Now you see, to me that sounds like a metalcore band that incorporated thrash elements into their sound =P (and yeah I would say it's still more thrash technically speaking)

[EDIT]

Second track less so. Sounds more like groove thrash with a bit of -core

Written by [user id=4365] on 15.09.2015 at 19:22

Now you see, to me that sounds like a metalcore band that incorporated thrash elements into their sound =P (and yeah I would say it's still more thrash technically speaking)

[EDIT]

Second track less so. Sounds more like groove thrash with a bit of -core

Haha absolutely, a lot in the veins of Pantera or Exhorder in terms of groovyness too. And definitely some -core elements. In any case, I love it XD

Edit:

Plus they got a song called Error_404 what else do you want? XD

Written by Guib on 15.09.2015 at 19:27


Haha absolutely, a lot in the veins of Pantera or Exhorder in terms of groovyness too. And definitely some -core elements. In any case, I love it XD

It's pretty fun stuff. I reckon this is deadone's kind of thing too. Actually I think is one of those examples where modern production suits it well. It has a crunchiness I'm not sure you could find in older production sounds.

Written by [user id=4365] on 15.09.2015 at 19:30

Written by Guib on 15.09.2015 at 19:27


Haha absolutely, a lot in the veins of Pantera or Exhorder in terms of groovyness too. And definitely some -core elements. In any case, I love it XD

It's pretty fun stuff. I reckon this is deadone's kind of thing too. Actually I think is one of those examples where modern production suits it well. It has a crunchiness I'm not sure you could find in older production sounds.

I'm happy you like it =D and you're probably right for this band, older production wouldn't make for the same effect.

Written by Guib on 15.09.2015 at 19:31

I'm happy you like it =D and you're probably right for this band, older production wouldn't make for the same effect.

Well in the spirit of sharing I recall finding this earlier this year and really liking it. It's quite proggy and techy (but in a good way that maintains pace and energy), and maybe a tad deathy but has a nice rough production and overall balls to the wall thrash edge which I really liked on the whole. Worth hearing alone for the intro to 'Excision'!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weKSwX-ZKPo

Written by [user id=4365] on 15.09.2015 at 20:10

Written by Guib on 15.09.2015 at 19:31

I'm happy you like it =D and you're probably right for this band, older production wouldn't make for the same effect.

Well in the spirit of sharing I recall finding this earlier this year and really liking it. It's quite proggy and techy (but in a good way that maintains pace and energy), and maybe a tad deathy but has a nice rough production and overall balls to the wall thrash edge which I really liked on the whole. Worth hearing alone for the intro to 'Excision'!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weKSwX-ZKPo

Not bad at all !

EDIT:

Love it...

Written by Guib on 15.09.2015 at 22:20

Not bad at all !

I really liked it after listening to it again, though still couldn't do the whole thing in one go.

Written by deadone on 16.09.2015 at 02:00

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

Quote:
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

Here I am lost. Aren't most variations in black metal relegated to minor variations in tone, speed, guitar sound, production?

And if I lump Megadeth, Slayer, King Parrot, Ghoul, Goatwhore, Shadows Fall, Revocation, Suicidal Tendencies, Skyclad's earlier album and Machine Head together, then we can see thrash can be quite diverse.

A big problem is people tended to just slap labels on thrash derivatives to get away from thrash metal in the mid-late 1990s when thrash metal became a dirty word. That ended up becoming canon.

Yes That! THAT.

Written by deadone on 16.09.2015 at 02:00

Here I am lost. Aren't most variations in black metal relegated to minor variations in tone, speed, guitar sound, production? And if I lump Megadeth, Slayer, King Parrot, Ghoul, Goatwhore, Shadows Fall, Revocation, Suicidal Tendencies, Skyclad's earlier album and Machine Head together, then we can see thrash can be quite diverse. A big problem is people tended to just slap labels on thrash derivatives to get away from thrash metal in the mid-late 1990s when thrash metal became a dirty word. That ended up becoming canon.

Of course they're diverse; most of them have borrowed heavily from other subgenres.

King Parrot: as much grind as thrash. Would consider it a grind band first, personally.
Ghoul: borrows from death metal and grind as much as thrash, if not more. Would consider it a death / grind band first. They're basically a Carcass clone at any rate and Carcass aren't readily associated with thrash.
Goatwhore: borrows marginally from black metal to create some of its identity. I consider it a thrash band, many consider them black. Some even consider them death.
Shadows Fall: borrows from metalcore and alternative metal to give it much of its identity. I consider them a thrash band, many, if not most, consider them metalcore.
Skyclad: Borrows enormously from folk if I recall. Considered a folk metal band above all else.
Revocation: borrows as much from death metal as thrash, if I recall. Don't really know them though, really dull band.
Suicidal Tendencies: Ditto punk. Obviously identified as thrash. We did this one already.
Machine Head: Groove Metal, so you could argue that's actually an evolution there so I'll give you that. Groove thrash is probably thrash's only real evolution as far as I can see it. But as you say many people don't associate thrash with groove, which again shows how iffy the thrash identity is. Blaming the mislableing on people's desire to get away from 90s thrash seems like a bit of a leap to me as to think that most people give a shit about such things is to misunderstand your average metaller. Machine Head and Pantera sound patently different from other, purer thrash bands to me, so I can see why the distinction is made. It's a worthwhile one. More than speed metal for example.

So King Parrot, Ghoul, Skyclad, Revocation and to many people Goatwhore and Shadows Fall because of their image marketing mostly have their thrash identities quashed, less so perhaps with Goatwhore now compared to their past. Thrash can be diverse... but when it borrows heavily (or not that heavily really) from other genres then it effectively becomes associated more with something else. You pretty much proved my point I think. Even plebby people can't see a band is actually more or less totally thrash like Goatwhore, Lamb of God, Shadows Fall etc. They get caught up in imagery and certain superficial sounds so I think that really highlights how tenuous the thrash identity is. If it had more, or stronger, characteristics it would have evolved more favourable, or unique, bands with more variety. Instead most bands don't seem to know what to do with it so just ape older bands instead. That's how I see it anyway. No doubt thrash fans don't as I said previously.

Black metal on the other hand tends to have huge shifts in tone, speed, guitar sound, production and so, but also contain unique elements (something thrash rarely has I found) whilst still be readily identified primarily as black metal - Hell, even when a lot of the time they aren't really black metal. There are almost too many bands to name that sound virtually nothing alike yet fall into black metal with ease, unlike most of the bands you mentioned that supposedly fall into thrash: Darkthrone, Mayhem, Deathspell Omega, Blut Aus Nord, Xasthur, A Forest of Stars, Cloak of Altering, Fen, Ulver, Summoning, Drudkh, Wolves In The Throne Room, Enslaved, Dimmu Borgir, Brown Jenkins, Urfaust, Volahn, Botanist and so and so on ad infinitum, and that's not even mentioning the more obvious fusions like with doom, sludge, thrash as well as first wave stuff. I think anyone that describes a collection of bands like that as having "minor variations"....


....doesn't really really understand how black metal works and is received:

Quote:
That depends on whether you're a black metal fan or a metal fan that likes black metal. I've never met a black metal fan who would regard something like modern Enslaved or even most of Dimmu Borgir save some really early stuff as black metal.

Indeed most black metal fans I've encountered have defined black metal only those bands which are still largely primitive in terms of sound and ascribes to the audio aesthetics set up by original Norwegian bands.

Unlike any other metal subgenre, black metal has it own ideology and the purists still adhere to it.

None of that is remotely true in this day and age so I don't know who these "most black metal fans" are. Black metal as music has moved on and so has its fans. There are far fewer black metal purists around these days, aside from the odd weirdo and ANUS fanboy, and as a result far fewer Dark-clones. Bands these days try to emulate Deathspell Omega. The vast majority of people here (and basically everywhere) consider Enslaved a black metal band, even if some of their albums ere toward prog than black. Dimmu are still widely considered to fall into black metal, even if a few more informed people know they left if a while ago. Even RYM and MA still have them as symphonic black on their new stuff. Spend a bit of time on this site around where black metal is discussed and you'll see it pretty quickly. There are black metal fans who absolutely hate the primitive stuff. People that like the Deafheavens, the Woods of Desolations, the Germs and so on that hate other forms of black metal. You get fans of depressive suicidal black metal who don't like symphonic black metal. You get fans of first wave black metal that don't like the modern avant-garde stuff. Pretty sure there are few such factions within thrash. Maybe the odd preference here and there but definitely not so many and distinct I'd wager. All those variations of black metal are still considered black metal though, unlike plenty of bands with a thrashy base.

So yeah, not saying people are always right to omit the thrash component when it is there (and often it is, that's true) but the fact people overlook it for a metalcore tag, or a death tag, or a black tag, is what I'm talking about ultimately as to how thrash is a really tenuous genre that's mostly about a playing style or structure that is easily dominated, be it by sound, image, tone, marketing etc.Thrash is like a recessive gene basically. It may be there, but its characteristics are often hidden in favour of dominant genes (most other genres really)

Quote:
Death metal can take a bit more of a flogging when it comes to fusion, but only so much before it becomes something else

Again, you should really familiarise yourself with modern death metal. You won't like any of it but as I say this is a renaissance of the genre and has some of the most individual music being made today, yet they are typically readily identified within the death metal umbrella (despite often not sharing much with early death metal, a bit like how tech death is basically prog with extreme vocals; still gets called death metal though. Shows how strong a sound can be).

Quote:
Albums like How Can I Laugh Tomorrow or Lights,Camera, Revolution really feel like thrash albums. A lot of thrash bands had that punk energy including very early Slayer, Megadeth, Metallica, Kreator and Exodus. Later the crossover guys maintained the punk elements. And as new bands tried to find new elements in late 1980s, you had the return of some of that punk vibe.

Makes sense with punk to me. Both are very basic genres with a stripped down, simplistic sound that would combine in a way that would not submerge thrash. I prefer punk as it has a rawness and off-the-cuff energy that thrash often lacks.

Quote:
Indeed most speed metal is extremely samey.... other genres also lose their identity when it fused. Again you mention speed metal and US power metal but both of those genres transform into pure heavy metal as you start slowing down. US Power Metal often merges into thrash and is sometimes difficult to separate the two. Speed also blurs into power metal when you start ramping up the melody. And indeed today it gets very difficult to separate power/speed/heavy unless bands are particularly pure.

Only really familiarising myself with US power and speed metal fairly recently, but I would say that's true, though not that surprising really. Speed and US power typically feels like it was an even agglomeration of thrash, heavy and power metal in the first place so its characteristics are very well defined, in fact often too defined as you said as they become heavy or thrash really easily. That's why I like it though, because to me it's like someone gave thrash or heavy metal a bit more personality. Again it shows how thrash can be co-opted fairly easily whilst still remaining actually thrash. Even a bit of melody can push thrash into another genre entirely!

Written by [user id=4365] on 16.09.2015 at 12:30

Revocation: borrows as much from death metal as thrash, if I recall. Don't really know them though, really dull band.

This is completely off topic, but where did you come to the conclusion that Revocation is a really dull band other from not really knowing them at all?
They are one of the thing techdeath bands actually doing something interesting rather than just playing death metal as fast and chaotically as possible.

Written by Ganondox on 16.09.2015 at 13:32


This is completely off topic, but where did you come to the conclusion that Revocation is a really dull band other from not really knowing them at all?
They are one of the thing techdeath bands actually doing something interesting rather than just playing death metal as fast and chaotically as possible.

I gave an album a listen once and found them really boring. Simple as that. I don't consider a band I tried once a while ago as knowing them well, but I know enough to find them boring and dull.

Trying again on youtube now. Yep. Boring as hell. As death metal goes right now this strikes me as little more than footnote type stuff.

(But thanks for illustrating my point that you consider them a death band, not a thrash one!)

Are we really going into this again -_-

Revocation is one of the boring band ever. They tiring re-hashing records after records and producing uninspired material and bringing to fans.

Fans listens to them for some old-sake flavor of Revocation but today, they sound completely offbeat and dull.

Maybe I've only heard their good songs, never sat through a whole album by them. I just remember they have this one song with a cool jazzy banjo breakdown.

Anyway Revocation definitely has some thrash in them, but they are primarily death metal.

Their newest album is good... but that's about it. Don't know why people prefer their older stuff, either, since it's actually worse.

Give me good stuff like Arsis, The Faceless or Artificial Brain any day.

Written by [user id=101272] on 16.09.2015 at 22:18

Their newest album is good... but that's about it. Don't know why people prefer their older stuff, either, since it's actually worse.

Give me good stuff like Arsis, The Faceless or Artificial Brain any day.

What exactly counts as their old stuff? I think I've only heard stuff from Chaos of Form and the self-titled.

Written by deadone on 17.09.2015 at 02:47

Written by Cynic Metalhead on 16.09.2015 at 20:08

Revocation is one of the boring band ever. They tiring re-hashing records after records and producing uninspired material and bringing to fans.

Fans listens to them for some old-sake flavor of Revocation but today, they sound completely offbeat and dull.

Totally agree on Revocation being dull for most part. When they're good they are excellent. But they are good very rarely and mainly spend their time being boring and uninspired.

I think they have real potential though.

I don't think they have real potential.

They killed the creativity long back and started re-hashing records which came flat out boring. Revocation was good on early records but then majority of bands spits out the real potential initially.

But, big players are those who carries out the "potential" throughout their career. Sadly, Revocation wasn't one of them.

I think this thread should have closed over four years ago with the second post (by Marcel):

"If we follow your reasoning you could say NWOBHM was the most important because thrash mostly borrowed from that."

So no.

Written by Warman on 17.09.2015 at 23:59

I think this thread should have closed over four years ago with the second post (by Marcel):

"If we follow your reasoning you could say NWOBHM was the most important because thrash mostly borrowed from that."

So no.

I agree with "no," but I enjoyed discussing the side aspects of thrash in the past few days. Even if it was sort of me venting about it, but I also learned a few things as a result. Thrash can be an integral part of a band's sound, even if those aspects are hidden, so importance is perhaps a relative thing.

Written by [user id=4365] on 18.09.2015 at 03:54

Written by Warman on 17.09.2015 at 23:59

I think this thread should have closed over four years ago with the second post (by Marcel):

"If we follow your reasoning you could say NWOBHM was the most important because thrash mostly borrowed from that."

So no.

Thrash can be an integral part of a band's sound, even if those aspects are hidden, so importance is perhaps a relative thing.

This is why topic is still active.

Footnote - Bands use Thrash elements in their sound quite easily and perfectly. That is why Thrash could be the most important genre.

Written by Ganondox on 17.09.2015 at 15:16

Written by [user id=101272] on 16.09.2015 at 22:18

Their newest album is good... but that's about it. Don't know why people prefer their older stuff, either, since it's actually worse.

Give me good stuff like Arsis, The Faceless or Artificial Brain any day.

What exactly counts as their old stuff? I think I've only heard stuff from Chaos of Form and the self-titled.

The Teratogenesis EP is my high water mark, so anything before is my definition.

Written by [user id=101272] on 18.09.2015 at 18:21

Written by Ganondox on 17.09.2015 at 15:16

Written by [user id=101272] on 16.09.2015 at 22:18

Their newest album is good... but that's about it. Don't know why people prefer their older stuff, either, since it's actually worse.

Give me good stuff like Arsis, The Faceless or Artificial Brain any day.

What exactly counts as their old stuff? I think I've only heard stuff from Chaos of Form and the self-titled.

The Teratogenesis EP is my high water mark, so anything before is my definition.

Well I think "Cradle Robber" is pretty good, but I guess I'd agree they get better from there.

Thrash was HEAVILY influential. It helped create death metal, and it most certainly spawned groove metal. Thrash is a very diverse genre and some of metal's most successful bands are thrash (Metallica, Slayer, Testament, Anthrax, Megadeth, etc). It is the reason we headband and have mosh pits. It was the first ever extreme metal genre. Yes, thrash is the most important genre.

Normally, I'd say NWOBHM is the most important, but that is a movement, not a genre.

Written by __Mailman on 15.09.2016 at 05:03

It helped create death metal,

I'd say no.

It build up from the musical structure of Thrash metal and early black metal but never developed from it.

Death metal has its' different expansion with influences been taken from many genres. It has been discussed before, so I really not in mood to go into details. But, evolution of death metal never been exclusively taken from thrash metal genre.

Written by Cynic Metalhead on 15.09.2016 at 10:50

Written by __Mailman on 15.09.2016 at 05:03

It helped create death metal,

I'd say no.

It build up from the musical structure of Thrash metal and early black metal but never developed from it.

Death metal has its' different expansion with influences been taken from many genres. It has been discussed before, so I really not in mood to go into details. But, evolution of death metal never been exclusively taken from thrash metal genre.

I'd say death grew from thrash, same way thrash and power grew from heavy, so I'd have to agree with the other guy about that point. I don't think it's the most important genre, though, nor that it's as varied as he says it is.

Written by M C Vice on 17.09.2016 at 08:53

Written by Cynic Metalhead on 15.09.2016 at 10:50

Written by __Mailman on 15.09.2016 at 05:03

It helped create death metal,

I'd say no.

It build up from the musical structure of Thrash metal and early black metal but never developed from it.

Death metal has its' different expansion with influences been taken from many genres. It has been discussed before, so I really not in mood to go into details. But, evolution of death metal never been exclusively taken from thrash metal genre.

I'd say death grew from thrash.

Hell lot of difference between "origination" and "taking influences".

thrash influenced death metal = yes

death metal originated from thrash metal = no

Written by Cynic Metalhead on 17.09.2016 at 09:12

Written by M C Vice on 17.09.2016 at 08:53

Written by Cynic Metalhead on 15.09.2016 at 10:50

Written by __Mailman on 15.09.2016 at 05:03

It helped create death metal,

I'd say no.

It build up from the musical structure of Thrash metal and early black metal but never developed from it.

Death metal has its' different expansion with influences been taken from many genres. It has been discussed before, so I really not in mood to go into details. But, evolution of death metal never been exclusively taken from thrash metal genre.

I'd say death grew from thrash.

Hell lot of difference between "origination" and "taking influences".

thrash influenced death metal = yes

death metal originated from thrash metal = no

If death metal didn't come from thrash, where did it come from?

Death metal did come from thrash. Thrash evolved into death.

^With that and my answer 'NO' this thread best be closed. Quite silly and ridiculous topic.

Written by Ganondox on 17.09.2016 at 11:05

Written by Cynic Metalhead on 17.09.2016 at 09:12

Written by M C Vice on 17.09.2016 at 08:53

Written by Cynic Metalhead on 15.09.2016 at 10:50

Written by __Mailman on 15.09.2016 at 05:03

It helped create death metal,

I'd say no.

It build up from the musical structure of Thrash metal and early black metal but never developed from it.

Death metal has its' different expansion with influences been taken from many genres. It has been discussed before, so I really not in mood to go into details. But, evolution of death metal never been exclusively taken from thrash metal genre.

I'd say death grew from thrash.

Hell lot of difference between "origination" and "taking influences".

thrash influenced death metal = yes

death metal originated from thrash metal = no

If death metal didn't come from thrash, where did it come from?

As I said, "It build-up from the musical structure of Thrash metal and early black metal".