Controversial opinions on metal

[HamburgerBoy]

And a lot of the "classics" are shit clones of the biggest names that larger (or major) labels picked up on in dire expectation of cashing in on the Metallica craze. Most of the "classics" released some of their very worst songs in the late 80's, from Kreator on CBS, to Metal Church on Epic, to Testament and Overkill on Atlantic. During those times you had bands like Coroner, Anacrusis, early Pestilence, etc that were making much more interesting music concurrent with those "classics".

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

released some of their very worst songs/albums in the 90's

Fixed that for you.

Coroner is obviously included when speaking of thrash metal "classics". They're one of the greatest bands of all time.

I need to listen to more Anacrusis.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

Are you somehow trying to imply that Spectrum of Death is was more important to the development of extreme thrash than Pleasure to Kill?? AAAhhahahahhhahAHAHash ... wow man.

I love how the internet has turned some of these less known average/good albums of the 80's and 90's into "gems" that somehow are better than most of the classics that came out during the time. Fucking ridiculous.

Spectrum of Death is awesome, a good 4/5 stars(RYM) for me ... but people need to stop fucking acting like it's top tier thrash ... because it's not.

Two reasons.

1) Sometimes the better albums aren't the ones that end up being more influential. Just the nature of things. This is the minor reason.

2) People want to think that they're above the common listeners and they know what's ACTUALLY good, not what everyone THINKS is good. This is the major reason.

Sometimes there really are underrate gems that got buried, but those are more infrequent than people being hipstery just for its own sake.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Two reasons.

1) Sometimes the better albums aren't the ones that end up being more influential. Just the nature of things. This is the minor reason.

2) People want to think that they're above the common listeners and they know what's ACTUALLY good, not what everyone THINKS is good. This is the major reason.

Sometimes there really are underrate gems that got buried, but those are more infrequent than people being hipstery just for its own sake.

1) I agree, even pointed it out a few posts back ...

And I really don't give too much of a fuck about the influences, especially if said band is just as good, or maybe even better than their source of inspiration.

2) completely agree.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Fixed that for you.

Coroner is obviously included when speaking of thrash metal "classics". They're one of the greatest bands of all time.

I need to listen to more Anacrusis.

Endorama > Coma of Souls
Demonic > Practice What You Preach

What cut-off are you using to define classic? Noise/80's Roadrunner-tier? A certain number of albums released or sold? Because Spectrum of Death certainly has as large a following as Coroner and others, even if it is just one album on a less known label. Even on newsgroups in the early 90's you can find discussion on Morbid Saint (and one thing that I thought was really interesting is how no one seemed to talk about Artillery back then, despite the latter being longer-lived and having at least somewhat better distribution).

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Two reasons.

1) Sometimes the better albums aren't the ones that end up being more influential. Just the nature of things. This is the minor reason.

2) People want to think that they're above the common listeners and they know what's ACTUALLY good, not what everyone THINKS is good. This is the major reason.

Sometimes there really are underrate gems that got buried, but those are more infrequent than people being hipstery just for its own sake.

Nah, not really. What actually happens is that some random obscure band no one cared about nor should (say, Manilla Road) happens to gain a cult following by having the right people praise it, and before you know it they're "classic" too. Ultimately classics don't mean much of anything unless people are very clear about how they define it. The most significant case where people really overrate the obscure and underrate the known is when underdog-rooting gets going, aka the "Metallica ripped off X" syndrome, but that only applies to the most major bands.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Endorama > Coma of Souls
Demonic > Practice What You Preach

No, wrong on both of those .... also, Coma of Souls and Practice What You Preach are both very good albums, but far from being the best works from those bands, so those comparisons are pretty irrelevant.

What cut-off are you using to define classic? Noise/80's Roadrunner-tier? A certain number of albums released or sold?

Dude you're going to really question if Pleasure to Kill is a thrash metal classic? You of all people, the guys who was sucking on his thumb listening to kings x, nevermore and your favorite "technical thrash metal band" protest the hero not too long ago? Please man, you have a lot of Wheaties to eat before you start questioning albums that are widely considered to be "classics" and "cornerstones" of the sub-genre.

We both(and everyone else here) know that the greatest works from almost each of the bands in question come from the 80's(-RiP), so what the fuck are you arguing with me about? Any of the bands we're talking release a classic, let alone their best work in the 90's? Please name a few ... Dark Angel? Kreator? Metallica? Stick to what you're familiar with, it's not fucking queensryche we're talking about here man.

 

[Kara-Shehr]

The melody in For Whom... around 1:10 and in Betrayer around 2:20 are similar, but of course it's a very simple melody that anyone could copy. Besides, Metallica yanked the chorus riff of that one from Angel Witch's Angel of Death to begin with.

Ok I'll admit they are similar but I would have never noticed that unless someone pointed it out to me. We could sit here for hours or probably days and compare riff after riff and melody after melody and we would find probably hundreds upon hundreds of riffs and melodies that could be considered ripoffs. You would find countless Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Metallica, Slayer ect ect rip offs and then about a million rip offs of the people who ripped them off. Of course I'm using the term "ripoff" liberally here but I think you get what I mean. The difference from band to band in olderish metal particularly thrash metal is often very minimal. I'm not knocking thrash in anyway, I'm just making a point and I think you understand what I'm talking about.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Dude you're going to really question if Pleasure to Kill is a thrash metal classic? You of all people, the guys who was sucking on his thumb listening to kings x, nevermore and your favorite "technical thrash metal band" protest the hero not too long ago? Please man, you have a lot of Wheaties to eat before you start questioning albums that are widely considered to be "classics" and "cornerstones" of the sub-genre.

We both(and everyone else here) know that the greatest works from almost each of the bands in question come from the 80's(-RiP), so what the fuck are you arguing with me about? Any of the bands we're talking release a classic, let alone their best work in the 90's? Please name a few ... Dark Angel? Kreator? Metallica? Stick to what you're familiar with, it's not fucking queensryche we're talking about here man.

lol, how is King's X thumb-sucking music? Are you implying that they are some kind of obvious metal gateway band or something? Because if anything they're the opposite, a hard rock band with heavy riffs and production and influence on the mainstream grunge bands, working as a gateway for metalheads to get into "softer" music (they were for me at least) due to their influences from blues rock and pop. I enjoyed Kreator albums before anything from King's X (and the other two bands you mentioned as well for that matter).

My argument is that you're throwing around the c-word and you won't explain what makes whatever Kreator or Testament or etc album a classic and Spectrum of Death not. The 90's argument is something completely different (that being the inferiority of sterile major label-constrained thrash relative to 90's transgressions).

 

[UltimateApathy]

I'll be controversial by saying that Thrash is utterly dead due largely to the limitations the genre imposes upon itself, and that after listening to a couple of good Thrash bands, you're set for eternity unless you enjoy endless repetition:




Fun, right? Cool, now you're done with Thrash for the rest of your life, next you can listen to something that has actual creativity rather than plagiarism...

 

[The Butt]

I'll be controversial by saying that Thrash is utterly dead due largely to the limitations the genre imposes upon itself, and that after listening to a couple of good Thrash bands, you're set for eternity unless you enjoy endless repetition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klCfpuVRfiM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBsw-vTxs8I

Fun, right? Cool, now you're done with Thrash for the rest of your life, next you can listen to something that has actual creativity rather than plagiarism...

Coroner
Vektor
Aspid

Idiot.

 

[Krow]

UA is just backside sore that symphonic thrash metal doesn't exist.

 

[The Ozzman]

Havok got me interested in thrash again. I don't know what UA is talking about.

 

[UltimateApathy]

Havok got me interested in thrash again. I don't know what UA is talking about.

In case you missed it, I was actually saying that Havok is some pretty awesome shit, BUT two good bands over a sub-genre lifespan of 30+ years? Errrr....

 

[Onder]

In case you missed it, I was actually saying that Havok is some pretty awesome shit, BUT two good bands over a sub-genre lifespan of 30+ years? Errrr....

 

[The Ozzman]

More than two good bands in the thrash genre...

 

[The Butt]

UA is just backside sore that symphonic thrash metal doesn't exist.

notworthy

 

[matt schrauben]

For straight thrash, here are some obvious ones .... early Megadeth, Slayer, Metallica. First two Testament albums are thrash gold. Tankard have some great stuff, especially their first two. Also check out the first few Razor albums. Vio-Lence, if you can get past the vocals. Kreator's Terrible Certainty and Sodoms Persecution Mania are two good ones to also check out, and as straight forwards thrash as they got early on in their careers ... you might also dig a lot their more recent albums. Early Heathen and Artillery are also really good, but have some speed metal traits.

You've probably already heard most of those, I gotta get going but will post more later when I get back.

I already crank Megadeth, Slayer, and early Metallica on the regular. Testament is one band I know I need to listen to more. I really like "The Legacy".

 

[HamburgerBoy]

lol, Havok is completely derivative. I have no idea how someone could get excited by Havok but not Testament, Forbidden, Heathen, etc.

And listen to more Believer and Mekong Delta for symphonic thrash. Maybe some End Zone (kvlt Russian prog/thrash band) too.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Yea, nothing special about Havok ... their first album was a crapfest, Time Is Up is was a pretty solid outing, and I didn't like their last album much either. There are tons of better "young" thrash metal bands out there.

Testament is one band I know I need to listen to more. I really like "The Legacy".

Make sure to check out The New Order ... essential thrash metal IMO.