Thrash vs NWOBHM?

[Halberd3]

Revive thrash? The hell does that even mean...

Skeletonwitch stink, but there are plenty of awesome newer thrash bands doing original things with the style, just gotta look.

Pffft, it was a stupid tagline that went around sometime in 2002-2003. When Municipal Waste first came around. And a lot of other bands kinda took this whole line of thrash revival or re-thrash and threw on their heads.

 

[PitOfZombies]

Do you guys have any preference for one of the other? To me it's something I've thought about all day. And from both scenes I noticed things.

NWOBHM
1. Took some influence from punk rock (sounds like around guitars and production)
2. A bit more melodic than thrash
3. Didn't really have a natural music enemy
4. Continuation of the first wave of heavy metal from their predecessors. Whom had more of a blues rock influence.
5. Varied a lot in what styles they went for.

But for things what I may call a downside or something that brought the NWOBHM down it'd be.
1. Could be boring at times. Based on tastes, like you may think it's never enough
2. It left as quick as it came. Which I think the New wave began in 1979 and ended in 1984 I think. Then Thrash took over.
3. Major record labels, style changes, and going underground. Which is where I think Saxon is at right. Underground. Raven and Diamond Head went onto a major record label, and the albums we got from them when they did. Were subpar. Canterbury and Stay Hard. In a way it kinda killed what NWOBHM was about. But I think there's ways it could've been made to work. And style change happened too. I don't really wanna go into too much detail there.

Thrash
1. Took a hell of a lot of influence from the American punk rock scene (Which I will not refer to as hardcore because that's just dumb).
2. More rhythmic, I hear a lot more of the bass following the drums then I do bass following the guitar and drums like I do with NWOBHM.
3. Had a natural enemy. Hair Metal, erghh. They were like the cobra and mongoose. Hated each other. Because one was a rip off and commercialization of true heavy metal. And the other was the spirit of the NWOBHM, after smoking meth and flying high with a vengeance.
4. Thrash can be repetitive. It can. Trust me, the drumming is usually what makes it sound the same. But it doesn't make it bad none the less

Downsides or so I think.
1. Burnout, some thrash metal bands had a habit of burning out after album number 2 or 3. It's raw energy, power, and speed. But I think at some point they used the best ideas first and that slightly killed them. That and they were inconsistent.
2. Repetition, as much as I said I was fine with it. It may have killed it off in a sense of them not really evolving their style or showing they can be diverse if they're only sticking to fast tempo drumming and thrash riffs with yelled vocals on social issues or death.
3. Lasted from 1983 to 1992. 9 years. What killed it afterwards is the rise of nu metal and alternative. No, better yet. Thrash committed suicide and saw revival around 2004. They wanted to show they can be different or jump on major label bandwagons for support. So they started doing alternative stuff. It alienated the fan base and killed what little support was left from around 1993-2003. But great, both of these genres are seeing revival.

So what do you think is better? And what do you prefer to listen to?

 

[Wyvern]

I just wish some of these guys would come with some originality and not try to look like the back of Kill em All nor be so narrow-minded.

a) I don't think thrash ever died, so it doesn't need to be revived.
b) There are newer bands carrying the flag along some of the old school ones. Some with a modern sound, some trying to have that "dated" vibe. No problem with either.

I like Evile, Savage Messiah, Woslom, Atomik Destruktor, Gama Bomb, Gross Reality, Thrashist Regime as examples of newer bands that may or not sounds like the old days, but surely deliver for me.

 

[Halberd3]

a) I don't think thrash ever died, so it doesn't need to be revived.
b) There are newer bands carrying the flag along some of the old school ones. Some with a modern sound, some trying to have that "dated" vibe. No problem with either.

I like Evile, Savage Messiah, Woslom, Atomik Destruktor, Gama Bomb, Gross Reality, Thrashist Regime as examples of newer bands that may or not sounds like the old days, but surely deliver for me.

Yeah some. Just that a lot of em sound too much like the guys they were inspired by. Evile sounds too much like Metallica to me. It's good it delivers for you. Just for me, I need a little more.

 

[CiG]

Yeah I can't get into Evile. I like Merciless Death's newest album, a lot of people don't but I think it sounds like a killer hybrid of Necrophagia's debut and obscure thrash metal. Evil riffs!

 

[Halberd3]

Yeah I can't get into Evile. I like Merciless Death's newest album, a lot of people don't but I think it sounds like a killer hybrid of Necrophagia's debut and obscure thrash metal. Evil riffs!

Yeah pretty much. Though I will say thrash did capture a good spirit of what heavy metal was supposed to be in some way.

 

[Wyvern]

Evile sounds too much like Metallica to me.

Crapallica wish! They hadn't sound like them since...never.

On the other hand I always found Xentrix sounding more like old Metallica. Also Bakken because of the voice

 

[CiG]

You genuinely don't think Evile sound like Metallica? My ears must be fucked then, because Evile's debut is pure old Metallica worship to me.

 

[Halberd3]

You genuinely don't think Evile sound like Metallica? My ears must be fucked then, because Evile's debut is pure old Metallica worship to me.

Fuckin A. It really does. But I still love thrash none the less.

 

[Wyvern]

You genuinely don't think Evile sound like Metallica? My ears must be fucked then, because Evile's debut is pure old Metallica worship to me.

Not in the least.

 

[CiG]

Not in the least.

 

[Halberd3]

Well to be on topic. I think I can take thrash in small doses. Like Jugulator, it sounded thrashy. But not so much. The riffs are what sounded thrashy but other than it was perfect Judas Priest album in my book.

 

[Cee79]

Both are near and dear to me, but I might have to go with NWOBHM in the end. Those melodies, man.

I'm similar to yourself,I see you've got a wide variety of music there.....thrash vs nWobhm I love Metallica and Megadeth got a good few of there albums but the nWobhm bands like somebody commented had so much melody I'd have to go with nWobhm and also ozzy and priest,the melodies are great.the connection is there though diamond head and venom two new wave bands influenced thrash.

 

[Halberd3]

I'm similar to yourself,I see you've got a wide variety of music there.....thrash vs nWobhm I love Metallica and Megadeth got a good few of there albums but the nWobhm bands like somebody commented had so much melody I'd have to go with nWobhm and also ozzy and priest,the melodies are great.the connection is there though diamond head and venom two new wave bands influenced thrash.

I think someone already said this on the thread. But when the NWOBHM was high, it was high. But when it was low, it was pretty damn low. Then thrash comes along and thrash lasted longer. But it was able to keep up in quality, it's lows weren't that low in my book.

 

[H.P. Lovecraft]

I'm similar to yourself,I see you've got a wide variety of music there.....thrash vs nWobhm I love Metallica and Megadeth got a good few of there albums but the nWobhm bands like somebody commented had so much melody I'd have to go with nWobhm and also ozzy and priest,the melodies are great.the connection is there though diamond head and venom two new wave bands influenced thrash.

Agreed. Wide variety? You mean my sig image?

 

[Cee79]

I think someone already said this on the thread. But when the NWOBHM was high, it was high. But when it was low, it was pretty damn low. Then thrash comes along and thrash lasted longer. But it was able to keep up in quality, it's lows weren't that low in my book.

Yeah your right thrash lasted longer but personally I preferred the nWobhm just my preference also I'm not a massive thrash fan.

 

[Cee79]

Agreed. Wide variety? You mean my sig image?

Agreed. Wide variety? You mean my sig image?

Yes mate the image,I love the first four Danzig albums,I've got very similar tastes in music to you,I like the classic 60s/70s Rock and I like old school punk especially the UK 82 bands and a lot of other hard rock and metal bands up to the present plus the stuff from Seattle.

 

[H.P. Lovecraft]

Yes mate the image,I love the first four Danzig albums,I've got very similar tastes in music to you,I like the classic 60s/70s Rock and I like old school punk especially the UK 82 bands and a lot of other hard rock and metal bands up to the present plus the stuff from Seattle.

Good to hear. I'm personally not a huge fan of the Seattle scene, bar Alice In Chains. The UK 82 bands are great, but I'll admit it, I stick to American protopunk, classic 70's punk, and American and Euro hardcore. The first four Danzig records are immutable frigging classics, great stuff. Do you care for any early rock and roll a la Little Richard, Chuck Berry, etc.? Or for that matter, doo-wop, soul, funk, or blues?

 

[Halberd3]

Yeah your right thrash lasted longer but personally I preferred the nWobhm just my preference also I'm not a massive thrash fan.

Well I love thrash, my issues being it can get repetitive sometimes. If I had a legititmate issue with the nwobhm would be that it's not aggressive enough. But ehh, I still like the nwobhm better.

 

[CiG]

Of course thrash lasted longer, new wave can only be new and a wave for so long. But if you consider the fact that it's just heavy metal then you have a more accurate comparison and obviously heavy metal has lasted much longer than thrash and been much more consistent.

NWOBHM isn't a genre afterall.