Written by [user id=101272] on 04.09.2015 at 02:23

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

Why's that? I don't see how old 80's Thrash is not the best... Totally is for me.

I'd probably take some of the more modern thrash over most of what I heard form the 80s tbh. 80s thrash always sounded really weak to me; thin, flimsy guitar tone, tinny flat production and some of the worst vocalists in metal (and repetitive song writing). Some of it was ok. Kreator, Morbid Saint etc. stuff that actually sounded heavy and had balls. Saying that I can't think of any modern thrash I would choose to listen to either.

Written by [user id=4365] on 14.09.2015 at 19:02

I'd probably take some of the more modern thrash over most of what I heard form the 80s tbh. 80s thrash always sounded really weak to me; thin, flimsy guitar tone, tinny flat production and some of the worst vocalists in metal (and repetitive song writing). Some of it was ok. Kreator, Morbid Saint etc. stuff that actually sounded heavy and had balls. Saying that I can't think of any modern thrash I would choose to listen to either.

I'll give it to you for the Production and I must agree with a couple vocalists, but it stops there for me XD. There's no way 80's thrash is weak/thin/flimsy sounding... What's an example of a ''Weak/Thin/Flimsy'' thrash release in the 80's for you so I can try to understand. Because I really don't see what you mean.

As for Modern Thrash, I like it too... but I prefer 80's for the most part.

Written by Guib on 14.09.2015 at 19:15


I'll give it to you for the Production and I must agree with a couple vocalists, but it stops there for me XD. There's no way 80's thrash is weak/thin/flimsy sounding... What's an example of a ''Weak/Thin/Flimsy'' thrash release in the 80's for you so I can try to understand. Because I really don't see what you mean.

As for Modern Thrash, I like it too... but I prefer 80's for the most part.

Perhaps flimsy isn't the right word. Just that the sound for me generally lacked any oomph or heaviness or impact. So "weak" in that respect. Usually just sounds muddy, as though a big chunk of it is locked away behind something. For example I would take newer Testament over old without a second's thought.

As a genre though it's just too skeletal / barebones for me to enjoy for a protracted length of time. I get bored and start craving other elements, but that goes pretty much hand in hand with my personality and tastes in general.

Also, I feel like the only reason one would listen to thrash is because it's fast and kind of aggressive. But why would you choose thrash when you can have death or grind which are much more visceral than the clean, characterless aggression of thrash? Don't really understand the appeal it has.

Written by [user id=4365] on 14.09.2015 at 19:18

Written by Guib on 14.09.2015 at 19:15

Perhaps flimsy isn't the right word. Just that the sound for me generally lacked any oomph or heaviness or impact. So "weak" in that respect. Usually just sounds muddy, as though a big chunk of it is locked away behind something. For example I would take newer Testament over old without a second's thought.

As a genre though it's just too skeletal / barebones for me to enjoy for a protracted length of time. I get bored d and start craving other elements, but that goes pretty much hand in hand with my personality and tastes in general.

Also, I feel like the only reason one would listen to thrash is because it's fast and kind of aggressive. But why would you choose thrash when you can have death or grind? Don't really understand the appeal it has.

Oh well can't say I agree with the lack of heaviness, but eh we're not going to argue on this forever XD. As for the ''Craving other elements'' truth is, I like thrash because it is simple and bare bones... when I crave complex I don't linger in thrash (even though there are some bands that fuse other genres and elements that are simply amazing but w/e). Also I don't only listen to Thrash because it's aggressive, I like the pace, vibe and riffs the whole package... Grind ? Lol I mean some grind I enjoy but a lot of it for me is unbearable. As for death I enjoy it.. Just not as much, can't say why. Even in bands like Thanatos, I prefer their more thrashy side (Emerging from the Netherworlds) even though the band is much more death metal later on... Also I love punk and there's a lot of punk in Thrash metal.. especially on the Crossover side.

Oh and BTW for the sake of the topic I do not think Thrash is the most important genre XD

Written by Guib on 14.09.2015 at 19:35


Oh well can't say I agree with the lack of heaviness, but eh we're not going to argue on this forever XD. As for the ''Craving other elements'' truth is, I like thrash because it is simple and bare bones... when I crave complex I don't linger in thrash (even though there are some bands that fuse other genres and elements that are simply amazing but w/e). Also I don't only listen to Thrash because it's aggressive, I like the pace, vibe and riffs the whole package... Grind ? Lol I mean some grind I enjoy but a lot of it for me is unbearable. As for death I enjoy it.. Just not as much, can't say why. Even in bands like Thanatos, I prefer their more thrashy side (Emerging from the Netherworlds) even though the band is much more death metal later on...

Yeah I like Thanatos, Divine Empire etc. bands that merge death and thrash.

I often find that thrash bands that merge other sounds cease to be thrash pretty quickly anyway. Mekong Delta for example feel more like a prog band than a thrash band much of the time. It's one of those brittle genres that relies on very specific characteristics (which probably explains why it can't evolve as a genre and is often regarded as stale these days).

But yeah, the thrash riff to me should be an ingredient, not a meal =P

Thread is getting interesting.

Written by [user id=4365] on 14.09.2015 at 19:40

Written by Guib on 14.09.2015 at 19:35


Oh well can't say I agree with the lack of heaviness, but eh we're not going to argue on this forever XD. As for the ''Craving other elements'' truth is, I like thrash because it is simple and bare bones... when I crave complex I don't linger in thrash (even though there are some bands that fuse other genres and elements that are simply amazing but w/e). Also I don't only listen to Thrash because it's aggressive, I like the pace, vibe and riffs the whole package... Grind ? Lol I mean some grind I enjoy but a lot of it for me is unbearable. As for death I enjoy it.. Just not as much, can't say why. Even in bands like Thanatos, I prefer their more thrashy side (Emerging from the Netherworlds) even though the band is much more death metal later on...

Yeah I like Thanatos, Divine Empire etc. bands that merge death and thrash.

I often find that thrash bands that merge other sounds cease to be thrash pretty quickly anyway. Mekong Delta for example feel more like a prog band than a thrash band much of the time. It's one of those brittle genres that relies on very specific characteristics (which probably explains why it can't evolve as a genre and is often regarded as stale these days).

But yeah, the thrash riff to me should be an ingredient, not a meal =P

Well that may be the difference between you and me then.. You see Mekong Delta, or Children even Watchtower (even though they fuse elements of prog) are still very Thrash Metal for me. Or even Prong for example... same thing. What genre doesn't fuse anything anyways? They all end up doing it, that doesn't make them less of a Thrash Metal Band. Look at Sludge... even though they fuse bunch of elements you still see people calling them for what they really are. It's as if people are scared of calling a band thrash because of that absurd conception that thrash only does pure thrash. In fact Thrash is probably the easiest genre to fuse...

And yeah the Thrash is a good ingredient but I really don't mind the meal hahaha.

Written by Guib on 14.09.2015 at 19:44


Well that may be the difference between you and me then.. You see Mekong Delta, or Children even Watchtower (even though they fuse elements of prog) are still very Thrash Metal for me. Or even Prong for example... same thing. What genre doesn't fuse anything anyways? They all end up doing it, that doesn't make them less of a Thrash Metal Band. Look at Sludge... even though they fuse bunch of elements you still see people calling them for what they really are. It's as if people are scared of calling a band thrash because of that absurd conception that thrash only does pure thrash. In fact Thrash is probably the easiest genre to fuse...

There might be a few bands that tend to technical-it-up a bit but I find it just gets dominated really easily by other genres and what thrash elements it has become so diluted that calling it thrash just isn't right anymore *shrug* Sludge is more of a sound than a playing style I've found, much like black metal, so they tend to merge easily whilst maintaining their identity. I've no problem with calling something thrash, or thrashy, but only when it sounds like it is.

[edit]

Thinking about it it does perhaps blend quite easily. But when it does the identity of thrash is lost. Was just thinking about stuff like Absu, Lair of the Minotaur etc. They have a thrashy base but are typically identified with the sound it has, rather than the structure.

Written by Cynic Metalhead on 14.09.2015 at 19:42

Thread is getting interesting.

I concur. I fully agree with Joe. Thrash has always been the spice to me: better when added to something, but you wouldn't eat it on its own. New thrash stands on its own because it at least benefits from modern production, whereas 80s thrash was severely limited thanks to then-awful production, though, also like Joe said, some exceptions (i.e. Demolition Hammer, Coroner, Morbid Saint, maybe Slayer back when they were actually worth something) exist.

80s thrash production easily beats its modern version if you ask me. I'll take the mix and master from Ride The Lightning, Reign In Blood, The Legacy, etc. over whatever modern "classics" I can think of. They were far more energetic and dynamic than today's over-polished garbage like Warbringer, Bonded By Blood, etc.)

As for the topic's question; it's important since it was very influential, but if we're talking solely about the most influential sub-genre of metal than heavy metal is probably more influential and if we're not... well, then thrash doesn't stand a chance, since it didn't last longer than a decade while other sub-genres are still alive to this day.

And as far as most 80s thrash being crap goes: I agree, but I would say the same about every sub-genre ever. Doesn't mean I don't like thrash when it's done right though.

Written by deadone on 15.09.2015 at 04:23

Written by Guib on 14.09.2015 at 19:44

same It's as if people are scared of calling a band thrash because of that absurd conception that thrash only does pure thrash. In fact Thrash is probably the easiest genre to fuse...

It's really bizarre.

Metallica's Master Of Puppets gets called thrash metal despite a lot of it being very non-thrash (e.g. The Thing That Should Not Be, Sanitarium, Orion, Leper Messiah) and most of it's thrashier moments not being too "pure" thrash metal either.

If a modern band released a similar sounding album with similar structures, it might get call progressive thrash or progressive heavy metal or even progressive groove thrash metal. Indeed Machine Head now get lumped as progressive thrash metal (even though a lot of it doesn't sound anything like thrash metal nor it being progressive).

Quote:
Or even Prong for example...

Totally agree especially with later releases. For example Carved Into Stone sits very well alongside modern mainstream thrash releases.

I knew you'd agree hahaha. I just call those ''fusion'' bands Thrash because it's this very vibe and energy that makes me like them, over their prog/industrial or black (...) sides. I'm not usually a big fan of just Prog, just Black or Just Industrial (of course there's exceptions) XD I admit, but when you mix a bit (Mostly a lot) of Thrash in it... it makes for a freakin' awesome sound (usually).

Written by deadone on 15.09.2015 at 03:56

There's different levels of aggressiveness and speed (as well as heaviness). And people do have different preferences when it comes to extremity. The appeal of thrash is it's accessability and it's catchiness. Grindcore and a lot of modern death metal aren't easy to listen to for most people. Thrash also overlaps with heavy metal and hard rock a lot (e.g. all the ballads/slow songs but also midpaced and slow songs) so that increases the appeal.

It still mostly sounds the same to me. Similar, rudimentary riffling that dances around the same bland, uninteresting motions which just get repeated from band to band, even to this very day. Going a bit faster or shouting a bit louder isn't anywhere near enough for me. Most thrash isn't as fast, heavy, aggressive or succinct as Reign In Blood, which is why I rarely listen to something else other than that. My problem is that thrash is a totally horizontal genre, with no verticality. I actually quite like speed or US power metal as it has the variances that thrash often doesn't have.

Quote:
That depends on the type of blending. E.g. Suicidal Tendencies and Death Angel managed to blend other factors into thrash (well ST turned to a thrash identity) without it losing its identity. Metallica did it really well on Black album - very much a thrash identity even though there's sweet fuck all thrash. Megadeth, Slayer, Sacred Reich, Overkill etc did it by incorporating traditional heavy metal and/or hard rock components in late 1980s/early 1990s.

I really like Suicidal Tendencies, but I don't feel like I'm listening to a thrash band. I know that they're thrash, but they don't feel like it. To me they feel like punk, because they have the energy and abrasiveness of punk. That's what I mean about thrash being easily absorbed and dominated by basically anything. As per your other examples I would have to go away and listen to specific examples, but I suspect that may be simply part of their image. If you're a known thrash band then you'll be known as thrash regardless as people are easily led by he nose. And certainly thrash does maintain an identity in some case, I'm not saying it never does. But as a core sound it's still more of a base than anything else. A set of building blocks if you will waiting to be given some personality.

Quote:
We should remember a lot of other genres have the same issue - a lot of melodic death metal doesn't contain much or any melodic death metal but are still identified in their the genre. That includes a number of bands that play variations of thrash metal ala The Haunted, Hatesphere or Shadows Fall. Also first Atheist album is really thrashy too but it gets lumped as progressive death metal or just death metal by many (who I suspect have never heard it).

Except that most people with any basic sense know that there is no death metal in the vast majority melodeath. It's just a name it has become known under. It's not because death metal has unsuccessfully tried to merge with heavy metal, it's because the vast majority of bands don't bother trying. Plenty of bands do merge the two though, there just aren't enough of them (Arghoslent, House of Atreus, Intestine Baalism, the new Horrendous for example etc.) Some genres merge better than others, or less malleable to change. You can't speed up funeral doom, you can only add sounds to it to modify it otherwise it simply ceases to be funeral doom. To me thrash doesn't have enough of a "sound" to be up there with black, sludge and the like in terms of fusion ability, so will always be background genre unless it's relatively pure. So, "easy to fuse" yet easy to lose. Yeah, I'm coining that. I think the fact it's still the least evolved genre out of perhaps all under the metal umbrella goes a fair way in highlighting this. The ones that do push it end up becoming prog or something else.

Written by deadone on 15.09.2015 at 03:45

Long post

You make some good points, but I don't define "alive and well" as 80s worship. Sure, death metal has a ton of Morbid Angel/Suffocation worship still going on, but it's also trying new things (the whole Morbus Chron/Tribulation/Horrendous thing for example, all the technical death metal from the last decade is quite different from what was defined as technical death metal in the 90s.) As you said, death metal came back and Nile is a perfect example, it revitalized the genre, but not by copying its roots; by doing an old thing a little differently.

Thrash metal albums that offer something new without going almost completely out of the thrash sound by blending it with death metal, black metal, or electro-swing or something are few and far between, while I think a genre like black metal still has albums that bring something new to the table that is still for the most part undeniably black metal. Maybe it's harder to do that with thrash metal, but regardless of why, for me personally it makes the genre pretty dead.

(There are of course a ton of black metal bands that blend it with other genres to do something new as well and that are barely black metal anymore, not trying to say otherwise here)

Written by [user id=4365] on 15.09.2015 at 14:35

no specific post

My problem with most of your posts here (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that you seem to define thrash by the bands you don't like while you have admitted to liking quite a few other ones (I saw Kreator, Slayer, etc. being named)
If I were to do the same with black metal I'd be talking about how all black metal is tremolo-picked Satan worship, of which there is a shit-ton, admittedly. But when I talk positively about black metal in general I'm usually referring to the bands I like. Those are the bands that define the genre for me, not the generic darkclones. Thrash metal for me is Ride The Lightning, Peace Sells, Pleasure To Kill, but for you it might be another set of albums.

Don't we all look for the exceptions within a genre? Otherwise I'd just be listening to all the generic black metal that gets churned out on a daily basis. I want albums that are exceptional and I'm willing to dig through all the poop to find that one gem among thousands.

Written by Zap on 15.09.2015 at 15:27

My problem with most of your posts here (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that you seem to define thrash by the bands you don't like while you have admitted to liking quite a few other ones (I saw Kreator, Slayer, etc. being named)
If I were to do the same with black metal I'd be talking about how all black metal is tremolo-picked Satan worship, of which there is a shit-ton, admittedly. But when I talk positively about black metal in general I'm usually referring to the bands I like. Those are the bands that define the genre for me, not the generic darkclones. Thrash metal for me is Ride The Lightning, Peace Sells, Pleasure To Kill, but for you it might be another set of albums.

Don't we all look for the exceptions within a genre? Otherwise I'd just be listening to all the generic black metal that gets churned out on a daily basis. I want albums that are exceptional and I'm willing to dig through all the poop to find that one gem among thousands.

Well the ones I like tend to be the ones that, to me at least, do what most of the others do just with grittier production, and / or are on the heavier / faster end of the spectrum. To me it feels like the differences within thrash can be measured on a fairly simple scale by going left or right. Black incorporates more dimensions and levels to me and can't be measured in that way. I'm sure thrash enthusiasts don't see it that way at all, but I would never have the patience or inclination to listen to them with that level of detail as from the stuff I've tried it left me quite bored. I would say I like most black metal (most of what is worth listening to) but I would say that I dislike most of thrash (even the stuff that is probably worth listening to according to popular opinion). I like some exceptions of thrash, when they fit my taste. I like the exceptions of black, but I'm also far more willing to accept immitation in black than thrash. Probably because black comes in far more flavours.

[EDIT]

If you were to choose the most polar opposite bands of each genre and put them side by side and measure the substantial differences (not that vocalist A has a slightly different timbre to vocalist B type shit) I feel like thrash would lose out pretty considerably to most other subgenres. That's generally how I feel. I'm probably wrong, but I don't get what you would really measure in thrash to justify the amount of bands that play it. That's pretty much it for me. I just find it harder to find the exceptions in a subgenre like that. It's not necessarily an indictment of it as obviously loads of people go apeshit over it, but I think it's reasonable to say it could be considered a weakness as well.

As for death metal, we're in a renaissance of it right now. Couldn't be happier with its output in recent years. Oldschool, newschool, weirdschool. It has it all.

Written by Zap on 15.09.2015 at 15:27

Written by [user id=4365] on 15.09.2015 at 14:35

no specific post

My problem with most of your posts here (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that you seem to define thrash by the bands you don't like while you have admitted to liking quite a few other ones (I saw Kreator, Slayer, etc. being named)
If I were to do the same with black metal I'd be talking about how all black metal is tremolo-picked Satan worship, of which there is a shit-ton, admittedly. But when I talk positively about black metal in general I'm usually referring to the bands I like. Those are the bands that define the genre for me, not the generic darkclones. Thrash metal for me is Ride The Lightning, Peace Sells, Pleasure To Kill, but for you it might be another set of albums.

Don't we all look for the exceptions within a genre? Otherwise I'd just be listening to all the generic black metal that gets churned out on a daily basis. I want albums that are exceptional and I'm willing to dig through all the poop to find that one gem among thousands.

I couldn't agree more.

Also for !J.O.O.E.! maybe you're just not willing to find the exceptions because overall it's not a genre that interest you anyways, it's like black metal for me... only black metal I listen to, mixes Thrash in it or another genre.. lol because I don't really enjoy black metal.

As far as I'm concerned, there's a a ton of exceptions in thrash but you'll probably tell me that it ain't thrash XD lol even though it is.

Maybe one of you could explain how black metal is comparable to thrash then? =P I'm waiting for someone to tell me that the differences in thrash aren't relatively subtle and relegated to minor variations in tone, speed, guitar sound, production etc. compared to black metal's enormous multiple evolutions over the past 30 years which comprises many sounds and styles within its umbrella. I'm not trying to sound like a dick, just interested to know.

I have tried to some degree. I ended up gravitating to ones that sound immediately recognisable. Most I tried didn't have many interesting characteristics so didn't pursue them.

Written by [user id=4365] on 15.09.2015 at 18:12

Maybe one of you could explain how black metal is comparable to thrash then? =P I'm waiting for someone to tell me that the differences in thrash aren't relatively subtle and relegated to minor variations in tone, speed, guitar sound, production etc. compared to black metal's enormous multiple evolutions over the past 30 years which comprises many sounds and styles within its umbrella. I'm not trying to sound like a dick, just interested to know.

I have tried to some degree. I ended up gravitating to ones that sound immediately recognisable. Most I tried didn't have many interesting characteristics so didn't pursue them.

But you just said it ... *Multiple evolutions over the past 30 years which comprises ''many sounds and styles''. * yet you still call it black metal even though it has nothing to do with its beginning or ''pure'' sound I mean it keeps it's roots of course. I'm just unsure to why that theory wouldn't apply to thrash metal? And also I'm not going to talk about black metal much since the only black metal I know a lot and enjoy, shares Thrash roots (Absu, Aura Noir, Nocturnal Breed, Destroyer 666, Skeletonwitch) and that's hardly enough to talk about black metal... that's what I think anyways and I'm totally not willing of checkin' it more unless it fuses with something else (a lot) because, like you for thrash, it's not something I'm very interested in.

EDIT:

Also, I don't see why someone wouldn't be able to compare one type of metal to another type of metal... regardless of complexity or sound or how many different styles it has under its ''umbrella''.

Written by Guib on 15.09.2015 at 18:29

But you just said it ... *Multiple evolutions over the past 30 years which comprises ''many sounds and styles''. * yet you still call it black metal even though it has nothing to do with its beginning or ''pure'' sound I mean it keeps it's roots of course. I'm just unsure to why that theory wouldn't apply to thrash metal? And also I'm not going to talk about black metal much since the only black metal I know a lot and enjoy, shares Thrash roots (Absu, Aura Noir, Nocturnal Breed, Destroyer 666) and that's hardly enough to talk about black metal... that's what I think anyways and I'm totally not willing of checkin' it more unless it fuses because, like you for thrash, it's not something I'm very interested in.

Well as far as I know there aren't really "evolutions" of thrash as such. Just some regional variations (which often don't sound that different to my ears but no doubt they do to others). Correct me if I'm wrong though. Thrash bands that are a bit different tend to be fusions, rather that evolutions it seems. The black metal evolutions though still tend to be considered mostly purely black metal, even if they do borrow characteristics. I totally get that thrash gets into other genres and bands, but it still to me feels like they become identified with the fused genre more often than not, unless they're a very well established thrash band. I'm repeating myself now though so that's pretty much all I can say on it.

Those bands you mentioned are still useful examples though. One could argue that they may be more thrash than actual black, but I would wager they're probably more popular within the black metal community than the thrash one, and tend to be culturally identified as such (don't know about Nocturnal Breed though, have never listened to them).

Quote:
Also, I don't see why someone wouldn't be able to compare one type of metal to another type of metal... regardless of complexity or sound or how many different styles it has under its ''umbrella''.

Well I think (could be wrong) the point Zaph was trying to make, in a nutshell, is that saying all thrash sort of sounds the same is equal to saying black metal all sort of sounds the same. Which I don't think is true. You can compare the two, but the differences are enormous to me.

This conversation is turning my mind into mush now and not really sure where I'm going with it. I suppose I'll just wait for deady's, no doubt lengthy, response

Written by [user id=4365] on 15.09.2015 at 18:42

Written by Guib on 15.09.2015 at 18:29

But you just said it ... *Multiple evolutions over the past 30 years which comprises ''many sounds and styles''. * yet you still call it black metal even though it has nothing to do with its beginning or ''pure'' sound I mean it keeps it's roots of course. I'm just unsure to why that theory wouldn't apply to thrash metal? And also I'm not going to talk about black metal much since the only black metal I know a lot and enjoy, shares Thrash roots (Absu, Aura Noir, Nocturnal Breed, Destroyer 666) and that's hardly enough to talk about black metal... that's what I think anyways and I'm totally not willing of checkin' it more unless it fuses because, like you for thrash, it's not something I'm very interested in.

Well as far as I know there aren't really "evolutions" of thrash as such. Just some regional variations (which often don't sound that different to my ears but no doubt they do to others). Correct me if I'm wrong though. Thrash bands that are a bit different tend to be fusions, rather that evolutions it seems. The black metal evolutions though still tend to be considered mostly purely black metal, even if they do borrow characteristics. I totally get that thrash gets into other genres and bands, but it still to me feels like they become identified with the fused genre more often than not, unless they're a very well established thrash band. I'm repeating myself now though so that's pretty much all I can say on it.

Those bands you mentioned are still useful examples though. One could argue that they may be more thrash than actual black, but I would wager they're probably more popular within the black metal community than the thrash one, and tend to be culturally identified as such (don't know about Nocturnal Breed though, have never listened to them).

For the last part, absolutely not XD haha I'm pretty certain they have just has many fans in Thrash that they have in black... in fact if not more in thrash since the genre usually ''appeals'' to more people (let's face it). In any case, I like them as ''Thrash Bands'' and I totally see that they have black metal influences especially Absu, but what is evolution of a genre if not a fusion with other styles and sounds (like you said for black metal itself) that's just my point right there... It's evolution if one allows it to be. That's how I feel.

Written by Guib on 15.09.2015 at 18:45


For the last part, absolutely not XD haha I'm pretty certain they have just has many fans in Thrash that they have in black... in fact if not more in thrash since the genre usually ''appeals'' to more people (let's face it). In any case, I like them as ''Thrash Bands'' and I totally see that they have black metal influences especially Absu, but what is evolution of a genre if not a fusion with other styles and sounds (like you said for black metal itself) that's just my point right there... It's evolution if one allows it to be. That's how I feel.

Well that makes sense coming from a thrash-oriented taste perspective then I still feel black metal is less reliant on other established genres to move forward. It often borrows from unique individual sources or ideas, but incorporates them in a way totally its own. If the same could be said of thrash I'm guessing it wouldn't mostly sound like clones of older bands with more modern production.

That was indeed more or less my point, but I sort of agree and disagree with some of the things you said. In fact I touched on similar subjects in my reply to deadone. If I have more time (Read: if I'm in the mood) I'll elaborate.

Written by [user id=4365] on 15.09.2015 at 18:49

Written by Guib on 15.09.2015 at 18:45


For the last part, absolutely not XD haha I'm pretty certain they have just has many fans in Thrash that they have in black... in fact if not more in thrash since the genre usually ''appeals'' to more people (let's face it). In any case, I like them as ''Thrash Bands'' and I totally see that they have black metal influences especially Absu, but what is evolution of a genre if not a fusion with other styles and sounds (like you said for black metal itself) that's just my point right there... It's evolution if one allows it to be. That's how I feel.

Well that makes sense coming from a thrash-oriented taste perspective then I still feel black metal is less reliant on other established genres to move forward. It often borrows from unique individual sources or ideas, but incorporates them in a way totally its own. If the same could be said of thrash I'm guessing it wouldn't mostly sound like clones of older bands with more modern production.

I'm totally with you that there's a lot of ''clone'' bands out there... That's unfortunate (even though some still kick ass). At least they make up for the old bands not releasing good material anymore hahaha. But nonetheless you have a bunch of ''Fusion Thrash Bands'' that release amazing material that is still quite unique. Those are, in my opinion, the bands that evolved.

Just... Just do it Joe
Children - Hard Times Hanging At The End Of The World
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_vxUjmXbfk

EDIT:

Sacred Ally - Kermit The Prog
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SQlt7bIq1k

Written by Guib on 15.09.2015 at 18:54

I'm totally with you that there's a lot of ''clone'' bands out there... That's unfortunate (even though some still kick ass). At least they make up for the old bands not releasing good material anymore hahaha. But nonetheless you have a bunch of ''Fusion Thrash Bands'' that release amazing material that is still quite unique. Those are, in my opinion, the bands that evolved.

Just... Just do it Joe
Children - Hard Times Hanging At The End Of The World
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_vxUjmXbfk

Actually I believe it was Zaph who told me to listen to them a while ago, I remember saying I didn't think how thrash could really be psychedelic. I never got around to it, I guess I could handle the idea

Written by [user id=4365] on 15.09.2015 at 18:56

Written by Guib on 15.09.2015 at 18:54

I'm totally with you that there's a lot of ''clone'' bands out there... That's unfortunate (even though some still kick ass). At least they make up for the old bands not releasing good material anymore hahaha. But nonetheless you have a bunch of ''Fusion Thrash Bands'' that release amazing material that is still quite unique. Those are, in my opinion, the bands that evolved.

Just... Just do it Joe
Children - Hard Times Hanging At The End Of The World
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_vxUjmXbfk

Actually I believe it was Zaph who told me to listen to them a while ago, I remember saying I didn't think how thrash could really be psychedelic. I never got around to it, I guess I could handle the idea

Also check the other link it'S just one song, from Sacred Ally (just edited the post) don't get fooled by the beginning.

Written by Guib on 15.09.2015 at 18:58


Also check the other link it'S just one song, from Sacred Ally (just edited the post) don't get fooled by the beginning.

Well I like the sound of Sacred Ally. It has melody and maybe some heavy metal leanings (though not sure why MA calls them heavy metal if this is indicative of the album). It's a nice mix of sounds at any rate =P

As for Children, I think I might have tried it before but was put off by the vocals. It sounds really good up until them -_-

Written by [user id=4365] on 15.09.2015 at 19:06

Written by Guib on 15.09.2015 at 18:58


Also check the other link it'S just one song, from Sacred Ally (just edited the post) don't get fooled by the beginning.

Well I like the sound of Sacred Ally. It has melody and maybe some heavy metal leanings (though not sure why MA calls them heavy metal if this is indicative of the album). It's a nice mix of sounds at any rate =P

As for Children, I think I might have tried it before but was put off by the vocals. It sounds really good up until them -_-

Well I didn't vocals were that bad, I mean they got nothing too special to them lol but ruining an album 'cos of that, c'mon Joe

Written by Guib on 15.09.2015 at 19:07


Well I didn't vocals were that bad, I mean they got nothing too special to them lol but ruining an album 'cos of that, c'mon Joe

Well they're not Vio-lence bad, just sort of shouty shouty. I could probably get used to them.

And why the fuck not.. if you like some Tech/Groove
I really just wanna show you ;-) Thrash does evolve. Haha (Though this is more standard)

The Clockwork - Reborn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu51EjX0wkk