how very different each interpretation was.
The first 3 albums in the Speed Kills compilation series were like doors into the good stuff - while the only 2 metal mags of the time, Kerrang! and Metal Hammer concentrated on coverage that was almost blind (everything was good as long as it was thrashed, according to Metal Hammer). I bought albums by every band that featured on the first Speed Kills compilation.
http://www.discogs.com/release/380102 - http://www.discogs.com/release/380102
 ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 23 2008 at 04:48
|
luckily we had Ron Quintana's fledgling Metal Mania available around town, which featured the important acts in the early 80s, it's where I heard about Venom, Accept, Sweet Savage, Raven and the better releases from Saxon, Motorhead and Fate |
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: April 23 2008 at 12:02
|
Accept & Raven, two far too overlooked bands. Accept at least the good fortune to have Balls to the Wall & Metal Heart garner some attention in the States. Raven, however, went limp once "rewarded" with a record deal with a major label. Stay Hard killed any momentum they had rightly built up with All for One. In brief, Restless & Wild & All for One should be in every Trash Metaller's collection. P.S. Raven - their later album - Life's a Bitch should have been the follow-up to All for One. It was a strong return to form, unfortunately, much too late to regain the lost ground. ------------- "Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case. |
Posted By: Nightfly
Date Posted: April 23 2008 at 15:24
|
^ Not heard a lot of Raven but I would describe Accept as more Power Metal than Thrash. I used to listen to quite a bit of Thrash in the 80's, my 2 favourite albums in the genre being Metallica's Master of Puppets and Slayer's Reign in Blood. Other bands I had a soft spot for were Celtic Frost, Exodus, Flotsam and Jetsam (featuring the soon to be in Metallica Jason Newsted), Megadeth, Anthrax, Dark Angel, Death Angel (great for such a young band), Voivod, Sepultura to name a few. Oh and not forgeting Testament. |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: April 23 2008 at 22:54
Beneath the Remains, and Arise are more thrash in my ears. Where as, Morbid Visions and Schizophrenia were death all the way. All four were incredible especially when compared to the likes of "Roots" (BLEH!). Their newest album was actually pretty cool though. |
The T wrote:Posted By: The T
Date Posted: April 23 2008 at 23:54
I think Sepultura's style is just at the end of the thrash line and at the beginning of the death one. Just on the border. But if you check the type of riffs and the kind of tuning and the keys they mostly play their music in, it's closer to death. They use more blast beats than regular in thrash, and even the vocals are closer to death than to thrash. Chaos AD is a different thing and a masterpiece of metal in my view, an album that is neither thrash nor death but Sepultura. With Roots everything went downhill. I hate that album. -------------
|
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: April 24 2008 at 00:02
|
Do I listen to thrash? Hell Yeah!
Outside of the prog metal genres, Prog Metal, Post/Experimental, Tech/Exteme, thrash is one of my favorite genres of metal.
Metallica from 1982 to 1989, some Testament, Slayer from 1983 to '86, Megadeth's first 4 albums, Nuclear Assault, Aussie thrashers Mortal Sin, Dark Angel, Exodus, all favorites of mine.
The top thrash album for me? Rust In Peace. Exceptionally well written, technical, and some of the best thrash metal guitar solos of all time IMO, of course penned by the legendary Marty Friedman. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: April 24 2008 at 03:21
Exactly. The only Accept song that sounds much like thrash is Fast as a Shark. At their best they were still an absolutely great band, a good example of when power metal actually had... you know, POWER. By the way, don't capitalize genres, they're not proper nouns. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 24 2008 at 03:31
|
Accept were strongly influenced by the NWOBHM, which is essentially Proto Thrash. There are a lot of bands/albums between circa 1981 and 1985 which I would simply call "Modern Metal" ... not strictly NWOBHM anymore, but also not part of the styles which were established later (Thrash, Death, Black etc.).
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: April 24 2008 at 17:42
I think that's a bit of a generalization... Venom, the prototype for thrash, were part of the NWoBHM as were a lot of other punk-influenced metal bands that played fast but I'm not sure if any of the really influential ones took as many clues from punk as Venom did... and not all NWoBHM bands were like that, even. I mean, what would you make of Pagan Altar, whose most obvious influence is Jethro Tull? 
That's weird... doesn't "modern metal" usually describe 1990s stuff that's very distinctly 1990s?  But, yeah, the lines between thrash and death and black metal were much blurrier back then. It helps a lot if you think of genres as vague descriptive terms rather than narrow boxes. I still wouldn't call Accept thrash... far from all of their songs were all-out speedfests like Fast as a Shark, Flash Rocking Man or Breaker. Not all fast Accept songs were thrashy either - Burning, for example, sounds more like like Chuck Berry's Roll Over Beethoven or Blue Öyster Cult's Me262 than anything else. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 24 2008 at 18:30
|
^ I didn't call Accept Thrash, did I? I tried to say that the NWOBHM was one of the key influences for the first Thrash bands, and some of the NWOBHM bands - most importantly Judas Priest, Iron Maiden and Diamond Head - played riffs which I would call Proto-Thrash. And about "Modern Metal": If that for you means 1990s, then what about the classic Metal stuff of the 70s - early Black Sabbath or even Deep Purple or Steppenwolf ... back then people were calling it metal, we have to live with that. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: April 24 2008 at 20:50
|
Assigning Accept to the Trash metal genre is based on their first albums, up to and including Restless & Wild. Starlight, Breaker, SOn of a Bitch, Down & Out, Fast as a Shark, Ahead of the Pack, Shake your Heads, Get Ready, are nothing if not trash. True, these by and large would not have fit in on Tank's Filth Hounds of Hades Lp, but they aren't quite the power metal that Balls to the Wall would perfect. ------------- "Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case. |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: April 24 2008 at 21:48
I agree. And yes, Chaos AD was great. Roots again, was baaaaaad. |
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: April 24 2008 at 22:21
|
In case it was missed - TANK - Filth Hounds of Hades. Listen to Shellshock. Then give your chainsaw a try. Listen to Shellshock again. Imagine the guitar as a chainsaw. Then sigh, knowing that such a classic could not be replicated. ------------- "Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case. |
Posted By: Plankowner
Date Posted: April 24 2008 at 22:47
New thrash for you :) Paradox "Electrify"  Biomechanical "Cannablised"  Courageous "Downfall of Honesty"  Angel Dust "Enlighten the Darkness" |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 25 2008 at 03:44
I would dispute Venom as being the prototype for thrash - they basically introduced the concept of Black Metal, which was essentially the darker side of Sabbath, Priest and so on, but did not actually play thrash - at least, not on their first 3 albums.
The "punk" clue that Venom drew most heavily on was a stunning inability to play. They really were shockingly bad.
BUT they still created music of worth from sheer bloody-minded attitude - another punk basic that even the Sex Pistols didn't manage despite it being core to their values.
The energy of punk is what differentiates NWoBHM generally from "old school heavy metal" (AKA Hard Rock) - but a significant proportion of NWoBHM bands also caught onto the showmanship of Glam Rock (Sweet, Queen, etc), the adventurousness of Priest and the technical skills of not only the old school guitarists like Hendrix, Clapton, Blackmore, etc., but also of technique-maestros Schenker and Roth of the Scorpions. There are certain chops that crop up again and again in NWoBHM solos that can be traced back to those gentlemen. Likewise, a significant chunk of riffererama can be traced back to Priest (obviously you could track it back further, but you'd be moving away from the core style of metal).
Couldn't agree more - but Heavy Metal as a style, rather than a genre is much less vague - and a very useful handle. To me, Thrash is also a style, the first example of which is "Exciter" by Judas Priest, in which the guitar rhythms are constantly picked alternately. One can hear this in tracks like "Highway Star" - but somehow it's not the same. The consolidation of thrash can first be heard on Metal Church and Metallica's debuts in which the correct drum backbeat is used.
Death Metal of course, originates in the title of the Possessed song, but the sound and style was only fully realised by Mr Schuldiner (who initially, unfortunately, failed to notice the free-form time signatures of the riffs that Possessed used in that song).
"Modern Metal" seems to be more a sound than a style, and I would argue that the sound started with Black Sabbath's "Heaven and Hell", but that this sound evolved through the 1980s - Metallica's "Ride The Lightning" is another good example, but in the 4 years between those two releases, this was not the common sound of metal, due mainly to budget production. Metallica's self-titled album in 1991 would seem to be the ultimate consolidation of the modern metal sound thanks to Bob Rock - who also produced Survivor's 1979 album, which also sports quite a modern production.
To go back even earlier, Rodger Bain's production of "Rocka Rolla" is much closer to modern metal than 1970s hard rock, and puts the committee production of "Sad Wings..." well into the shade - as the Bain mixes of the "Sad Wings..." songs on "Hero Hero" (early releases only!) clearly show.
I would agree with this asssessment - to my ears at least, Accept did not cross over into thrash from speed metal - on the whole, when they played fast, it was almost entirely downstroke style, and the drumming style was the typical "four to the floor" rather than the "twostroke" backbeat. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: April 25 2008 at 04:06
|
The concept of Modern Metal, I find to be extremely confusing.
I tend to think, some bands that had albums and existed during the 80s have a clearly dated sound, like Iron Maiden, Priest etc, while others like Megadeth and Testament perhaps don't even feel that dated even by 2008 standards. I tend to find, whenever I listen to Rust In Peace, it still seems so modern and relevant, not dated whatsoever, but I listen to Maiden of the same era and it feels quite dated. -------------
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 25 2008 at 08:40
|
I would differentiate in that Modern Metal has very clean lines - there's an emphasis on precision in playing that was somewhat absent from early NWoBHM particularly.
Later NWoBHM cleaned up its act - you can hear the slickness coming through in "Number of the Beast" and "Holy Diver". For some reason "Piece of Mind" has a more regressive sound - as if Maiden weren't happy with bringing their overall style forwards, while "Last In Line" is if anything slicker than "Holy Diver".
I'm not saying that those are Modern Metal albums per se - just using those as illustrations of how I see the sound developing.
Priest's "Painkiller", OTOH, has survived so well that even Death's attempt at a cover 8 years later has not made it sound particularly dated - if anything, Priest's version sounds fresher and heavier, despite Death's fashionable semitone downtune (your ears judge!); http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAagedeKdcQ - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAagedeKdcQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quPliK3eAy4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quPliK3eAy4
What constitutes Modern Metal is anyone's guess - a quick Google turned up "metal bands formed in the last 15 years..", and a very quick scout of lists turned up these bands;
Arch Enemy, System Of A Down, Disturbed, KoRn, Meshuggah, Killswitch Engange, Stone Sour, Papa Roach, Murderdolls, Godsmack, Cradle Of Filth, Slipknot, Avenged Sevenfold, Spineshank, Atreyu, Children Of Bodom
The things that seems to link these bands are
1. Usage of techniques from outside the Metal genre, such as rap, hip hop, Eastern European flavours via modal harmonies.
2. Emphasis on one or two specific execution techniques common to Prog Metal, such as rhythm speed, solo speed, extreme dotted rhythms in the riffs, mixed singing styles from soft and melodic (even whispering in extreme cases) to "cookie monster".
3. Sectional song construction with extreme dynamic between verse and chorus, sometimes even including a multi-part instrumental solo section.
4. Riffs absolutely rooted in Black Sabbath, Priest and Metallica, laden with trite tones... sorry, tritones, decorated with pinch harmonics, probably played on guitars utilising the somewhat soulless EMG 81 and/or 85 pickups, drop-tuned sometimes as low as C# - or even using Baritone guitars and 5 string basses, heavily compressed and LPF'd to create the illusion of "heavier". These riffs are commonly known as "cookie-cutter" - ie repeated so precisely and verbatim that one might suspect a copy-and-paste fest in the studio.
Sorry - but Megadeth (and Testament) are way too complicated to fit in with this crowd...
 /generalisations! ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 25 2008 at 08:47
|
^ I guess that in order to avoid confusion it would be better to speak of "70s Metal" (which I used to call Classic Metal), "80s Metal" (which I used to call Modern Metal) and "90s Metal", with the NWoBHM representing a transition between 70s Metal (still much based in Hard Rock) and 80s Metal, adding the Punk element and extending the riffing, and 80s Metal becoming a thing of its own with the advent of Thrash.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Nightfly
Date Posted: April 25 2008 at 13:22
I think you've summed it up very well there and the bands you mention pretty much define what I would see to be modern Metal to be as oposed to newer bands still in the Metal field that have much more of a retro sound like Down and The Sword for example. Both bands have a looseness to their style that harks back more to the likes of Black Sabbath and also without the other outside influences you mention.
Is that the same Paradox who released an album called Product of Imagination in the 80's?
|
Posted By: Plankowner
Date Posted: April 25 2008 at 23:28
| yep, that's them. But Electrify is so over the top sounds nothing like their previous albums. |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: April 26 2008 at 02:14
That's why I call them the prototype... they don't really sound like thrash, but all the first thrash bands were very inspired by them. And like I said, why can't they be both black metal, heavy metal and proto-thrash?
Exactly, that's what I meant and that's the big lesson to learn from punk: Good music doesn't need to be complex or well-played and it doesn't need a shiny polished production, it just needs attitude and energy.
I see what you mean... now I get what you mean with the entire NWoBHM being the prototype for thrash.
What about Sabbath's Symptom of the Universe or some of the faster songs on BÖC's second album?
I remember reading about a magazine called Death Metal which Tom G. Warrior had something to do with when he was in Hellhammer meaning that it predates Possessed getting their album out.
Ah. I still don't like the term "modern metal" because, as this thread shows, it's a really nebulous term and not very easily defined - for you it means everything from the 1980s and onwards but until I started posting on this forum I only ever heard it used as a synonym for "1990s metal". Hell, when you look at the big picture, all metal is modern music no matter how much it's inspired by mythology, romanticism and such things. |
Posted By: Grimfurg
Date Posted: May 05 2008 at 12:15
That's pretty much it. Plus: Sodom, Blind Illusion, Coroner, D.R.I., Old Death Angel, Rigor Mortis, ------------- http://regulab.bandcamp.com/album/vol-i/" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: mithrandir
Date Posted: May 05 2008 at 19:36
hmm, I think you might be referring to the Compilation album called "Death Metal" on Noise Records 1984, it also had the bands Running Wild, Dark Avenger and Helloween, ....the terms, Black, Thrash, Speed, Death, Doom, had been floating around quite a bit during the early/mid 80s before they started to settle into distinct genres by the mid to late 80s, Hellhammer and Frost had just as much to do as influencing Death Metal as Death did, not to mention dozens of other lesser known bands that only put out demos during that time, Massacre, Slaughter, Savage Death, Poison, Deathstrike, and so fourth, |
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: May 05 2008 at 19:51
|
Testament used to be one of my favs. What about OVERKILL?? Early Metallica, as well as classic Metallica is great. Annihilator? Death Angel? early Megadeth? all great thrash. havent listened to thrash metal (or much of any metal for that matter) in ages. maybe ill throw on some if i find the time. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm 
|
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: May 06 2008 at 06:04
|
^I forgot about Annihilator, but now that you bring it up, yes they are positively awesome and Jeff Waters is an awesome guitarist. I always throw the thumbs up Testament too, underrated and more influential than some people realise. -------------
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 06 2008 at 06:45
|
^ agreed ... I particularly liked Never, Neverland. Stone Wall is an awesome track! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2JgYoTeivI - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2JgYoTeivI  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Statutory-Mike
Date Posted: May 06 2008 at 07:57
|
I'm not huge on thrash but I do listen to Testament, Megadeth, Pantera, and Slayer every once in a while. Also, a really impressive new thrash band is Trivium IMO. Some pretty good guitarwork. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: May 06 2008 at 11:30
Owning Apocalyptic Raids 1990 A. D. I know about that compilation, I just thought it was connected to a magazine of the same name. |
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: May 06 2008 at 22:06
|
Hey Guys, I said give Tank a listen - Filth Hounds of Hades. Please, the world needs more Motorhead clones. That and you can feel cool by citing the fact that the bass player/singer/band leader used to be the Stranglers or the Damned's bass player.
------------- "Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case. |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: May 07 2008 at 02:36
|
Tank? I have a metal anthology which has a Tank song on it... I think I'll dig that up. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 07 2008 at 04:19
They can be, if you like, but I always see a prototype as something that was developed before the event, and there are proto-thrash pieces that predate Venom. I don't think it's true that all the first thrash bands were inspired by them - although it's beyond question that some were.
The categorisation doesn't matter at all - of course Venom were a heavy metal band, they were part of the NENWoBHM. They also called their first album "Black Metal", so if anyone can claim to have played it, then Venom are a leading light... er... dark?
Certainly, Venom developed a new sound and inspired more bands than many of their peers.
Earlier proto-thrash also exists - Deep Purple's "Highway Star", for example, but the two tracks mentioned above use the alternate picking rhythm style in a manner much more closely aligned to the thrash "movement".
The only point I was making was that "Exciter" (and Ozzy's "I Don't Know") were significantly before Venom, so I think that Venom were a bit late to be considered proto-thrash. However, I get your point with the title track of "Black Metal"
I'm listening to it now - and it's amazing just how much of the "thrash" sounds like Diamond Head played on more distorted guitars...
It's the drums that really let it down - with the exception of the title track and "Heaven's on Fire", the back beat that "makes" thrash is noticeably absent in favour of two-to-the-floor, and "Black Metal" features a standard Motorhead beat.Is it me, or does "Buried Alive" sound exactly like Nirvana?
I'd forgotten just how progressive this album is in every aspect...
You don't need to tell me, bro!
Hmm - everyone remembers it differently - I've read a few articles on that, but until I actually hear the evidence, I have to stick with what I've heard.
All I remember about Hellhammer is that they sounded awful. Think I need to revisit them, as Celtic Frost were awesome.
Having revisted "Seven Churches" recently, I realise that the track "Death Metal" does not, in fact, have an odd time signature. I must have been thinking of "Excorcist" or one of the other warped time tracks.
/clipped the stuff on modern metal - let's keep this thread on thrash, and modern metal can have another thread, if it likes. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: May 07 2008 at 10:39
I stand corrected. I just get more of a typical thrash... vibe, attitude, atmosphere, whatever you call it, when I listen to Venom than from 1970s proto-thrash like Highway Star or Exciter. Maybe it's the rawness that does the trick?
I think it's just you.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess... my favourite Celtic Frost records are the early ones that basically sound like a more epic version of Hellhammer but Into the Pandemonium just bores me. I think of that album as either a bad practical joke or a textbook example of how not to go experimental. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 07 2008 at 10:57
I don't think that those riffs are very close to thrash. They don't need to be utterly complex, but there should be a decent "level" of syncopation of 16th notes / dotted 8ths. I think a good example would be Slayer's Skeletons of Society ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 07 2008 at 13:28
|
^I've never associated syncopation with thrash as an essential element, except between the drums and synchronised guitars - far less dotted rhythms. For example, "Whiplash" is a perfect example of "raw" thrash, and "Highway Star" is one of the earliest examples I can think of that uses alternate picking for a "chugging" riff that stays on a single note for a significant proportion - particularly in the solos. It's only the interesting bits of thrash that do the clever syncopated stuff, surely? Or did you mean something else? ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 07 2008 at 16:04
|
^ no, that's exactly what I mean. I'm sure there are many ways to identify thrash ... for many people it can simply be the speed and brutality of drums, bass and guitar (they're "thrashing" their instruments). For me it was always the elaborate riffing, with heavy syncopation in respect to the drum patterns and with atonal (non-diatonic) harmonies. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: May 08 2008 at 02:40
|
I usede to listen to a lot of it, but at the moment I seem to be on a different track.
One exception though is 'Mekong Delta'. This is thrash with just that little bit 'extra' that gets me hooked even if I seem to have mellowed slightly in my musical tastes.
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 08 2008 at 02:53
|
Well, as far as I see it, thrash is thrash - the whole alternate picking to get more speed out of riffs combined with the drum back beat (which "Exciter" and "I Don't Know" do not have, but "Black Metal" comes very close to) is what makes it thrash as opposed to speed metal.
The variations in rhythm came surprisingly quickly - that was the thing that astonished me when it all "blew up" back in '83, that it was all so very different and that bands were acquiring individual styles that were more radical than those developed by most NWoBHM bands - but those more advanced techniques are not the basis to thrash, just what made the better bands stand out from the simple bands.
The trouble is that "thrash" quickly became a dirty word, associated with some kind of mindlessness in playing - and bands tried to get the point across that what they did was more than "thra**".
In my opinion, they shouldn''t have! Thrash was a new technique in itself, that completely revolutionised metal and what could be done with it - and the biggest revolutionaries of this new technique-based style were the bands themselves, especially those who cultivated original styles.
It's all progressive.  ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: May 08 2008 at 03:16
Hell, that's happened to metal in general... I blame either This Is Spinal Tap or grunge, those two things have meant most people today view metal as unintentionally amusing kitsch rather than a legitimately subversive artform.
 |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 08 2008 at 04:34
|
^It's not Spinal Tap's fault - if anything, Tap have helped me appreciate metal more for what it is - especially the tongue-in-cheek elements. And I cut my teeth on "On Parole".
Metal has always had a bad press - I remember reading a review of "Highway to Hell" in a fairly major UK Pop magazine in the late 1970s, which ripped it to shreds, awarding the album 3 stars (out of 10 - one of the lowest I'd ever seen in that particular publication) denouncing AC/DC as "Headbanging horrors", and the music as a cross between "a chainsaw and a piledriver".
I immediately sought it out as a result, and never read such shallow pop journalism again if I could help it. I could not believe how right/wrong they were - wrong to award it 3 stars, but right in the "Headbanging Horrors" stuff. I was hooked on AC/DC from that moment! ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 08 2008 at 04:48
|
^ I'd be glad if you could rate and tag some of your favorite Thrash albums at RF ... give Ride the Lightning some company!
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: May 08 2008 at 06:39
Yeah, but notice that in that case the reviewer's choice of words make it clear that he's terrified of this music - and remember, fear implies respect.
Today? Not only is rap causing most of the moral panics metal used to, but a lot of recent trendy "retro-metal" bands have a somewhat parodic vibe (look at the cover of the latest Municipal Waste album, or for that matter its song titles, if you want an example) that makes it look like they don't really respect the genre and its culture. Don't forget how SomethingAwful (and others) routinely dismiss metal as nothing but leftover feedback noise from adolescent testosterone poisoning. It's like mainstream culture has gone from shunning metal because it says something they don't want to hear to shunning metal because they refuse to even understand it.
All this becomes even more insulting to any self-respecting metal fan when you remember that - in Denmark at least - conservatives are still as scared by punk as they were back in the eighties.
Indeed. The worst music reviewers are those who are paid to do it.
|
Posted By: Yukorin
Date Posted: May 10 2008 at 05:33
He used to host a late-night TV show on a national channel in Japan about guitar playing, interviewing musicians, air-guitar competitions etc. Comes across as a real decent chap. Speaks perfect Japanese and apparently lives 5 minutes down the road from me in Shinjuku! ------------- 
|
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: May 10 2008 at 05:59
I've seen it on youtube, Young Guitar!
 I'm a big fan of both Marty Friedman and Paul Gilbert, so I've seen a few of the Young Guitar stuff on youtube, absolutely madness.
He does speak great Japanese, and Paul Gilbert is very fluent in Japanese as well. -------------
|
Posted By: Yukorin
Date Posted: May 10 2008 at 06:12
|
Not sure who Paul Gilbert is so will check it -------------
|
Posted By: Yukorin
Date Posted: May 10 2008 at 06:19
Tank are absolutely abysmal. Saw them live supporting Motorhead (maybe on the Iron Fist tour) and was given the LP. Then one of my metal loving cousins notices the LP and gives me a Tank picture-disc single for my birthday. They also top my 'most embarrassing performance on TV' chart. Forgot the show. Early 80s NWOBHM cash-in show on ITV. Remember two fascinating features on Judas Priest and Saxon. -------------
|
Posted By: Grimfurg
Date Posted: May 10 2008 at 08:39
I'm sorry, but Trivium are NOT thrash. They're actually pretty bad. ------------- http://regulab.bandcamp.com/album/vol-i/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: May 10 2008 at 11:44
Their early albums are goofy metalcore, yeah, but with The Crusade they went thrash. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 10 2008 at 12:10
Thrash and bad are not mutually exclusive...
The test is whether or not they use alternate picking to produce quick rhythms over a heavy back beat, not whether you like them or not...
If you''re not biased in anyway against shredders, he will blow you away - he's one of the very best.
I saw them supporting Motorhead (probably on the same tour), and bought Tank's LP on the strength of their performance... Listening to it now, it's not bad - but not up there with Motorhead, of course. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Yukorin
Date Posted: May 10 2008 at 12:40
No bias against shred! I usually insist on it on any instrument. Make my ears bleed! Please!
Haven't listened to the Tank LP since 82 (and I am in no hurry). I still have the plain sleeve 7" that came with it (fanboyism heh). I seem to remember that the Motorhead tour was when the stage descended from the ceiling (f**k they knew how to open a set). Pretty sure it was Iron Fist. B'ham Odeon incidentally.
Any ideas what that TV show was? It may have been a local thing. Whatever Central used to be called (ATV)? in the midlands. I remember fragments of great things on it. All nwobhm. Tank turned up and as the guitarist is about to power chord it after the drum only intro someone had forgotten to turn the gain/reverb on his amps giving him the cleanest Hank Marvin sound imaginable. Problem was, he weren't no Hank Marvin
-------------
|
Posted By: Grimfurg
Date Posted: May 17 2008 at 11:41
Sure, probably, but the true meaning of thrash is riffs, that kill. I'm sorry, but they are not thrash. The riffs are extremely mediocre, normally they rip your face off. And the "heavy back beat" that you speak of, sets a bad example from other thrash. Pantera aren't really thrash either. Both of the bands are "Groove Metal" (I know I hate the name as well, but it's a real sub-genre). ------------- http://regulab.bandcamp.com/album/vol-i/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 17 2008 at 15:34
Is it?
I'm not supporting the claim for Trivium, as I'm not familiar with their music yet - but if they use the technique I described, then they play thrash.
Simple as that - it has nothing to do with quality.
------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Grimfurg
Date Posted: May 18 2008 at 11:29
|
Yes but even the technique doesn't really describe to thrash anyway. They're an awful attempt of trying to be thrash.
------------- http://regulab.bandcamp.com/album/vol-i/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 19 2008 at 04:49
I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion - surely that is the basic underlying technique?
Again, I'm not sure if you're making one statement or two here.
I've Youtubed Trivium and they do, indeed play thrash in many sections of their songs. I'd agree that it's not particularly imaginative or technical thrash - and in most of the live recordings, not particularly well executed either. The studio recordings have a good NuMetal style production - but it ends up making them sound the same as everyone else.
Not really awful, but not very original or musically talented either. I'd prefer to listen to Killswitch Engage - or even Slipknot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIRp6ccaGX4 - Their cover of "Master of Puppets" is better than Dream Theater's - but nowhere near the original - they make it sound like hard work, fluff the pre-solo guitar part, make the twin lead part sound mechanical and bodge most of Kirk's beautiful decorations. Then they destroy the "Master, Master" section with that stupid double bass drum, and I nearly died when I heard the fast solo - that was really nasty. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: May 20 2008 at 10:05
|
Trivium, as stated earlier, had their beginnings in metalcore (and metalcore nowhere near up to the standard of a band like say Killswitch Engage IMO), and with their 2006 release The Crusade, Matt Heafy changed his vocal style from metalcore screams to James Hetfield type thrash vocals. That album I believe was a cross between Groove and Thrash Metal. A lot of kids that have recently gotten into the metal scene really like them, but many of the more "Old Guard" thrashers do their absolute best to distance themselves from a band like Trivium and similar style comtemporaries. And after listening to Trivium, I can see why and I have to agree entirely with Certif1ed's analysis of their MoP cover, it would have best left untouched by Trivium.
A lot of people have felt Trivium have done nothing new for the genre, and have basically rehashed the 80s thrash style and attempted to add (rather awfully and unoriginally) the lead guitar style of the dynamic duo of Cacophony-era Jason Becker and Marty Friedman, except unlike our 2 masters from Cacophony, the youtube videos of the Trivium guitarist show some pretty sloppy chops quite frankly, I would be willing to bet there are guys on this forum that outshred the Trivium guys, and given Mike (MisterProg) has stated he can play Cliffs Of Dover on guitar, there you go, there is already one forum member that can play guitar better than the Trivium guys, and more tastefully I'd imagine too.
We have our "Retro Rock" bands, a theme I'm quite sick of, since I'm a person about pushing into the future and what was great and innovative at the time, was truly great for it's time, but now a band that is doing "Retro Rock" is not going to come across as exciting as Led Zeppelin did at the time Zep was innovating. Same for Trivium and their similar comtemporaries, it just seems to be "retro thrash" and nothing more. If I want to listen to modern metal, I want to be hearing a band that isn't about recreating an era, but a band that is going to create for now and the future.
Just a quick note on Pantera, some of the songs on Cowboys from Hell are indeed thrash metal songs, but every album after that was purely Groove Metal and even some of the songs from CFH were already treading the groove metal water, so Pantera are really considered a Groove band and not a thrash band (Groove is considered a Neo/Post-Thrash genre).
-------------
|
Posted By: mithrandir
Date Posted: May 20 2008 at 14:50
you people and your sub-sub-sub genres of Metal are funny to me,
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 20 2008 at 15:50
|
Never heard of Groove Metal ... definitely won't add it at RF as a tag. Might add "Sleaze Metal" though, as a replacement for "Party Metal".
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: May 20 2008 at 16:12
That's not why I dislike the current retro rock fad. I dislike it because:
1) Most of those bands aren't interested in really saying anything with their music, they're just interested in revisiting their childhood memories. Now, there's nothing wrong with that in music but only when the band bring something more than that to the table. (which I doubt most of these are even interested in)
2) The people marketing it and the target audience are types who treat classic rock as a fashion accessory. This is the worst approach anyone can have to music, because it makes you impossible to be a true fan... all they think about is how listening to music like they made it in the seventies make you retro-cool in an ironic kitschy way.
In short, it's mostly disposable fluff for shallow trendies. The related "retro metal" fad is exactly the same deal, as you said. Notice how real metalheads don't care much about The Sword and Wolfmother?
Compare to something like early Monster Magnet (from long before retro rock became a trend, also notice that they eventually moved beyond the whole retro thing)... when you listen to, for example, Superjudge you can hear that it's by and for people who understand what made 1970s acid rock great. It's channeling the spirit of its inspirations, not just emptily recreating its form like a Cargo Cult on a Pacific island building wooden effigies of airstrips and cargo planes.
|
Posted By: Grimfurg
Date Posted: May 24 2008 at 05:40
|
Bah forget it I give up. ------------- http://regulab.bandcamp.com/album/vol-i/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 24 2008 at 06:22
|
^ Trivium are Thrash ... but they also add other elements, mostly Metalcore and Nu-Metal. Apparently many fans of old school Thrash don't like that, but that doesn't mean that they're not Thrash.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Grimfurg
Date Posted: May 24 2008 at 14:32
|
Nu-metal? :s Look it's not that I don't like the fact that they're mixing with different styles. It's just really mediocre. For me it's mediocre enough to not call it thrash. I mean, come on: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lp8p5OPtEe0 ------------- http://regulab.bandcamp.com/album/vol-i/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 24 2008 at 16:55
|
^ one of their albums was album of the month in Rock Hard magazine, who are quite independent. I don't like Trivium, but they're certainly not a bad band. http://youtube.com/watch?v=3rSfGtLzshc - http://youtube.com/watch?v=3rSfGtLzshc I still don't really like them, but it *is* thrash. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: RKS1987
Date Posted: May 24 2008 at 17:20
|
Its not thrash metal.
------------- As there was no venture capital involved, the operation was fairly modest in its beginnings. We lived in a cave, and records were kept in encrypted cuneiform on tree leaves hidden inside snake pits. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 24 2008 at 17:24
|
^ http://www.last.fm/music/Trivium - http://www.last.fm/music/Trivium #1 Metalcore #2 Metal #3 Thrash Metal Pretty much what I have been saying all along. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: RKS1987
Date Posted: May 24 2008 at 17:34
|
It can't be called "thrash metal" alone its not pure thrash metal therefore it can't be called as such. ------------- As there was no venture capital involved, the operation was fairly modest in its beginnings. We lived in a cave, and records were kept in encrypted cuneiform on tree leaves hidden inside snake pits. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 24 2008 at 17:39
|
^ Ok, I could live with that. I would not call them "Thrash Metal" either, they're Metalcore ... with many elements of Thrash Metal. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: May 25 2008 at 06:12
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GNLDLyeepVs - On the subject of Trivium ... 
|
Posted By: Nightfly
Date Posted: May 25 2008 at 10:42
| I see Testament have a new album out.........got a good review in Classic Rock. Anyone got it? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 25 2008 at 11:08
|
^ I bought the vinyl edition a few weeks ago ... I like it a lot. IMO it's easily on par with their classic albums.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Prof.
Date Posted: May 25 2008 at 21:27
|
I feel like such a Thrash Virgin, the only thing that I listen to thats considered Thrash is my early Metallica.
|
Posted By: chemo
Date Posted: May 25 2008 at 21:34
|
Vio-lence and Dark Angel both have some killer stuff. Heathen are one of the better bands doing thrash right now. I also like a few sort of thrash/other genre bands, like Imagika's power/thrash or Destroyer 666 (look past the name) black/thrash. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 03:06
The best interpretation video on Trivium by far -------------
|
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 03:27
Why is that band name inappropriate? It's a black/thrash band with lyrics about apocalyptic war, so it certainly fits their music. Sure, it doesn't exactly sound high-brow but in my opinion metal bands shouldn't try to cultivate an intellectual image because that often results in them losing their subversive edge in the process.
|
Posted By: chemo
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 21:21
| Most bands with 666 in the name suck. It's appropriate, just saying that they're a good band considering that. |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: May 27 2008 at 03:35
|
I see. Remember that Sturgeon's law is universal, though... most bands suck no matter what they're called.
|
Posted By: chemo
Date Posted: May 27 2008 at 03:57
| Yeah... can't argue with that. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: May 27 2008 at 05:41
That's a somewhwat ironic statement I tend to think. Thrash metal for me, was a genre that indeed pushed metal musicianship to a higher level than previously seen in any metal genre before (at the time), and indeed even as it has tried to maintain a rough and ready image, for me part of the attraction of thrash was it's greater complexity and technicality than AOR (for eg) and indeed some of the more intellectual themes present in thrash. -------------
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 27 2008 at 06:22
|
^ Agreed. Thrash is a style which pretty much forces you to be able to play both fast and accurate.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: May 28 2008 at 03:30
I don't see anything accidentally humorous about what I said... part of the beauty of metal is how it shows that complex, subversive music doesn't have to present itself in a remotely academic way in order to say something relevant. In plain English, it exposes the establishment's ideas about high and low culture (and many other things
) as the nonsensical bullsh*t they are. |
Posted By: Nightfly
Date Posted: May 28 2008 at 08:08
Thanks for that.....I may be tempted.......been years since i bought any Thrash.
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 28 2008 at 08:28
|
^ Here's some more: http://ratingfreak.com/home/charts.xhtml?chart.tag.1=thrash_metal&chart.year=2003&chart.year2=2008&chart.genre=metal&chart.prog_status=none - Non-Prog Thrash from 2003-2008 You're welcome to submit your feedback once you've listened to some of them. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Interbeing
Date Posted: May 28 2008 at 09:39
One of the best bands to come out of Australia, in my opinion. Both Unchain the Wolves and Phoenix Rising are essential albums for fans of the harsher side of thrash; I think the German thrashers would enjoy these. Caught them live a couple of times before they relocated to Holland. |
Posted By: chemo
Date Posted: May 31 2008 at 10:00
Only discovered them after they moved... so I never got to saw them... makes me sad.
|