Controversial opinions on metal

power trip is indeed medicore thrash. literally the definiton of it.

But Woe to the Vanquished being mediocre? lmfao. Anyone with that opinion needs to turn in their thrash card in and leave the room. And no ozz, you never had a thrash card to being with.
 
If you fine gentlemen have the time and interest throw up 5 or so top tier modern thrash albums here or in the thrash thread. Warbringer has sold out so hard I don't get your position on them
 
Lolwut? Please explain, i'd love to hear this.

I guess when you sell out you become less popular and your albums get less hype and exposure, 'mirite?

And what kind of thrash are you looking for? You dislike Vektor from what i remember, no?

Nah, black future is my number two behind hellish crossfire.

Wasn't their latest on nuclear blast? Did that label die or something?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TechnicalBarbarity
Nah, black future is my number two behind hellish crossfire.

Wasn't their latest on nuclear blast? Did that label die or something?

you're asking about Warbringer there right? nah they're on napalm records now. For some reason their popularity has went down, especially with their last album on Century Media. Don't think they were ever on nuclear blast

Are you looking for tech-thrash, blackened, death/thrash?
 
I agree. I don't exactly enjoy the infinite permutations of black metal there are, but there's no denying that the spectrum between someone like Ildjarn and shit like Liturgy (not that i'm championing them or anything) is much greater than Metallica to Vektor. Honestly I view modern Thrash metal much like I like I view Punk. The formula is timeless enough that it doesn't need to be tweaked too much to still deliver. Griping that either hasn't changed much over the years misses the point entirely. However, claiming that thrash has more "breadth" is patently absurd.

edit: I could be conflating "breadth" with diversity of sound. If so, my bad. Most of my favorite bands straddle the line between BM and thrash anyway. Like I don't think Hellhammer was calling themselves BM nor were Sodom.

Part of your viewpoint is due to the common dogma regarding metal sub-genres. Black metal is allowed to do nearly anything but if it contains a tremolo-picked riff or some shrieking or shit production, it's still black metal. Thrash metal riffs and songs back a vocalist deemed slightly too hardcore and now it's metalcore. In practice, the thing that actually links most black metal together, basically two or three riffing styles, has almost no breadth. 6/4 strum-a-strum with midi pan flute melody lines? Pagan/folk black metal. 6/4 strum-a-strum with midi Orchestra-in-a-Box(tm) backing the chord progressions? Symphonic black metal. 6/4 strum-a-strum with particularly reverb-heavy production and lyrics about suicide? DSBM. Black metal is defined largely by image, not music, so naturally its "aesthetic" will be a bit more broad than any other metal sub-genre.

Sounds like your favorite black metal bands are thrash metal bands with black metal aesthetic, so that makes your criticism especially odd.
 
Sounds like your favorite black metal bands are thrash metal bands with black metal aesthetic, so that makes your criticism especially odd.

lol you're right here and I think I may have forgotten to mention that. Regardless, I don't think DsO or Ildjarn are schlepping some image per say and neither could be labeled anything other than BM despite offering very different sounding material. I'm not trying to be some gatekeeper here though I admittedly listen to a lot more BM than Thrash. I guess this all just boils down to what you said considering the scope of the two genres as frameworks. It's insane to see the how many bands are retroactively being labeled as BM despite the 2nd wave having no awareness of their existence.

Ultimately, I respect and acknowledge that Thrash has mostly steered away from too many gimmicks and relies more on musical chops, but is that at the expense of stagnation or is stagnation its trademark like most modern punk music? It's clear that Thrash did indeed evolve in the 80s, but in the form of bands like Possessed and Celtic Frost. I don't think modern Thrash can be anything but revivalism and that's fine. No one is seeking newer Thrash bands in the hopes of finding anything but RIFFS anyway.

I'm also not sure why aesthetic has to equal image exactly. Sure a lot BM are steeped in juvenile lore and edgy posturing, but there are plenty of bands that set themselves apart with songwriting like Panphage vs. Malokarpatan. I think you're just cherry-picking memes about the genre without seriously considering that the sound just isn't as pigeonholed as Thrash. I'm not trying to argue that one is better than the other.

edit: im p hammered so excuse the flight of ideas
 
Last edited:
I find a lot more non-classic black metal that's substantially less interesting than a lot of non-classic thrash metal. It also helps to know what thrash metal albums you define as classic.
thrash was good in the 80s, but 90% of the stuff that isn't genre-aping (modern black thrash and death thrash is pretty lit I guess), is stuff that was done by at least one 80s thrash band but exponentially better.
 
Most of this boards outright rejects anything that deviates from the old gods these days which I'm also prone to doing. It's just really hard to innovate in metal without coming off as hokey, but back in 06-07 things like DsO, Agalloch, and Alcest were are all received well (they were all p. fresh than). I don't know if metal has reached its event horizon or nothing new is really coming about.