Written by Vombatus on 11.07.2014 at 02:47

Haven't read anything. But the answers fits in one word: No. However, I'm quite sure we can think that Thrash is the most stagnant/boring genre nowadays

I can certainly see a case for it being important for some extreme subgenres like death, grind and first wave black (surely punk was more important for second wave though?) but there's really very little doubt it's the most defunct metal subgenre around today.

Death metal has seen huge bouts of evolution and variety, and heavy metal has seen some interesting stuff too.

^Heavy? Coming up with interesting stuff? Enlighten me.

Written by Karlabos on 11.07.2014 at 04:19

^Heavy? Coming up with interesting stuff? Enlighten me.

Umm, well, there's Slough Feg, Dawnbringer, plus I suppose you have occult heavy metal like Christian Mistress, The Oath and so on. Definitely not my area of expertise, though I'm sure I've heard a few oddities down the line which currently elude my memory =P

I think that for first wave BM, NWOBHM was more important. Hmmmm maybe I'm just saying that coz leafing through "Only Death Is Real", all the influences of HH/CF were NWOBHM trying to make it more extreme. I'm sure Thrash was important too for BM, but not sure till what extent.

Written by Vombatus on 11.07.2014 at 05:01

I think that for first wave BM, NWOBHM was more important. Hmmmm maybe I'm just saying that coz leafing through "Only Death Is Real", all the influences of HH/CF were NWOBHM trying to make it more extreme. I'm sure Thrash was important too for BM, but not sure till what extent.

Probably. I don't really know myself. I just figured for stuff like Darkthrone and Burzum a punk ethos and simplistic musicianship would have been a sizeable influence.

Actually I just realised you weren't referencing me there when I was talking about second-wave. Nevermind =P

Written by deadone on 11.07.2014 at 05:31

(indeed Darkthrone started off as Death Metal - Soulside Eclipse Journey anyone)

Fixed that for you

But I agree with you on most accounts. I was pointing out how Thrash did not have that much influence when regarding the birth of BM, as we see a lot of people saying that Thrash was super-duper important to developpe other forms of extreme metal. Also think the first wave gets really messy and difficult to delimitate for everyone, though I regard it as Black Metal.
And concerning second wave BM, or more traditional BM/whatever you want to call it, is more influenced by DM if you look the milestone. First "proper" second wave release was ABITNS, which was in the own words of the Darkthrones dudes "a Death Metal album played in Black Metal style" (or something along those lines ). Then again the influences stretch in every possible way going up to electro-stuff for the norwegian bands, so again delimitating/attributing importance to influences gets confusing.

It's clear we have very different perspectives on how to tackle this.

Written by deadone on 11.07.2014 at 02:34

Then throw in early Def Leppard or even a lot of Saxon which is very hard rock.

Haven't listened to any Saxxon or Def Leppard recently so I can't make any comments on that claim, well listen to them once I get home, lunch break at work right now.

Quote:

Actually I said that proper Black Metal (i.e. the Norweigian stuff and not stuff that can also be labelled as Thrash, Speed, NWOBHM) was heavily influenced by Thrash ala early Sodom as well as NWOBHM Sodom

"It's true you had bands like Venom doing extreme stuff in 1981-82" You also mentioned Venom and said they were extreme, that's what I was going at. I simply implied all extreme metal came out of thrash.

Quote:

Power Metal comes from German Speed Metal (Grave Digger, Running Wild, Helloween etc) which started at roughly same time as Thrash back when genres boundaries were vague.

Gothic Metal ala Paradise Lost, My Dying Bride and Anathema came from Thrash via early Death/Doom, the Death component which came via Thrash. Symp[honic is to degree a development of power metal so the lineage is there.

Dunno about drone but will give you sludge and progressive.

Key phrase here is " for the most part unrelated to thrash".
Power: I already said speed was more important than thrash, so this doesn't counter my argument.

Gothic: Yes, it came from death/doom, but death/doom has washed away most of it's thrash influence from what I can tell, pretty much the only death metal aspect is the vocals and some drumming. Gothic metal is even more detached, it's much more connected to doom and it's not unreasonable to believe it might exist regardless of whether or not thrash did.

As far as extreme metal goes, including extreme doom as well, drone metal is pretty much the polar opposite of thrash. Probably takes some influence from death and black metal, but just in terms of harsh vocals and dissonance.

Quote:

NWOBHM was a geographic scene, not a stylistic scene. Compare Iron Maiden to Saxon to Def Leppard to Samson to Diamond Head to Witchfinder General to Venom.

It's the same as grunge was initially a geographic scene.

There was a lot of heavy metal in 1979-82 that wasn't classed as NWOBHM even though there might've been some overlap with sound, becuase they weren't British (e.g. Accept, Anvil, early Motley Crue etc) or because they weren't new (e.g. Black Sabbath whose Heaven and Hell and Mob Rules albums were extremely modern sounding for the day).

This has nothing to do with what I was saying as I wasn't making it out to be a genre in that instance, I was using it as the scene, I was just referring to the title. The point was there would have to be an inital wave of british heavy metal for their to be a new wave. I see my logic is flawed now as I can't think of any British hard rock bands after the inital wave, but before and during the NWOBH other than Whitesnake. Anyway, like many scenes there is still a sound associated with it (eg. Gothenburg Metal and early Melodeath), and the fact some bands in the scene did not have that sound or some bands outside the scene did does not change that. Informally NWOBHM is sometimes used like a genre to describe the sound, you used it in the same way as I did (NWOFBHM Sodom).

Not sure if grunge is better described as a scene or a genre, it definately has elements of both. However it is used as a genre more often than NWOBHM is.

So again, more bands which we would call metal and not hard rock, supports what I said as their must be metal for their to be a specific new wave of british heavy metal scene.

Quote:


They were interchangeable - read any of the press in the 1980s. And a lot of stuff called Metal in those days was Hard Rock - e.g. Guns N Roses, Bon Jovi or a lot of Motorhead tunes. Heck even in the late 1990s there was a lot of overlap in the mainstream section in such leading mags as Metal Hammer and also in new internet - hence some people called Nickelback or Godsmack or Papa Roach metal.

And non-metalheads still call Bon Jovi, Guns N' Roses, and Motorhead metal, and plenty of publications still call them metal as well. Even Nickleback sometimes still gets labled as heavy metal. (Funny thing is now some people are denying hard rock is hard rock and calling it pop rock) While some publications used them interchangebly, I don't think they were absolutely interchangeble as the term hard rock is older and used to refer to stuff lighter than anything heavy metal was used to refer to until heavy metal was already well established as it's own genre, while I think there are plenty of old non-thrash metal bands which weren't called hard rock by much of anyone. Can't really confirm this as aside from random snippets I come across I don't read 80's press, but I hardly care what the press, 80's or not, thinks. Nowadays there is stuff we call traditional heavy metal, stuff we call hard rock, and I like the traditonal heavy metal stuff a lot better so I know there is a difference and it clearly has it's importance on the developement of latter metal.

Quote:

Which might indicate a lack of listening of either genres in their 1980s states. Hardcore had shouty and very prominent vox, generally no solos, short song structures, simpler riffs, simplified drumming (including D Beats), breakdowns etc whereas Thrash went for longer songs (in those day 4+ minutes), more complex riffs and more of them, vocals were snarled or shrieked, solos were mandatory, and drumming developed along specific metal patterns (including increasing usage of double kicks). Thrash is also more rooted in classical hard rock composition and basic principles.


Hardcore was also radicalised in terms of political ideology (it was an extreme offshoot of Punk afterall) - I remember reading an interview with Dan Liker (Anthrax, Nuclear Assault, SOD and Brutal Truth) who was saying how it was difficult breaking into hardcore scene and how they could easily reject you for something simple as having a job or selling albums. This is where Straight Edge comes from.

Hardcore music was as much about politics and lifestyle as it was about music. Thrash on the other hand was not.

I'm well aware of the difference between hardcore punk and thrash metal, I listen to quite a bit of early hardcore. I'll also note that early hardcore opted for a different guitar tone than thrash, with more treble and feedback, and that early hardcore had no breakdowns, not sure exactly where that came from but the earliest claim I can find is Bad Brains created them as a result of their metal and reggae influence. The point I was making is that I disagreee that heavy metal and hard rock can be used interchangebly when referring to 70's stuff. You mentioning thrash is based in hard rock just supports my argument that declarely thrash as when metal diverged from hard rock is arbitrary.

Anyway, in comparison to traditional heavy metal the hardcore influence is obvious, with faster tempos, melodically simpler riffs, d-beat inspired drumming (the use of fills and double kicks and what not makes it more complex, but the standard thrash drum beat is just a varient of the d-beat), lower and harsher vocals as well as generally less focus on the vocals, and political themes are more prevelant. All the big four cite influence from punk, and the oldest I know, Overkill, started out as a hardcore punk band. The fact is thrash is actually an old term that was, guess what, used interchangebly with hardcore punk, that's why thrashcore isn't crossover thrash, though I can't trace the etymology of "thrash metal". Yes, thrash is clearly based in metal while hardcore was based in punk, but retrospectively there is also a clear difference between traditional heavy metal and hard rock, even if there is many bands with elements of both.

Quote:

One thing people today forget is that radical politics/ideology were far more important in those days and music was one way of conveying radical political messages or signs of affiliation be it hippies and rock n roll or anti-establishment punks to straight edge hardcore types to neo-nazi NSBM.\

And with the death of extreme ideology in 1989-91 and the creation of consumer societies, political affiliation became an irrelevance and hardcore and metal became even more intertwined as middle class kids didn't care (or understand) about ideological affiliation. And the rising environmental movement never had an association with music either, given it's rather broad acceptance.

Throw in internet which makes music available to everyone regardless of geography or scene.

Indeed new subcultures became more narcissistic ala the woe is me emos or hipsters or whatever - again musical style wasn't necessarily as strong a badge as it was a hardcore punk.

...really? Not denying the music part, but I don't think it's any less prominant now than then, the scenes are just different then they were in the past. For example, hipsters. There is a very distinctive sound to the indie rock hipsters love. There are still scenes today, like in Portland, I'd say that internet just opens up new scenes which are community based rather than geographical, like the brony music scene.

Quote:

After crossover there was more convergence between Thrash and Hardcore - be it more hardcore influences in traditional metal ala Sacred Reich, Pantera etc or more metal influences in hardcore bands ala Biohazard and Poison Idea.

Agreed, again I wasn't seriously saying thrash came from hardcore, just it took heavy influence from hardcore and was critizing the claim you made.

Quote:

Indeed I actually never met anyone into hardcore punk until a couple of years ago. It had virtually no appeal in my city whereas there were lots of metalheads.

And none of the metalheads listened to any hardcore. It changed with metalcore but even then I've never met anyone who was an actual avid fan of original hardcore.

While I know a handful of metalheads, the only fan of hardcore I know IRL is my brother, and he only likes the breakdown-free stuff with minimal metal influence. Because we've lived around the world and grew up as fans of alternative (real alternative, not that post-grunge shit), we've found most our music online. Musicology is a bit of hobby we have, that's where we discovered hardcore from as while hardcore was never very popular, it's extremely influential. While many old hardcore bands are punk classics, the first hardcore band to break mainstream was the more metallic Refused, so I think this gives many people misconceptions about what exactly hardcore is. Anyway, there are clearly plenty of metalheads who liked hardcore before metalcore was a thing, otherwise that means all the original thrash guys aren't metalheads. I've seen numerous people online who talk about that in their day there was no division between punk and metal, they were all just bros in the underground who liked heavy music.

Quote:


Doom is not older. It's the misconception that what Sabbath played was Doom Metal when it was regarded as either Heavy Metal or Hard Rock or Blues Rock (these people also ignore all the funky, psychedlic stuff that Sabbath played as well as borderline AOR in later stages).

If Sabbath invented Doom, then Doom was the first genre and it resulted in the creation of Heavy Metal. Sabbath played bits of what is now called Doom but they were a Heavy Metal band.

I've been into metal since 1992 and the referrence to Sabbath as Doom is far newer - at least in Australia they were heavy metal. Marcel the resident Doom expert can clarify as to the actual status of Sabbath in far more relevant European scene as he;s been in it since 1980 or 1979.

Yes, it is. I wasn't referring to Black Sabbath when I said doom is older, obviously it would be anchronogous to say they belong to a subgenre when the main genre wasn't fully formed, I was referring to bands like Pentagram, Witchfinder General, Trouble, and St. Vitus. Hardcore and doom both started in the late 70's, while thrash didn't really start until the early 80's, so doom is slightly older than thrash. Yeah, Black Sabbath is more influential than proper doom metal bands, but then that would just add to the importance of traditional heavy metal.

Quote:

There were no real heavy metal genres in the 1970s and it did overlap with hard rock. It wasn't until probably about 1985 that genres became really solid. Before then Running Wild could be Black Metal and Metallica Power Metal and Megadeth/Overkill could be Speed Metal and Thrash Metal at same time. Even early Death Metal was Thrashy e.g. Morbid Angel's first album (Abominations of Desolation) or Possessed.

There simply weren't enough bands for making the distinction of subgenres to be meaningful. The closest thing there was to subgenres was regional scenes, which is why people sometimes use NWOBH to describe a sound when describing the developement of heavy metal. The genres still aren't really solid at many places, like around groove metal where there is really no clear line between it, metalcore, nu metal, thrash metal, and the heaviest end of hard rock, bands fill up the borderline as much as they do groove metal proper. Many modern metal bands still can't be placed in any genre other than heavy metal. Genres only really form in restrospect after people have been developing that sound for awhile, though the tendacy that people make to throw labels on them may be hastening reinforcement of genres. Yes, there is an overlap between tradtional heavy metal and hard rock, and there still is, but they are still distinct things. Traditional heavy metal is most important metal genre.

Written by deadone on 11.07.2014 at 02:34

Symp[honic is to degree a development of power metal so the lineage is there.

A lot of the early examples of symphonic metal were done by death metal bands (Therion, Haggard) and the occasional thrash band (Believer), so there's that, too (although I disagree that thrash is the most important , I do see where the argument in favour comes from and can't see a reason the disgard the claim entirely).

You're posts are a bit long for someone at work. Does you're boss know you're wasting time here?

Written by M C Vice on 11.07.2014 at 11:51

Written by deadone on 11.07.2014 at 02:34

Symp[honic is to degree a development of power metal so the lineage is there.

A lot of the early examples of symphonic metal were done by death metal bands (Therion, Haggard) and the occasional thrash band (Believer), so there's that, too (although I disagree that thrash is the most important , I do see where the argument in favour comes from and can't see a reason the disgard the claim entirely).

You're posts are a bit long for someone at work. Does you're boss know you're wasting time here?

Again, it's like gothic, just because it technically came out of death doesn't mean it's in anyway in debt to thrash, though symphonic metal is even more detached, as while gothic metal came directly out of death/doom, symphonic metal came out of a convergence of bands from various genres, such as progressive, gothic, power, and yes, some death and thrash metal. I'm pretty sure the fact that the first symphonic bands were death or thrash metal is entirely coincidental, they were just the popular forms of metal at the time, and most latter symphonic metal bands have ditched all noticeable thrash or death metal influence in favor of power, gothic, or progressive influence, though some like Epica still hold onto them. Symphonic metal is weird as it's often more a descriptor than a proper genre, but usually as a genre it's not associated with thrash. Eh. Or something. I guess you can argue thrash is important to symphonic metal, but I maintain that overall it isn't.

Well my boss left halfway through the day and left us at a another building which lacks the equipment to finish our assignment, so after we finished what we could there was nothing to do for the rest the day. The job is somewhat of a joke anyway, I heard the last guy in the position did nothing at all.

Written by deadone on 11.07.2014 at 05:31

I'm using proper paragraphs cause she (ilham) asked! They look so painful to me.

Actually it looks much more presentable and organized. You should stick to it

Okay, I listened to some stuff by Saxon and Def Leopard, and it very much has a NWOBHM sound rather than a hard rock sound. Both the songs I listened to off of Saxon's second album were clearly metal, just with some punk influence, though the one song I listened off their debut (Judgement Day, I specifically avoided the songs wikipedia described as glam rock or progressive rock) seemed to dart around between a NWOBHM sound and a folk rock one. I also listened to a cover they did latter, and while I can see why some people might call it hard rock, it's definately metal to me, sounded like a lighter song by Judas Priest. For Def Leopard, I started with Wasted, which was clearly metal, then moved onto Rock Brigard, which has more of a hard rock sound (which makes sense given the title), but I still think could be called metal. Next I listened to Answer to the Master, which I guess had a 70's metal sound, that song was weird. Guess you could call that one hard rock as well. Finally I listened to Satellite, which I think is another 70's metal styled one. So, yeah, I reject you're claim that they are very hard rock in anyway except lyrics, and maintain what I said.


Anyway, you can certainly argue thrash is most important, but by OP's logic I can go down and say traditional heavy metal is more important, or go up and say death or groove metal is more important. After some thought I personally think whatever Black Sabbath invented, whether it's doom or traditional, is most important, unlike other genres which mainly just mix two sounds together or exaggerate some existing traits, they created a brand new sound.

Written by deadone on 14.07.2014 at 02:51




Even when you read interviews with people from these bands they refer to themselves as rock bands and not necessarily metal bands

totally invalid reasoning because bands lots of times refer to themselves wrongly. Case in point Chicken of Boredom referring to themselves as black metal.

Written by deadone on 14.07.2014 at 03:18

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 14.07.2014 at 02:59


totally invalid reasoning because bands lots of times refer to themselves wrongly. Case in point Chicken of Boredom referring to themselves as black metal.

So who determines what you play?

The music one plays determines what one plays.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 14.07.2014 at 03:29

The music one plays determines what one plays.

And history and consensus decides on what that music is. Not the band.

Written by [user id=4365] on 14.07.2014 at 03:32

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 14.07.2014 at 03:29

The music one plays determines what one plays.

And history and consensus decides on what that music is. Not the band.

Totally NOT the band. Because besides my my Chicken of Snorefest example there is also Motörhead where Lemmy claims he plays rock and roll when it clearly isn't rock and roll at all.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 14.07.2014 at 03:35


Totally NOT the band. Because besides my my Chicken of Snorefest example there is also Motörhead where Lemmy claims he plays rock and roll when it clearly isn't rock and roll at all.

I can't count or remember the times bands have tried to call themselves something which is totally not what they play. Especially bands that try to create niche and unheard of genres just for their own music which can easily be slotted into something that already exists.

Written by [user id=4365] on 14.07.2014 at 03:38
Especially bands that try to create niche and unheard of genres just for their own music which can easily be slotted into something that already exists.

Labels do this all the time too. "Band X simply cannot be pigeonholed" etc.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 14.07.2014 at 03:39

Labels do this all the time too. "Band X simply cannot be pigeonholed" etc.

Yeah, I can get by on descriptions that over-egg bands, but making up new genres for them is always quite silly.

Written by deadone on 14.07.2014 at 02:39

Written by Ganondox on 12.07.2014 at 17:15

Okay, I listened to some stuff by Saxon and Def Leopard, and it very much has a NWOBHM sound rather than a hard rock sound. Both the songs I listened to off of Saxon's second album were clearly metal, just with some punk influence, though the one song I listened off their debut (Judgement Day, I specifically avoided the songs wikipedia described as glam rock or progressive rock) seemed to dart around between a NWOBHM sound and a folk rock one. I also listened to a cover they did latter, and while I can see why some people might call it hard rock, it's definately metal to me, sounded like a lighter song by Judas Priest. For Def Leopard, I started with Wasted, which was clearly metal, then moved onto Rock Brigard, which has more of a hard rock sound (which makes sense given the title), but I still think could be called metal. Next I listened to Answer to the Master, which I guess had a 70's metal sound, that song was weird. Guess you could call that one hard rock as well. Finally I listened to Satellite, which I think is another 70's metal styled one. So, yeah, I reject you're claim that they are very hard rock in anyway except lyrics, and maintain what I said.


Anyway, you can certainly argue thrash is most important, but by OP's logic I can go down and say traditional heavy metal is more important, or go up and say death or groove metal is more important. After some thought I personally think whatever Black Sabbath invented, whether it's doom or traditional, is most important, unlike other genres which mainly just mix two sounds together or exaggerate some existing traits, they created a brand new sound.

I love how you deliberately avoided songs that were described as glam rock or progressive rock.

It's like calling Faith No More's Real Thing a Thrash album cause you avoided all the non-Thrash songs and listened to Surprise! You're Dead.

No, it's like not judging whether or not Metallica is a thrash band based on "Nothing Else Matters" and "Fade To Black", which, being the first Metallica songs I heard, greatly confused me on Metallica's status. Same as not judging Led Zeppelin based on "Stairway to Heaven". The point isn't whether the band has a few ballads or not, it's whether they played heavy metal. The glam rock and progressive rock songs were specifically pointed out as being exceptions to the albums heavy metal sound by the reviewer.

Written by deadone on 14.07.2014 at 02:51

Written by Ganondox on 11.07.2014 at 10:19

And non-metalheads still call Bon Jovi, Guns N' Roses, and Motorhead metal, and plenty of publications still call them metal as well. Even Nickleback sometimes still gets labled as heavy metal. (Funny thing is now some people are denying hard rock is hard rock and calling it pop rock) While some publications used them interchangebly, I don't think they were absolutely interchangeble as the term hard rock is older and used to refer to stuff lighter than anything heavy metal was used to refer to until heavy metal was already well established as it's own genre, while I think there are plenty of old non-thrash metal bands which weren't called hard rock by much of anyone. Can't really confirm this as aside from random snippets I come across I don't read 80's press, but I hardly care what the press, 80's or not, thinks. Nowadays there is stuff we call traditional heavy metal, stuff we call hard rock, and I like the traditonal heavy metal stuff a lot better so I know there is a difference and it clearly has it's importance on the developement of latter metal.

This actually goes down to the guts of my argument - the "when did Metal becomes it's own thing"?

I knew a lot of guys who played in rock bands who were avid fans of hard rock - by hard rock they generally referred to AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Ozzy Osbourne.

To them these bands were still hard rock and not metal, unlike say Metallica and Megadeth.

Their opinion is no less relevant than that of a metal head (in fact they're the biggest fans of these bands I've ever met - most metalheads I've known don't listen to anything pre-Thrash other than Iron Maiden and Judas Priest and many of the younger guys seldom listened to anything pre-1990 anyhow).


Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin had enough rock in them for to be incorporated into hard rock.

Even when you read interviews with people from these bands they refer to themselves as rock bands and not necessarily metal bands, especially as heavy metal wasn't a concrete term back in those days and there was no such thing as Metalheads (which seems to be a NWOBHM development).

Thrash Metal is the first point where you can say "thats metal and not hard rock."

"Thrash Metal is the first point where you can say 'thats metal and not hard rock.'" And that's just your opinion, like anyone elses, there is nothing objective about it. I don't really care what people's opinions are, everyone has there own opinion and that's that, none of these opinions are unreasonable (eg. calling Judas Priest death metal), but none of them can be taken as unquestionable fact. In the broadest sense of rock, all metal is rock. Putting the dividing line at thrash metal is extremely arbirtrary, expecially given the fact you pointed out it's composistion is still based in hard rock. I still hear some people calling the big four thrash bands rock (and not just in reference to recent material), it's death metal I've never head getting called rock. It's just distribution of opinions at that point, thrash is more extreme, so more people call it metal. Yes, Black Sabbath is still bluesly and loose enough to be called hard rock, and they are the metallist of the bands you listed (aside from maybe Ozzy I'd call those all hard rock as well), but by the time the time Judas Priest released Sin After Sin (as well as Sad Wings of Destiny, they just weren't as well defined with their sound then, dably with progressive rock influences and whatnot) their composistion was fundementally different from other hard rock/metal bands, and they were also the first(?) metal band to embrace the label. It should be noted that most pioneers of any sort of genre aren't calling to call themself by the name of the genre as it's a transistion and the label isn't set yet, either they are going to insist they are just another band in whatever their roots are, or they are going to make up so BS genre for themselves that no one else recongizes.

Written by deadone on 14.07.2014 at 05:50


To get the whole vibe of the album you have to listen to the whole album. How do you know whether the reviewer is right (could be those songs are actually quite metal).

It's not some random reviewer, it's a guy from allmusic, a major critic. For some reason AllMusic is the only review listed on wikipedia. He may be wrong, those songs might be very metal, but I'm not here to decide whether "Still Fit to Boogie" is glam rock or not, I'm here to decide if the NWOHBM sound is found in Saxon's works, and skipping over those songs cuts to the chase. It's definately there on Wheels of Steel, and I think it's on Saxon as well from what I've heard. I don't have time to listen to whole albums at once often, so stratified "random" samples is the best I can do.

Written by deadone on 14.07.2014 at 02:51

I've heard the three of the four big thrash bands get called rock too - something to do with albums ala Black, Load, Reload, Risk, Cryptic Writings, Stomp 442, We've Come For You All etc.

But never Slayer who I've always seen referred to as metal.

Goes to the whole thing of thrash was where we can first separate metal from hard rock.

I'm pretty sure I've also seen earlier Metallica get called rock, like "Master of Puppets" and "One". Anyway, "Hit the Lights" is pretty thrash, but it's also pretty rockin'. The reason no one calls Slayer rock is because they are fucking Slayer, they are almost a parody of heavy metal. They aren't called hard rock because they are extreme metal, and if extreme metal was the first point where metal could be sepperated from hard rock then the title would be redundant. I don't think anyone is going around calling Candlemass hard rock, and I think the only people who call Iron Maiden hard rock are those who think if it doesn't have harsh screaming, it isn't metal (which can be said for most thrash metal as well). I still disagree with your claim.

Quote:

In any case Thrash was the first truely extreme underground genre. Even NWOBHM wasn't that underground in its hey day whereas it took Thrash some 7 years to get to mainstream success and then it was only bands that had started to dilute the mix with ever more heavy metal/hard rock influences.

Nope, that goes to hardcore punk, which was extreme as it got where it started, and stayed much further from the mainstream than thrash. Or maybe the No Wave scene (noise rock), they were around at around the same time, though thrash has a connection to the hardcore scene. Not to mention that outside of rock there are even more extreme underground genres, eg. industrial, as well as avant-garde music in general. Unless you're speaking just for metal, in which you be right.

Quote:

I also think Thrash was the first metal genre to define metal as a form of extreme underground music. Prior to that, metal bands were quite happy to change their sound to ever more commercial styles and were part of the overall rock landscape.

And that comes from the punk ethos of hardcore, but we see how well that is reflected in certain thrash bands *coughMetallicacough*. If metal has a distinct style to it that can be isolated from hard rock and other forms of rock, it would be the darkness black sabbath introduced. Metal can have pop leanings like hard rock, fantasy leanings like prog, or political leanings like punk, but in regards to rock, while various shock rock dabbled in the occult, it wasn't until metal that such darkness was dwelled in as a musical genre, and it remained exclusive in that extend until gothic rock emerged much later.

Written by deadone on 14.07.2014 at 07:48

And reviewers can be contradictory ala the very Allmusic critics you think are infallible:

I said no such thing, just it's more reputable than an truly random person leaving a review. I was just saving time to see if there is metal on it by not wasting my time with the stuff which likely isn't metal.

Quote:

As for not listening to whole albums, hard to make an assessment listening to "stratified random samples" especially with albums that often had 8 tracks!

I don't care about the overall sound of the album, I only care if the NWOBHM sound is represented by them on their early albums as that what determines if a NWOBHM sound exists as defined by the bands.

Quote:

Written by deadone on 14.07.2014 at 02:51
The reason no one calls Slayer rock is because they are fucking Slayer, they are almost a parody of heavy metal.

They write over the top lyrics they don't even take seriously, and played in an equally over the top manner. Obviously they aren't a parody band, but they don't have the most serious attitude towards themselves.

Quote:

They're also a Thrash band - hence my point. Megadeth and Metallica always had large dollops of pure heavy metal and hard rock in them. Anthrax from Among The Living was pure Thrash musically but had a very melodic and mainstream sounding vocalist in form of Joey Belladonna.

But they are still thrash bands, which leads back to the actual distinction being made is between extreme metal and heavy metal, and if extreme metal was the line when metal becomes it's own thing than the title is redundant, it would just be heavy metal.

Quote:

Candlemass have no mainstream popularity and tend to be a band for mainly underground metalheads. Hence no idea what they would be classified by people into hardrock or whatever.

Iron Maiden's been called hard rock even back in the day before they had screaming in metal.

And the big four of thrash had no mainstream popularity until they were cemented as the kings of metal. I'm sure a good deal of people would call them hard rock simply because they think metal is just stuff, but would the hard rock fans be ready to adopt them and say they aren't metal?

As for Iron Maiden, can you find an example where the person personally made a distinction between hard rock and heavy metal? Pretty sure mainly people simply used the hard in hard rock as an adjective back then, and metal is rock. Again, genres take time to be recognized.

Quote:


Er no - you're missing the entire Punk Explosion in the late 1970s!

Sex Pistols, The Clash etc getting huge very quickly. Clash went No 12 in UK with debut album. Give Em Rope was No 2 in UK and Never Mind The Bollocks was measly No 1. Ramones third album debuted at 49 on Billboard.

Meanwhile Kill Em All peaked at 120 on Billboard in 1986, 3 years after release! Master of Puppets debuted at 128!

....
....
....
I said HARDCORE punk, like you said THRASH metal. Sex Pistols, The Clash, and the Ramones aren't hardcore in the slightest. Minor Threat's only album, Out of Step, never even made it onto the billboard 200, but it's still considered one of the most important hardcore albums, it's on 1001 Albums to Hear Before You Die. By your logic, thrash metal is super mainstream because Black Sabbath reached #8 and Paranoid peaked at #1.

Quote:

Topic is most important metal genre.

And I never argued that thrash was the first extreme metal genre, just not first extreme underground genre.

Quote:

Most of the 1970s bands didn't have "dark occult leanings." Black Sabbath was the heaviest and you had later ones like Pentagram. But you're average 1970s heavy metal band didn't bother with the occultism.

Some of the Shock Rock guys embraced it far more - e.g. Alice Cooper which was far more occult than Sabbath who were just as happy singing about being stoned and seeing fairies in boots as they were singing about occultism.

As for darkness, man, Iggy pop had moments of darkness but I wouldn't call his music metal (proto-punk on the other hand).

And most of the metal guys used it for shock value too be it Iron Maiden or Venom or whatever.

I was only using occult elements as an example of darkness in rock, they are far from the only dark themes in heavy metal, and most heavy metal was noticeably darker than hard rock. This even applies to Rainbow. Of course there is range of lyrical themes, that applies to every genre except those explicitly defined by their lyrical content. The difference is shock rock isn't a real genre, it's a performance style, spanning everything from rock n' roll to thrash metal (I think black metal is only excluded because it would be redundant, and the fact many of them went a step further), while heavy metal is a musical style. Aside from some overlap like aforementioned occult, I hardly mean the same thing by dark themes, like KISS is shock rock but their lyrical themes are much lighter than even Judas Priest. Anyway, while Iron Maiden has some shock rock elements, if you've ever looked at their lyrics you can hardly explain all their dark themes as merely been done to shock, only some of them.

Iggy Pop is one band, he is not a genre. Most protopunk isn't dark in the manner heavy metal is. However, I have called him a heavy metal singer on occasion, not sure why.

Quote: ''Woa... let's not, BLOW, things out of proportion..''

The quotes are getting a bit heavy, just saying.
I mean it's fun and all your little fight... but yeah.

And it was most popular through the 80's when thrash was also it's biggest. I'm getting tired of this discussion, I've said my opinion and that is that.

I like a couple of thrash bands, but generally it's not a genre that interests me. When I hear thrash, I hear... too much punk, more than metal. To my ears anyway.

Maybe it's a Brit thing, but anything that sounds even remotely like punk elicits a rather... 'euwwww' response from myself.

I don't agree... not because I don't like thrash metal, all the opposite, I love thrash metal, it's my #1 metal genre, but I don't think we can give it the top importance status among all metal genres.
I believe metal or heavy metal encompasses all metal genres and sub-genres. Each one has their own place, of course some being more popular than others.
All metal music is important... at least for us fans. That would make us, the metal fans, the most important part of all metal music. A very good band (in any genre) without fans it's a doomed band... or a hobby.

Written by Infernal Eternal on 01.01.2012 at 17:16

Thrash is awesome but not the best metal genre . Probably old school heavy metal is the best metal genre.

Heavy Metal------>Thrash and Speed Metal(also First Wave Black Metal, Sodom etc.)------>Death Metal----->Second Wave Black Metal(Mayhem started as a death/thrash band).

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IskpkhtZbow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5vuGE2ETU4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2noM6bs2Ys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rcc4kL-uSVc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDO0YuZAYqo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUE_r0uWP_Q

Written by [user id=115824] on 27.10.2011 at 05:15

Thrash may or may not be the most important, but its sure as hell the best!

Hahaha....I second that!

Big time LOL at thrash being the best of anything, old or new.