100% Metal Forum (Death Metal and Black Metal)

Metal => Interzone => Topic started by: ASBO on June 03, 2008, 03:35:45 AM

Title: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: ASBO on June 03, 2008, 03:35:45 AM
Best Thrash bands:

1. DRI
2. Cryptic Slaughter
3. Dead Horse
4. COC
5. Fearless Iranians From Hell

Best Speed Metal (misnamed "Thrash Metal" by kiddie mags) bands:

1. Metallica
2. Slayer
3. Nuclear Assault
4. Testament
5. Dead Brain Cells

http://www.last.fm/group/Thrash+Metal+Corner/forum/41386/_/418122
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Humanicide on June 03, 2008, 05:12:16 AM
why the fuck does everyone love Testament? theyre a limp Metallica imitation at best.

id rather listen to better bands in that genre.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Tirithon on June 03, 2008, 10:06:17 AM
I think everyone loves Testament because they didn't ever get hugely popular, and thus can still be considered "underground" by the legions of elitists who don't listen to anything that isn't "underground", keep in mind these people still LIKE "mainstream" music, they just won't ever admit it. Not even to themselves. That's not to say that I personally dislike Testament, but they most definitely aren't my favorite.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Verulfr on June 03, 2008, 10:21:11 AM
I'd have had Slayer above Metallica for sure.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Prospero on June 03, 2008, 01:48:59 PM
How much more hipster can it get!
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: esoteric on June 03, 2008, 02:21:21 PM
I am surprised to see Testament ranked above Coroner, Destruction or Forbidden.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Fallibilis on June 03, 2008, 05:15:02 PM
Quote
I am surprised to see Testament ranked above Coroner, Destruction or Forbidden.

My biggest surprise was, like Verulfr's, seeing Slayer ranked above Metallica. Slayer is the superior of Metallica, and all other such bands for that matter.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: ASBO on June 03, 2008, 07:34:01 PM
No offense to anyone, but my biggest surprise is seeing that people assumed these were ordered listings as opposed to collections.

There is zero reason to suspect that from the post alone.

I'd swap Destruction for Testament, gladly, but Testament nailed that classic "speed metal" sound, just as Metallica did -- but Slayer, Destruction and others are more hybrid death metal acts.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Humanicide on June 03, 2008, 08:46:03 PM
i personally wouldve gone for Razor (the Sheepdog years) in place of Testament.

also missing are mentions of Sodom, Kreator, Sepultura, and Sabbat (UK).
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Bereft on June 04, 2008, 02:21:19 AM
Quote
i personally wouldve gone for Razor (the Sheepdog years) in place of Testament.

also missing are mentions of Sodom, Kreator, Sepultura, and Sabbat (UK).


You're missing the point. The idea is to give examples of a distinction of which most people are ignorant, hence the misleading term "Thrash Metal".

I bet if this is posted around other metal boards you'll receive a lot of indignant reactions.

Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: neoclassical on June 04, 2008, 04:34:17 AM
Quote
I bet if this is posted around other metal boards you'll receive a lot of indignant reactions.

Yep. Like, "fascists", "it doesn't matter", "but everyone sez thrash metal" etc.
One of metal's best "discriminators", because defending "thrash metal" indicates weakness, ignorance, stupidity.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: ASBO on June 04, 2008, 04:37:15 AM
Quote
a: a use of language regarded as distinctive of a particular group <accent was&#8230;a shibboleth of social class &#8212; Vivian Ducat> b: a custom or usage regarded as distinguishing one group from others <for most of the well-to-do in the town, dinner was a shibboleth, its hour dividing mankind &#8212; Osbert Sitwell>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shibboleth


"Thrash metal" is a shibboleth for the media-fed, oblivious caste of Hessian. They work the fields.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Embalming Sand on June 04, 2008, 05:06:32 AM
Worth mentioning the old testament tale revolving around the origin of "Shibboleth". As mentioned in the dictionary :
"Etymology: Hebrew shibb&#333;leth stream; from the use of this word in Judg 12:6 as a test to distinguish Gileadites from Ephraimites "

The Ephraimites, as memory serves me, used to pronounce the word as "Sibolet" (which means in hebrew endurance/stamina) instead of the proper "Shibbolet" (which is the word for a stalk of grain). The Gileadites then would determine Ephraimites by their wrong pronounciation of Shibbolet and strike them dead. I can just imagine an Ephraimite outraging : "Maaan, it's just a word! everybody says it that way! who cares?!!" just before a blade came crushing through his skull.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: GS on June 04, 2008, 05:47:04 AM
1. There's more evidence that "thrash metal" was employed in reference to the style of punk-influenced metal bands (like some of those mentioned above) and the demographic and behavioral shift occurring at shows in the mid-to-late Eighties (and reasonably so…"thrash" being a common slang term for slam-dancing as well as drumming style) then there is that it was cooked up by magazines for commercial purposes. (Where did the term "speed metal” originate, exactly?)

2.  As a description of a particular scene or style of music, “thrash” was still barely defined by mid-Eighties (and predates Anus favorites like C.O.C and D.R.I.), which is probably why even a traceable, press-created term like “crossover” became roundly accepted at the time.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Dylar on June 04, 2008, 11:41:22 AM
Quote
1. ...(Where did the term "speed metal” originate, exactly?)


Fanzines - in other words, from within the subculture itself, rather than being imposed by the corporate glossies seeking to max out ad revenues.


Quote
2.  As a description of a particular scene or style of music, “thrash” was still barely defined by mid-Eighties (and predates Anus favorites like C.O.C and D.R.I.), which is probably why even a traceable, press-created term like “crossover” became roundly accepted at the time.


D.R.I. and Corrosion of Conformity were both well established by 1983/84, when 'thrash' (speed) metal took off, so I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to raise here.

The picture overall is a lot more complex than is typically appreciated, in any event.  There were three or four separate genres emerging from pretty much the same primordial stew of punk, hardcore, and heavy metal.  Apocalyptic Raids and Bathory and Ride the Lightning are pretty much exactly contemporaneous.  Death metal emerged pretty essentially fully formed by the summer of 1985.  The early grind bands hadn't yet managed to get record deals, but grind was certainly already extant and viable by the same time.  In the three years between spanning the summer of 1982 to the summer of 1985, the extreme edge went from Iron Maiden and Discharge to Sepultura, Bathory and Genocide/Repulsion.  That kind of evolutionary pace is impossible for the language to keep up with, except in retrospect.

Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Humanicide on June 04, 2008, 03:11:03 PM
Quote

You're missing the point. The idea is to give examples of a distinction of which most people are ignorant, hence the misleading term "Thrash Metal".

I bet if this is posted around other metal boards you'll receive a lot of indignant reactions.



i am not missing any point. i understand ANUS' definition of thrash.

i was merely pointing out other good bands.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: ASBO on June 04, 2008, 04:31:24 PM
Quote
1. There's more evidence that "thrash metal" was employed in reference to the style of punk-influenced metal bands (like some of those mentioned above) and the demographic and behavioral shift occurring at shows in the mid-to-late Eighties (and reasonably so&#8230;"thrash" being a common slang term for slam-dancing as well as drumming style) then there is that it was cooked up by magazines for commercial purposes. (Where did the term "speed metal&#8221; originate, exactly?)

2.  As a description of a particular scene or style of music, &#8220;thrash&#8221; was still barely defined by mid-Eighties (and predates Anus favorites like C.O.C and D.R.I.), which is probably why even a traceable, press-created term like &#8220;crossover&#8221; became roundly accepted at the time.


Thrasher = skateboarder, early 1980s slang
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: FIAT on June 04, 2008, 04:43:36 PM
(http://www.thrashermagazine.com/images/image/Covers%20Section/MissingCoverImages(THYYMM)/TH8101.jpg)

Thrasher Magazine - January 1981 (http://www.thrashermagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=503&Itemid=63)
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: GS on June 04, 2008, 05:11:51 PM
Brian "Pushead" Schroeder, former music editor for THRASHER mag:

http://www.operationphoenixrecords.com/mrrissue22-17SpeedcoreArticle.pdf

Uses "Speedcore" and "thrash metal" interchangeably. Notice that he also refers to Metallica as "black metal," when they were actually "power metal"  ;)
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: death metal black metal on June 04, 2008, 05:15:02 PM
Quote
Uses "Speedcore" and "thrash metal" interchangeably. Notice that he also refers to Metallica as "black metal," when they were actually "power metal"  ;)


Not a credible source, then...
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: GS on June 04, 2008, 05:17:27 PM
Quote
D.R.I. and Corrosion of Conformity were both well established by 1983/84, when 'thrash' (speed) metal took off, so I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to raise here.


In addition to some of heavier bands like C.o.C  there were releases like the New York Thrash compilation in 1982 with Bad Brains and the Beastie Boys. And the “Thrash Bash” show in 1983, attended by Die Kreuzen. Again, the term was used a little more indiscriminately at the time and originally referred to music appropriate for the increasing violence and slam-dancing at punk shows .


Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: GS on June 04, 2008, 05:23:04 PM
Quote

Not a credible source, then...


You would harp on that (obviously, before you even read the article). I was being facetious.

Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: ASBO on June 05, 2008, 05:21:34 AM
Quote
In addition to some of heavier bands like C.o.C  there were releases like the New York Thrash compilation in 1982 with Bad Brains and the Beastie Boys. And the &#8220;Thrash Bash&#8221; show in 1983, attended by Die Kreuzen. Again, the term was used a little more indiscriminately at the time and originally referred to music appropriate for the increasing violence and slam-dancing at punk shows .


Yeah, 'cause it came from the skateboarders, who at the time were identified with the punk culture of the West Coast.

Your resistance to the obvious is stupid: the term meant skateboarding, then applied to skateboarder music, then came to apply to the musical genre that arose from that -- a hybrid of punk and metal.

Later on, idiot magazines tried to make it mean speed metal, which was always the term the europress used until they got ahold of marketing terms.

You want to support fakeness? Call speed metal thrash, you fucking moron.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: GS on June 05, 2008, 06:33:18 AM
Quote

Yeah, 'cause it came from the skateboarders


No shit, Sherlock. I never once denied any of this. But you only prove my point about how the term came into play, considering your top tier of “thrash” has fuckall to do with other bands understood as being “thrash” in 1982. How bands like Slayer & Metallica (who tagged themselves as POWER METAL) began to be associated with "thrash metal" had to do not just with speed but punk "etiquette." Namely, slam-dancing & stage diving, which was widely referred to as "thrashing" at the time – social conduct which was then carried over to metal shows as the two audiences began to mix.

Quote
Later on, idiot magazines tried to make it mean speed metal, which was always the term the europress used until they got ahold of marketing terms.


Was it just “idiot” magazines or "Glossy" mags out to sell more records then? And how long is “later on”?

Here’s a clip from 1984 of Metallica being referred to as “Thrash Metal.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g4eefPf1mo

Above you have Thrashers ex-music editor talking about either "thrash," thrash metal and Speedcore in the context of bands like Slayer from 1985.

Here’s a clip of Tom Araya talking about RiB being the ultimate “thrash metal” record (circa SoH)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJfm74emQto&feature=related

The term gets used because it makes sense, a condensed phrasing of “thrash / metal” that developed out of the crossover period and all your petty arguing without a shred of evidence or examples to back up your point makes this even more ridiculous than the campaign to write out Venom as a hugely influential band.




Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: ASBO on June 05, 2008, 08:17:53 AM
No, it doesn't make sense -- thrash and speed metal are totally different.

Idiots always misuse terms, even in 1984. But among the smart people, usage was clear.

Some people were actually calling Metallica and Slayer black metal back then too. Should we start doing that also?

The ignorance of people astounds me.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Humanicide on June 06, 2008, 04:14:59 AM
Quote
No, it doesn't make sense -- thrash and speed metal are totally different.

Idiots always misuse terms, even in 1984. But among the smart people, usage was clear.

Some people were actually calling Metallica and Slayer black metal back then too. Should we start doing that also?

The ignorance of people astounds me.


it was ignorance because subgenres were not as developed as they are today. like that split called "Death Metal" with Helloween, Running Wild, and Hellhammer. only Hellhammer is remotely close to death metal by our standards today.

hindsight is always 20-20.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Frostbitten on June 08, 2008, 11:43:04 PM
There were obviously a lot of terms being used back then, most being completely inaccurate (Metallica and Black Metal?). How can we actually claim that "Speed Metal" is more accurate than those terms?
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: MorbidInvasion on June 08, 2008, 11:48:05 PM
Because it is a more accurate term, just not in the way that these guys are applying it. If you can't accept speed metal as a legitimate name for a genre then you can't accept ANYTHING as a legitimate name for a genre.

Basically, speed metal (as well as power metal) was the last metal genre to remain completely without hardcore influence. Thrash metal was just speed metal infused with thrashcore (a derivative of hardcore punk) and yes, the two often overlap, but they are two distinct genres. Death and thrash overlap, black and thrash overlap, black and death overlap, and so on. That doesn't mean everything is speed metal.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: MorbidInvasion on June 08, 2008, 11:53:51 PM
Quote
No offense to anyone, but my biggest surprise is seeing that people assumed these were ordered listings as opposed to collections.

There is zero reason to suspect that from the post alone.

I'd swap Destruction for Testament, gladly, but Testament nailed that classic "speed metal" sound, just as Metallica did -- but Slayer, Destruction and others are more hybrid death metal acts.


Testament is a Master of Puppets rip-off, and Master of Puppets nailed mediocrity and nothing else. It's sub-par thrash metal (or speed metal, if you insist on calling it that) that goes absolutely nowhere. I'm actually nearly inclined to agree with UltraBoris on M-A and his idea that MoP was just Ulrich's accomplishment of his mission: laying waste to Metallica and metal for whatever reason.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: death metal black metal on June 09, 2008, 07:35:56 AM
Quote
Testament is a Master of Puppets rip-off, and Master of Puppets nailed mediocrity and nothing else. It's sub-par thrash metal (or speed metal, if you insist on calling it that) that goes absolutely nowhere.


Except for Orion.

I think MOP was a decision point -- go prog or go metal. They tried prog, couldn't quite figure out the fusion, and so made AJFA and then gave up and became a hard rock band.

I call thrash "thrash" because it is an entirely separate genre.

DRI is fusion music; metal like Metallica is speed metal, parallel to other forms like heavy metal, doom metal, black metal, death metal.

"Thrash metal" implies a hybrid, and the two can't coexist, so we got a grindcore fusion (death metal) instead.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: MasterEnslaver on June 09, 2008, 12:45:36 PM
Quote

Except for Orion.

I think MOP was a decision point -- go prog or go metal. They tried prog, couldn't quite figure out the fusion, and so made AJFA and then gave up and became a hard rock band.

I call thrash "thrash" because it is an entirely separate genre.

DRI is fusion music; metal like Metallica is speed metal, parallel to other forms like heavy metal, doom metal, black metal, death metal.

"Thrash metal" implies a hybrid, and the two can't coexist, so we got a grindcore fusion (death metal) instead.


I think the two can definitely exist. Look at Nuclear Assault for example, they are a pretty even hybrid (even as in, they have about equal influence from each) of thrashcore and speed metal. You look at another band like Overkill or Overthrow and it is still metal, but not speed metal, and incorporates alot of thrashcore into the sound.

To see what I'm getting at, listen to Overthrow - Infection Overthrow, then Exciter - Heavy Metal Maniac, then just about anything by COC or DRI
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Raise_the_Dead on June 09, 2008, 02:41:13 PM
Quote
Testament is a Master of Puppets rip-off, and Master of Puppets nailed mediocrity and nothing else. It's sub-par thrash metal (or speed metal, if you insist on calling it that) that goes absolutely nowhere.


If MoP is sub-par, then I am interested in hearing what you consider good in the genre...
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: MasterEnslaver on June 09, 2008, 02:46:19 PM
Obviously me calling it sub-par is down to personal opinion.

Classics of the genre, in my opinion include:

Aggression - The Full Treatment
Infernal Majesty - None Shall Defy
Dark Angel - Darkness Descends
Destruction - Infernal Overkill

thats not all of them by the way, just what springs to mind first
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Raise_the_Dead on June 09, 2008, 03:08:40 PM
Quote
Obviously me calling it sub-par is down to personal opinion.

Classics of the genre, in my opinion include:

Aggression - The Full Treatment
Infernal Majesty - None Shall Defy
Dark Angel - Darkness Descends
Destruction - Infernal Overkill

thats not all of them by the way, just what springs to mind first


I've only heard the last two on that list, and I would say that MoP > both of them combined.  However, that's not to say that Darkness Descends (which at times sounds more like ambient music than metal) and Infernal Overkill are not great albums in their own right.

Oh, and I believe you forgot to mention Hell Awaits ;D
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: MasterEnslaver on June 09, 2008, 03:22:48 PM
Quote

I've only heard the last two on that list, and I would say that MoP > both of them combined.  However, that's not to say that Darkness Descends (which at times sounds more like ambient music than metal) and Infernal Overkill are not great albums in their own right.

Oh, and I believe you forgot to mention Hell Awaits ;D


Well my view on MoP:

Battery and Disposable Heroes were competent thrash, but pretty generic. Disposable Heroes was far too long as well.

The Thing That Should Not Be, useless, plodding piece of crap that goes nowhere.

Welcome Home (Sanitarium) - no place on a thrash metal album (or any metal album)

Leper Messiah - good in parts, in other parts, it had the same failings as The Thing...

Damage Inc. - competent thrash metal, but generic


I'm interested though, how do you think Darkness Descends is ambient in parts?

Oh, and I only really like Show No Mercy by Slayer. I recognise Hell Awaits and Reign In Blood as new and innovative at the time, but these days they are just boring to me.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: ASBO on June 09, 2008, 03:43:13 PM
Quote
Disposable Heroes was far too long as well.

The Thing That Should Not Be, useless, plodding piece of crap that goes nowhere.

Welcome Home (Sanitarium) - no place on a thrash metal album (or any metal album)

Damage Inc. - competent thrash metal, but generic


I agree on these, which was a surprise to me. I haven't listened to MOP in years, and I can see there might be a reason why. It plods, and it's very obvious.

Orion kicks ass however.

The first Metallica album may be the most solid, but I like Ride the Lightning the most. A good mix of ambition and proven formula.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: MasterEnslaver on June 09, 2008, 03:49:59 PM
Kill 'Em All accomplished everything it set out to do, but the problem is that what it set out to do is not the greatest of objectives. It's a fun album, but that's all it is. Good for a few listens every now and then when you're in an easy-going mood or at a party or something.

Ride the Lightning is a far more 'serious' album, but it just doesn't appeal to me.

Master of Puppets I don't like for the reasons I outlined in my last post :D
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Raise_the_Dead on June 09, 2008, 04:04:13 PM
As a whole I don't think any of Metallica's classic material is any more plodding, directionless, useless, etc. than anything else I've heard in the genre (save a few bands).  However, sometimes you wonder if they really needed to repeat the verse or chorus a third time in just about every single song.

Quote
Welcome Home (Sanitarium) - no place on a thrash metal album (or any metal album)


I think it's one of the best songs because it's one of the only ones that breaks out of the plodding structural format that ASBO mentioned.  I also find the theme of insanity (which is also present in Kreator's Pleasure to Kill) interesting and reflective of the era in which the musicians lived.

Quote
I'm interested though, how do you think Darkness Descends is ambient in parts?


Most speed metal brings you down to earth; when listening to this album I find myself up in the clouds.  It's difficult to describe, but the music is so consistent, even repetitive, and pummeling, that it drives itself into your skull.  That could be said of lots of bands obviously, but I find that album to have its own atmosphere, which coincidentally, is very similar to that on Hell Awaits, even though the sound / production style is different.  Listening to it is a lot like listening to Burzum, Havohej, and early Suffocation (in my experience, of course).

EDIT: Come to think of it, maybe Dark Angel made better use of repetition than Metallica did...

Quote
Orion kicks ass however.
 
The first Metallica album may be the most solid, but I like Ride the Lightning the most. A good mix of ambition and proven formula.


I agree with all of this.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Humanicide on June 09, 2008, 04:48:04 PM
I really dont like Dark Angel. just play as fast as you can and brag about how many riffs you have on an album. right. thats deep.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Fallibilis on June 11, 2008, 03:39:27 AM
Quote
I really dont like Dark Angel. just play as fast as you can and brag about how many riffs you have on an album. right. thats deep.

That was a marketing tact for simply one of their albums. I'd recommend listening to Leave Scars, one hell of an album. It has the aggression of Kreator's Endless Pain and the death metal abrasiveness, as well as the clarity, of Hell Awaits. Interestingly enough, one of the songs sounds like "Kill Again."
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Trauco on June 11, 2008, 04:20:37 AM
Quote
That was a marketing tact for simply one of their albums.


I think the marketing tactic was for "Time does not Heal", where they blatantly put the info on the duration of the album and the number of riffs on the cover and the liner notes of the re-edition.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Trauco on June 11, 2008, 05:35:02 AM
Quote
Most speed metal brings you down to earth; when listening to this album I find myself up in the clouds.  It's difficult to describe, but the music is so consistent, even repetitive, and pummeling, that it drives itself into your skull.  That could be said of lots of bands obviously, but I find that album to have its own atmosphere, which coincidentally, is very similar to that on Hell Awaits, even though the sound / production style is different.  Listening to it is a lot like listening to Burzum, Havohej, and early Suffocation (in my experience, of course).

EDIT: Come to think of it, maybe Dark Angel made better use of repetition than Metallica did...


When re-listening to the album, I can see your point. The production is made for instruments to collide into each other and certain riffs are not exactly made to fit with its corresponding background drum patterns (like the verses on "Hunger of the Undead"), which makes them sound "hypnotic" in the same way of Discharge's HNSNSN.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: structural on June 11, 2008, 08:03:03 AM
Quote

Testament is a Master of Puppets rip-off, and Master of Puppets nailed mediocrity and nothing else. It's sub-par thrash metal (or speed metal, if you insist on calling it that) that goes absolutely nowhere. I'm actually nearly inclined to agree with UltraBoris on M-A and his idea that MoP was just Ulrich's accomplishment of his mission: laying waste to Metallica and metal for whatever reason.

When I read the review for the first time I was angry at him but as time time was going on, I started to realize that he is right.

Back on the topic, I would also like to see Slayer over Metallica. And BTW, from those old school bands that are Speed/thrash I still prefer Motorhead althought they are far from being speed and/or thrash
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Humanicide on June 11, 2008, 09:06:47 AM
Quote
That was a marketing tact for simply one of their albums. I'd recommend listening to Leave Scars, one hell of an album. It has the aggression of Kreator's Endless Pain and the death metal abrasiveness, as well as the clarity, of Hell Awaits. Interestingly enough, one of the songs sounds like "Kill Again."


everyone keeps telling me to listen to that album. ive heard "Darkness Descends" and "Time Does Not Heal". both were boring overhyped garbage. i dont have a desire to hear any more of their music.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: ASBO on June 30, 2008, 01:33:07 PM
To a lot of us speed metal sounds overblown, if not overhyped. It's too "rock."
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Terrakotta on June 30, 2008, 05:40:16 PM
Speed Metal that is not transitional (to Black/Death Metal) nor technical/progressive (a la Coroner, Voivod, Artillery, etc) can be largely forgotten.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Humanicide on June 30, 2008, 08:23:46 PM
i agree, Artillery's "By Inheritance" is a fantastic album.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Agni on July 01, 2008, 02:06:39 AM
hey, what about Beneath the Remains ? Its one of the best atleast.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: ASBO on July 01, 2008, 08:21:49 AM
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.

Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Dylar on July 01, 2008, 01:26:41 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.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Terrakotta on July 01, 2008, 02:24:59 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.
 
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: Fallibilis on July 03, 2008, 07:32:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: Thrash versus Thrash Metal
Post by: ASBO on July 04, 2008, 09:26:21 AM
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.