So a friend of mine that I work with asked me the difference between thrash metal and death metal. I played him some Slayer for the thrash part and some Carcass for death. Then I started thinking, well Carcass has a lot of aspects of thrash in their music, so what would be a good pure death metal choice.
Difference between thrash and death
- Thread starter Guitarfreak5253
- Start date
- Status
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
Thrash is mainly focused on interplay of riffs, death is mainly focused on interplay of rhythms. Obviously, there's a lot of crossover; early death metal was mainly thrash-like, but had an obvious focus on aspects of technicality and was usually a little heavier than most thrash.
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
metal_wrath
I dip my forefinger...
The most obvious difference is Death metal growls.
Carcass is not a good example of straight up Death metal. Maybe some old Deicide?
Carcass is not a good example of straight up Death metal. Maybe some old Deicide?
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
Suffocation is a good band to illustrate the difference with because they play with both kinds of structures in their music a lot of the time, blending in grind influence to form the general aesthetic of what would become "brutal death metal."
Einherjar86
Active Member
At first I thought this thread was going to be called "difference between thrash and speed," which is something I'm still curious about. I don't know much about these subgenres, because I don't typically enjoy them; but I've always understood that thrash came first, and then death and speed were spawned from it. I also thought that speed metal is usually considered to have preceded power metal.
Is this correct, or am I mistaken on some points?
Is this correct, or am I mistaken on some points?
IntoPhagist
FloriiiiiiiooooooOOO!
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
AchrisK
Weakling
That wouldn't clear anything up.
I also think there is a somewhat regular difference in which beat is emphasized, between thrash and death metal drumming. I could not tell you any more than that, or point it out.
divine_torture
leVel
It's more technical, and typically a little 'happier'...less angry or 'evil' sounding. Kind of like the difference between typical second wave black metal and symphonic black metal. Symphonic has more shit going on, but loses that barbaric, evil touch.
mutantllama
Active Member
I've always considered speed to have more ties with traditional metal, and not as aggressive as thrash.
Difference between thrash and death metal would be one is called Thrash Metal and the other Death Metal.
no country for old wainds
Active Member
- Nov 23, 2002
- 26,557
- 9,575
- 113
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,848
- 113
Yep, I don't see it having anything to do with technicality. It's more or less just traditional metal played fast. Judas Priest is speed metal. Accept is speed metal. Metallica is not.
This made me laugh
I guess this is a more controversial topic than I had originally thought. I think the riffs/rhythms theory is fairly accurate as well, which leads to the drums having more of an active part in the sound of modern death metal. I have the suffocation discography, but it's so hard to listen to. Are some albums easier to listen to than others or is it all equally brutal?So as far as band recommendations so far we have:
Deicide
Death
Suffocation
I will look into them. Any others?
I'm having a hard time thinking of any Judas Priest songs that are particularly fast pre-Painkiller. Now I'll be the first to admit that I don't know shit about Priest, so maybe someone could point them out to me.
I do notice, though, that a lot of the stuff that's described as speed metal isn't all that fast...I mean, not everything has to be The Berzerker, but when it's obviously mid-tempo the majority of the time it's sorta hard to call it speed metal...
metal_wrath
I dip my forefinger...
- Status
Similar threads
