Written by Lucas on 05.04.2009 at 17:16

Written by [user id=31891] on 05.04.2009 at 16:50

Written by Lucas on 05.04.2009 at 16:45

It amazes me that one has made the obvious joke yet, so I'll have to do it. (Syk you disappoint me).

It's TRASH for sure!

Ok, now that that's out of the way, no, I don't think it's thrash either. It has mroe in common with (average) Heavy metal, so that's where my vote goes. Hurray.

you said everything but your reason. thank you.

Well, what about the lack of thrash riffs? Or thrash vocals? Or thrash etc... I just don't hear any thrash in this. Well, a riff here and there, a bit of aggression on some moments, but in the end, the balance slams down on the Heavy metal side.

so when you dont see such things in any album its a heavy metal album?!
so you have to listen to kirk's solo's they are absolutely thrashy then take a look at Drums sound. but about VocalsI have to say that James cant sing like 80's anymore and its not a good reason to say that this is not a thrashy album. and about riffs you have to listen better man cause at least there is a 100% Thrash song called "All Nightmare Long" but I cant see a 100% Heavy metal song on this album.

Ugh I really don't want to get into this debate but I guess that's what I deserve for posting in a thread about Metallica...

Written by [user id=31891] on 05.04.2009 at 17:25

so when you dont see such things in any album its a heavy metal album?!

No. An album is a Heavy Metal album when it contains, as dominant elements, Heavy metal riffs, Heavy metal drums, Heavy metal bass and Heavy metal vocals.

Riffs - predominately Heavy metal, although yes, there are Thrash riffs on this album.
Drums - aboslutely lacking in terms of aggression, speed,
Bass - this instrument was never my forté but even I can hear that there's not a lot of Thrash in Robbies fingers.

Quote:
so you have to listen to kirk's solo's they are absolutely thrashy then take a look at Drums sound.

In both cases: I'd rather not.

Quote:
but about Vocals I have to say that James cant sing like 80's anymore and its not a good reason to say that this is not a thrashy album.

And why is that not a good argument, because it is an argument against your statements? His vocals are tame and I don't care what the reason for that is, whether it be age, drugs, alcohol, or angry mommies, when they're not Thrash, they're not Thrash. Life ain't all that hard.

Quote:
and about riffs you have to listen better man cause at least there is a 100% Thrash song called "All Nightmare Long" but I cant see a 100% Heavy metal song on this album.

Cyanide, for example.

I'll give it to you that there are no set rules to what makes a riff Thrash or Heavy metal and there is a grey area, but in my opinion, this record is clearly a Heavy metal record.

Quote:
And why is that not a good argument, because it is an argument against your statements? His vocals are tame and I don't care what the reason for that is, whether it be age, drugs, alcohol, or angry mommies, when they're not Thrash, they're not Thrash. Life ain't all that hard.

I think its better to not judge ppl like this man! If I wanted to make fun it was better to Create a poll about "Is Death Magnetic A Heavy Metal Album or Its Not?"

I think youve got it now.

I think metallica is a Avant-Grade metal band after 80's. so my vote goes for No.

Well almost everyone say "it's not thrash metal album"
So what is this? neo-thrash metal or extreme heavy metal?

Written by Brave on 05.04.2009 at 18:38

Well almost everyone say "it's not thrash metal album"
So what is this? neo-thrash metal or extreme heavy metal?

what your opinion and vote?

Well... truely say i voted YES
and i think it's not real thrash metal not like old time
but for me... it's okay cause i'm not a true thrasher... and i dont care metallica record a real thrash metal album or not... it's good album i liked that's it

Written by Brave on 05.04.2009 at 18:51

Well... truely say i voted YES
and i think it's not real thrash metal not like old time
but for me... it's okay cause i'm not a true thrasher... and i dont care metallica record a real thrash metal album or not... it's good album i liked that's it

you answered very well and you wrere so much honset than all ppl here I think. thanks

Written by [user id=31891] on 05.04.2009 at 17:25
so you have to listen to kirk's solo's they are absolutely thrashy then take a look at Drums sound. but about VocalsI have to say that James cant sing like 80's anymore and its not a good reason to say that this is not a thrashy album. and about riffs you have to listen better man cause at least there is a 100% Thrash song called "All Nightmare Long" but I cant see a 100% Heavy metal song on this album.

Pardon my French but you sound totally fucking deluded. There's plenty of HM in Nightmare (and Apocalypse which are the two most thrashy songs here) but let's just leave that by the window right now. You can't see an entirely HM song on this album? Unforg 3? Judas Kiss? S&R? Cyanide, as Lucas mentioned? There is a clear lack, a pittance of thrash on Death Magnetic. A few riffs is all you get. Solos - so what? If you put a bunch of death metal solos on some random album, is that suddenly a death metal album? Solos don't mean anything; lead players' styles can vary, independent of a song/album's prevalent style. The drums are pathetic for a thrash comparison, don't even go there. The common mid-paced trudge is all you need to see it's a heavy metal album.

Two defining points of thrash metal are riff construction and drumming, which you will hear here, here, here and here. Modern-day Metallica is closer to Iron Maiden, and if you ever thought of calling Maiden thrash...

Written by Syk on 05.04.2009 at 19:46

Written by [user id=31891] on 05.04.2009 at 17:25
so you have to listen to kirk's solo's they are absolutely thrashy then take a look at Drums sound. but about VocalsI have to say that James cant sing like 80's anymore and its not a good reason to say that this is not a thrashy album. and about riffs you have to listen better man cause at least there is a 100% Thrash song called "All Nightmare Long" but I cant see a 100% Heavy metal song on this album.

Pardon my French but you sound totally fucking deluded. There's plenty of HM in Nightmare (and Apocalypse which are the two most thrashy songs here) but let's just leave that by the window right now. You can't see an entirely HM song on this album? Unforg 3? Judas Kiss? S&R? Cyanide, as Lucas mentioned? There is a clear lack, a pittance of thrash on Death Magnetic. A few riffs is all you get. Solos - so what? If you put a bunch of death metal solos on some random album, is that suddenly a death metal album? Solos don't mean anything; lead players' styles can vary, independent of a song/album's prevalent style. The drums are pathetic for a thrash comparison, don't even go there. The common mid-paced trudge is all you need to see it's a heavy metal album.

Two defining points of thrash metal are riff construction and drumming, which you will hear here, here, here and here. Modern-day Metallica is closer to Iron Maiden, and if you ever thought of calling Maiden thrash...

sorry but I didnt see such solo's in any heavy metal album, if you know plz let me hear. the other thing is that if you think Unforgiven III is a metal song im absolutely disagree with you cause I think its a rock song more than a metal song.

Do we really need a 4th thread discussing this damn album? Seriously, 4, and thats not including news & events. Someone should just consolidate all these inane discussions into one concise thread discussing the band in general....oh wait...

Lol, i only just noticed that you gave this topic the subcategory "Thrash metal". hows that for an objective opening post.

well, i am getting a little sick of so much Metallica discussion, but this is at least a slightly interesting question.

Written by [user id=31891] on 05.04.2009 at 16:06

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 05.04.2009 at 13:07

Doesn't sound like the stuff that I think of when I think about thrash metal. I don't think it's thrash personally, but my definition of thrash tends to be quite conservative, so I might not judge it fairly. It's possibly that it can be classified as thrash in the modern sense of the word, but I don't think a lot of the modern sounding thrash is thrash at all.

Basically, compared to Lamb Of God and Machine Head, then it's thrash, but compared to the old stuff like Deathrow, Destruction or Overkill, it's not even close IMO.

I don't really give much of a damn though, since the album isn't something I like to listen to when there's old Metallica to be had, but I have to vote that it isn't thrash because according to my experience Death Magnetic is not the way thrash sounds like.

So you think that "Lamb of God" is not thrashy, now you convinced me why someone think Death Magnetic is not thrash! we have to judge equal. if Metal Storm thinks that "Lamb of God" is thrashy why they think "Death Magnetic" isnt?

WTF? There sre reasons in there. The lack of what I percieve to be the qualities of thrash metal is sure as hell the biggest reason. I don't hear the thrash riffing, for instance. But then again, I don't hear the thrash in Lamb Of God either. And WTF do you mean we have to judge equal? That's just bullshit man, of course everyone is gonna be judging differently (it's called "having an opinion").

In the modern sense, if you would call Lamb Of God thrash, then Death Magnetic should also be thrash, because their level of thrashiness is about the same IMO (they have the same amount of thrash qualities). I don't think bands like LOG and Machine Head are thrash (they are modern groove shit), so I'm gonna have to say Death Magnetic is not a thrash album (It's a modern mainstream heavy metal album).

I also don't give a rat's ass what MS might think of LOG and their "thrashiness". Changing your own opinion only based on what's written of some website is gay if you know better...

Written by Lucas on 06.04.2009 at 01:20

well, i am getting a little sick of so much Metallica discussion, but this is at least a slightly interesting question.

Well, maybe not the band in general, but the discussion of this album is just beating a dead horse. I mean, I can be construed as a High On Fire fanboy by some logic, but I didn't feel it necessary to pick-apart every detail or angle of "Death Is This Communion" 7 months after its release date. As long as we're here, why don't we all go for repeated rectal examinations while we're at it?

My point being, there are dozens of new albums coming out every month, most of which being more dynamic and more worthy of such thorough discussion (if you want to call it discussion, I call it beating a dead horse). Either way, perhaps we need to stop picking apart an album constantly and turn our attention to something that hasn't already been discussed to death? Seriously, this is putting the "anal" in "analyzing".

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 06.04.2009 at 07:38

Written by [user id=31891] on 05.04.2009 at 16:06

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 05.04.2009 at 13:07

Doesn't sound like the stuff that I think of when I think about thrash metal. I don't think it's thrash personally, but my definition of thrash tends to be quite conservative, so I might not judge it fairly. It's possibly that it can be classified as thrash in the modern sense of the word, but I don't think a lot of the modern sounding thrash is thrash at all.

Basically, compared to Lamb Of God and Machine Head, then it's thrash, but compared to the old stuff like Deathrow, Destruction or Overkill, it's not even close IMO.

I don't really give much of a damn though, since the album isn't something I like to listen to when there's old Metallica to be had, but I have to vote that it isn't thrash because according to my experience Death Magnetic is not the way thrash sounds like.

So you think that "Lamb of God" is not thrashy, now you convinced me why someone think Death Magnetic is not thrash! we have to judge equal. if Metal Storm thinks that "Lamb of God" is thrashy why they think "Death Magnetic" isnt?

... I don't hear the thrash riffing, for instance. But then again, I don't hear the thrash in Lamb Of God either. And WTF do you mean we have to judge equal? That's just bullshit man, of course everyone is gonna be judging differently (it's called "having an opinion").

I meant we have to be fair! if we think Lamb of God is thrash so why we think death magnetic isnt?
and I didnt talk about Opinions! I talked about metal storm's genres, and its not an opinion its a Communication.

Written by Lucas on 06.04.2009 at 01:20

Lol, i only just noticed that you gave this topic the subcategory "Thrash metal". hows that for an objective opening post.

well, i am getting a little sick of so much Metallica discussion, but this is at least a slightly interesting question.

I cant see if you are tired of metallica discussion, kidding me?

Written by Doc G. on 06.04.2009 at 08:21

Written by Lucas on 06.04.2009 at 01:20

well, i am getting a little sick of so much Metallica discussion, but this is at least a slightly interesting question.

Well, maybe not the band in general, but the discussion of this album is just beating a dead horse. I mean, I can be construed as a High On Fire fanboy by some logic, but I didn't feel it necessary to pick-apart every detail or angle of "Death Is This Communion" 7 months after its release date. As long as we're here, why don't we all go for repeated rectal examinations while we're at it?

My point being, there are dozens of new albums coming out every month, most of which being more dynamic and more worthy of such thorough discussion (if you want to call it discussion, I call it beating a dead horse). Either way, perhaps we need to stop picking apart an album constantly and turn our attention to something that hasn't already been discussed to death? Seriously, this is putting the "anal" in "analyzing".

take a look at posts and votes, then you will find that we need this thread, this is metallica with alot of fans. we cant compare it to other bands, cause other bands doesnt have the same counts of fans.

after I heard alot of opinions here, I realized that maybe this album's genre is somthin like Thrash Heavy Metal as metal storm mentioned it :

http://metalstorm.ee/bands/band.php?band_id=176&bandname=Metallica

but as you see even staff members called it Thrash Heavy not Heavy Thrash, it sounds like:
its more thrashy than Heavy.

Written by Lucas on 06.04.2009 at 01:20

Lol, i only just noticed that you gave this topic the subcategory "Thrash metal". hows that for an objective opening post.

well, i am getting a little sick of so much Metallica discussion, but this is at least a slightly interesting question.

And is there any sane person out there who takes THE_BLACK_GOD's' fanboy humping of Metallica serious?

Written by VPeter on 06.04.2009 at 18:36

Written by Lucas on 06.04.2009 at 01:20

Lol, i only just noticed that you gave this topic the subcategory "Thrash metal". hows that for an objective opening post.

well, i am getting a little sick of so much Metallica discussion, but this is at least a slightly interesting question.

And is there any sane person out there who takes THE_BLACK_GOD's' fanboy humping of Metallica serious?

it's no worse than a lot of posters have over their pet bands, genres, irrational opinions, and blind hatreds.

Wait? Metallic released a new album? When?

I think it´s trash, heavy and fuckin´ good, with excellent guitar intreludes

I voted for thrash.
I dont really feel like writing longwinded reasons nor do I think the album deserves such a waste of my time.
It just sounds predominantly thrash to me, thats all.

There are some parts and some songs that are not very Thrash Metal... But the album in general, in my opinion, is a Thrash Metal album. So I voted Yes. But i agree with the fact that Metallica used to be thrashier.

Written by jupitreas on 06.04.2009 at 21:28

I voted for thrash.
I dont really feel like writing longwinded reasons nor do I think the album deserves such a waste of my time.
It just sounds predominantly thrash to me, thats all.

its so nice to be honest as you are. here Im not talkin about: "plz love metallica", just some kids could think like that. the main reason that Ive opened this poll was to enlighten ppl and myself, Im not a god (nor a blacki one!), I dont know everything as none of us do here. so its so better to say opinions than to INSULT each other.

Well it became really cool to poke at Metallica over the years...it's probably their own fault for getting as big as they did, putting all their drama out in the open, the thing with Napster, growing old, developing drug/alcohol problems...it's all quite sad really...personally there is too much bullshit talk about this band...

Written by Brave on 05.04.2009 at 18:51

and i think it's not real thrash metal

then why you voted yes? i mean ok you like it, but if you think it is not thrash why dont you say: "it's not thrash but i like it a lot!"
why should you vote yes? just because you like the album?

Well after heaing carefully I voted NO! it is a thrashy heavy metal album, but not THRASH. it is not fast, not aggressive. it has 1 thrash song, 3-4 thrashy but mainly heavy metal, 2 "ballads". generally it cannot be cpmpared with todays thrash albums. (i dont even dare to compare it with 80'2, 90's)

Written by [user id=31891] on 05.04.2009 at 17:25

but I cant see a 100% Heavy metal song on this album.

yeah but you can see 2 ballads right??? the day that never comes and uforgiven 3.

Written by Deadmeat on 07.04.2009 at 17:20

Written by [user id=31891] on 05.04.2009 at 17:25

but I cant see a 100% Heavy metal song on this album.

yeah but you can see 2 ballads right??? the day that never comes and uforgiven 3.

Unforgiven III is rock IMO and "the day that never comes" is rocklike too.

Written by [user id=31891] on 07.04.2009 at 17:56

Written by Deadmeat on 07.04.2009 at 17:20

Written by [user id=31891] on 05.04.2009 at 17:25

but I cant see a 100% Heavy metal song on this album.

yeah but you can see 2 ballads right??? the day that never comes and uforgiven 3.

Unforgiven III is rock IMO and "the day that never comes" is rocklike too.

the day that never comes is just a copy of fade to blck. do you think that fade to black is a rock song?
unforgiven 3 you can call it rock i call it a metal ballad. if you call them ballads or rock songs (which are not) it's the same: they are 2 un-thrash songs!