Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Thrash versus Thrash Metal

Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
July 01, 2008, 12:40:16 AM
Speed Metal that is not transitional (to Black/Death Metal) nor technical/progressive (a la Coroner, Voivod, Artillery, etc) can be largely forgotten.

Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
July 01, 2008, 03:23:46 AM
i agree, Artillery's "By Inheritance" is a fantastic album.

Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
July 01, 2008, 09:06:39 AM
hey, what about Beneath the Remains ? Its one of the best atleast.

Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
July 01, 2008, 03:21:49 PM
Speed Metal that is not transitional (to Black/Death Metal) nor technical/progressive (a la Coroner, Voivod, Artillery, etc) can be largely forgotten.

Interestingly, it's true. The mainstream speed metal just comes across as butt-stupid after all these years.

I'd make an exception for some Exodus, and some early Nuclear Assault, but on the whole... ass!

I can't listen to Metallica, Testament, Megadeth anymore. I can listen to Slayer and Voivod.


Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
July 01, 2008, 08:26:41 PM
Speed Metal that is not transitional (to Black/Death Metal) nor technical/progressive (a la Coroner, Voivod, Artillery, etc) can be largely forgotten.

How much speed metal can really be said to be transitional, though?  It's often argued that death and black metal were logical progressions from speed metal, but that argument doesn't really hold up chronologically or aesthetically.  A more factually correct reading would see black, death and speed metal emerging simultaneously from the same source material, with speed metal basically forming an evolutionary dead end.  What you're praising are not so much transitional bands as they are hybrid bands that learned not only from their predecessors, but from the emerging extreme metal that developed at the same time.

Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
July 01, 2008, 09:24:59 PM
How much speed metal can really be said to be transitional, though?  It's often argued that death and black metal were logical progressions from speed metal, but that argument doesn't really hold up chronologically or aesthetically.  A more factually correct reading would see black, death and speed metal emerging simultaneously from the same source material, with speed metal basically forming an evolutionary dead end.  What you're praising are not so much transitional bands as they are hybrid bands that learned not only from their predecessors, but from the emerging extreme metal that developed at the same time.

Speed Metal hit its creative climax and had already began to erode by the time Black and Death Metal started to seriously emerge. This, combined with the fact that the first wave bands from these two genres (Bathory up to and including Blood Fire Death, Seven Churches, Morbid Visions, early Sodom, etc) all had a strong Speed Metal aesthetic or are heavily influenced by it to me, made it clear that it was a transitional genre between the NWOBHM and the extreme. I could however also see how the examples above are a synthesis of multiple styles that had developed at around the same time period so perhaps "hybrid" is a more appropriate term in description of the sound. A bit semantical, but this I suppose could also apply to bands that tilted towards the Speed Metal end of the spectrum (Slayer, Destruction, Pestilence, Kreator, etc).

Like Hardcore that came before it, I think part of the reason why Speed Metal reached its "evolutionary dead end" quickly while Black and Death Metal thrived is its shallow or really lack there of an ideological/philosophical basis. The other two had a much more richer palate of possibilities to work with from the inside out, so to speak.
 

Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
July 03, 2008, 02:32:06 PM
Speed Metal that is not transitional (to Black/Death Metal) nor technical/progressive (a la Coroner, Voivod, Artillery, etc) can be largely forgotten.

How much speed metal can really be said to be transitional, though?  It's often argued that death and black metal were logical progressions from speed metal, but that argument doesn't really hold up chronologically or aesthetically. 
It does, though. Black and Death metal are more structurally and 'spiritually' complex than speed metal. Although hat by itsetlf isn't a guarantee for chronology, the fact remains that bands like Morbid Angel and Mayhem began playing rock 'n roll anthems with speed metal rhythms before manifesting their true identities. Black/death began with the speed metal prototype, but then diverged. It's much the same way speciation occurs - duplication of existing genes and inversions, conversions or mutations to create new genes/species.

Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
July 04, 2008, 04:26:21 PM
Black and Death metal are more structurally and 'spiritually' complex than speed metal. Although hat by itsetlf isn't a guarantee for chronology, the fact remains that bands like Morbid Angel and Mayhem began playing rock 'n roll anthems with speed metal rhythms before manifesting their true identities. Black/death began with the speed metal prototype, but then diverged. It's much the same way speciation occurs - duplication of existing genes and inversions, conversions or mutations to create new genes/species.

Agreed. Metal's evolution has occurred in loops, more than a linear frequency, where each new genre revisits all the past and incorporates what it can into the new paradigm. Take speed metal, and re-process its new energy/aggression through what made Angel Witch, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Discharge, GBH cool and suddenly you've got Slayer. Add to that the theatrical nature of Gothic rock and early heavy metal, and you've got Hellhammer/Celtic Frost. Reprocess THAT through Discharge/GBH and you've got Mayhem, if not Emperor and Immortal.