Not that I give two thrash albums what happens to this thread, but nice derail.
Not that I give two thrash albums what happens to this thread, but nice derail.
What's the point of being a snob about your ****ing metal? What the **** difference do the labels make, anyway? Do you stop calling Louis Armstrong "jazz" because of Miles Davis?
Nothing more annoying than a music snob - worse than beer snobs, worse than wine snobs.
I saw them a year ago or so, very good live act. Out of the German godfathers i have only not seen Tankard, which is probably my favourite of the bunch. Plus, 90% of their songs are about beer so even better.
Im not diversified in the styles of music I like; my library of music is mostly rock/metal/weird underground bands. :rockin: It is about 1600 albums. I dont think its fair to label them all "rock." I dont think its snobbish to have delineations of the style of music, mostly for the ability to describe them; some you just cant describe (eg. Primus, Melvins, Mr Bungle, Butthole Surfers, to name a few...) and are simply unique, but others fall in line to a "style." Pigeonholing a band probably works best on an album by album basis, IMO. Sometime it just doesnt work
If you are really into jazz, do you still put Chick Corea and Miles Davis in the same mass label of "jazz" when they are different sounding styles of music? Especially when trying to communicate with other aficionados of "jazz"?
lol.
Oh yeah...Tankard..thanks for the context My buddy had me listen to their stuff months ago...some of the songs are pretty funny.
As for Thrash...so...what is your "definition" of thrash?
Wikipedia: "Thrash metal songs typically use fast, percussive and low-register guitar riffs, overlaid with shredding-style lead work."
BNR Metal: "Thrash metal is generally characterized by a fast pace, a staccato, chunky guitar riffing style, and aggressive vocals."
Im not diversified in the styles of music I like; my library of music is mostly rock/metal/weird underground bands. :rockin: It is about 1600 albums. I dont think its fair to label them all "rock." I dont think its snobbish to have delineations of the style of music, mostly for the ability to describe them; some you just cant describe (eg. Primus, Melvins, Mr Bungle, Butthole Surfers, to name a few...) and are simply unique, but others fall in line to a "style." Pigeonholing a band probably works best on an album by album basis, IMO. Sometime it just doesnt work
If you are really into jazz, do you still put Chick Corea and Miles Davis in the same mass label of "jazz" when they are different sounding styles of music? Especially when trying to communicate with other aficionados of "jazz"?
I wish i had a better musical education so i could put it in technical italian terms, like francetto, advocato and belini or whatever. :cross:
I draw the line at anything that resembles the grooviness and riffing style of Pantera or the watered down thrash of the late 80's (Metallica,Slayer, Testament,etc,etc). The palm muted, jumpy stuff. The melodic, pacey stuff, etc. Can't really put it into words, but from listening to hundreds of TM i know what it sounds like, or should at least. The videos i posted up earlier are some good examples of it, withouth being too restrictive (some have more punkish influences or crossover, but overall i don't mind calling it Thrash)
Well...c'mon. They are all Rock. And all of the bands we've been talking about are Metal. They just may or may not be Thrash Metal.
We're arguing more of subgenres than genres, which leads us to require sub-sub-sub genres. Hell, one could easily argue that Metal is a type of Rock.
Well, and this is my point. Just because it's watered down Thrash doesn't make it any less Thrash. If you want to create a sub-genre, that's fine, but if we do it by definition, they are still Thrash. I don't think "they don't sound the same as they originally did and as their mimics do" qualifies is being alleviated from a genre.
I use "watered down" very looseley. It's watered down to the point, that it isn't Thrash. Not just mildly different. By definition? The definition was what was layed down originally in their first recordings BY THEM which they then strayed away from... Your argument is that since they're first recordings are TM, that means all recordings are, regardless of what they sound like.
We're arguing more of subgenres than genres, which leads us to require sub-sub-sub genres. Hell, one could easily argue that Metal is a type of Rock.
Current common vernacular:
Beer includes Lagers and Ales and other Hybrids.
Hybrids (combined yeast or using yeast out of their range) are the only beers that don't fall within the style of lager and ale...and really, they do if you JUST count yeast (unless yeast are blended and even then, you have a style.)
It is actually very straightforward.
Well, Im not arguing with you there... 1,600 "rock" albums leads to lots of sub-sub-sub genres. I feel I am familiar with a large number of underground rock bands, but when we get SXSW over here, and I look at the listings, most of the time I only recognize about 5% of the band tops. Other than listening to samples of every band that is showing up, it would be nice to get some kind of sub genre listing in case there is something I havent heard before that I would like. Had I known what kind of music it was.
Slayer has always fallen within that definitions description, and yet you claim they weren't Thrash in the 90s.
LOL. I can't put it anymore simply. They didn't make Thrash albums in the 90's so back then they were NOT a Thrash band because they were making non-thrash recordings despite having previously made TM albums.
Are you seriously arguing that releasing a TM album means every single album they make is Thrash by default? How does that make any sense?
That's not what I said at all. You didn't read my post, did you?
Why were they not Thrash in 90s when THEY STYLE THEY WERE MAKING DURING THE 90s still fell under the "Thrash" definition?
Even though it's different, it still fell under the definition(s). It just didn't meet your standards, apparently. I just don't think "they don't sound the same" is a basis for determining a genre.
I will agree with you that Metallica's later albums did not fall under the definitions. But they still play some of their Thrash songs, so yes...at that point it's an argument about what determines a Thrash band that doesn't always play Thrash.
lol, you mean like "alternative"? Really, it's difficult to define most rock...I personally like rock that is more "classic".
I see. You're saying it did? But it didn't, thats the point. Not just my definition, which is really not uncommon among Thrashers. And i have never known a Thrasher worth their salt who thought Slayer in the 90's was Thrash. Diabolus? Abyss? Divine intervention? Which album are you looking at?
And about Metallica, as previously i agree with you. You can call them Thrash for releasing a thrash album, what i think is a fallacy is calling every single album they have Thrash because they once released a thrash album.
Ive got Doom/Drone, Stoner/Desert rock, Progressive rock, Artpunk, Space rock, Post Rock, Punk rock, Classic rock, Psychedelic rock, Noise rock, Garage rock, Death metal, Black metal, Thrash, Grindcore, Avant metal, Industrial, Indie rock, Pop/Radio rock, Math rock, Ambient, Sludge, Surf, Alternative, Seattle/Grunge, Heavy instrumental rock, etc. I try to pigeonhole bands on at least three of these, cuz thats what I do. Lots of sub-sub-sub genres. I dont like having all my music in one folder and necessarily alphabetical. Once I get a bunch of bands in one genre, I just wonder what separates them all, hence the need to sub divide them. Maybe Im just OCD and like to pick nits.
See...now you're making my brain hurt with terms like "alternative" and "indie rock". :cross:
LoL...well, I never claimed to be a "Thrasher worth my salt". I've recently referred to myself as a metalhead, but I don't really like putting labels on myself like that, despite that the majority of what I listen to is Metal.
But yes, I think according to the definitions I posted before, they fall under Thrash. I still haven't heard a definition from you.
I agree. I usually call them teh suck.
So just because Seasons in the Abyss is a little slower than some of the previous stuff, it's not thrash? It's the same sound, the same rhythms, it's still aggressive, still fast just not as fast as fast can be
I can't listen to anything at werk or I'd throw some on for comparison. All I've been listening to lately is Death and Necrophagist
Maybe I can download some using the USB drive...
I can't watch youtube at werk, either.
Thinking of Skeletons of Society, though, you'd be right. Love the song, but it's really slow and mellow. But War Ensemble is fast (but is it thrash?)
Definitely check out their new album if you haven't.
Damnit, I can't believe you're going to make me have to listen to Slayer just to point out of how it fits into Thrash I'll put it on while I'm brewing today.
I just watched the HDNet Megadeth concert, and I too was brought here via googling Dave Mustaine Lip synch. Amazing for a thread started over two years ago and not posted in for almost a year still tops the google search engines (atleast for DM lip synching).
Wasn't going to post, but I felt that I had to chime in because of the numerous thoughts posted here. So many things to comment on.
First off I have to say that Megadeth garners much respect from me simply from the fact that they did not sell out like their "counterpart" Metallica. I did find it ironic though that Dave was wearing a Kiss t-shirt...who some would say is the biggest sellout band of them all (although I still love Kiss):rockin:.
As mentioned by a couple posters, Mustaine can be a *****bag at times...but I find the members of Metallica to be so more often than not. The comment "divas" was mentioned...it fits!
About 4 songs into the show I was overwhelmingly compelled to google Dave Mustain Lip synching. Reading through the thread, watching the show, I had to bust out laughing to come across a post that admitted ending up here via the same method...then it was followed by quite a few more!
I would like to say that I am still on the fence on this one. I do not want to believe it, but sometimes it really seemed quite obvious. The only thing that keeps me thinking maybe he wasn't is that there were a few times when he spoke to the crowd. When he did this I noticed a couple things:
1. He talks funny to begin with. He doesn't seem to enunciate his words using a pronounced mouth movement as most people do. He could probably be a good ventriloquist with practice. Because of this, it could also make his singing look funny (lip synched)
2. When he talked to the audience, at times he was a bit farther from the mic than you typically see. Some people talked of this tell, which usually IS a give away, but I have to say this mic seemed to pick up his voice pretty well from 6-12 inches. I in no way believe the spoken parts were lip-synched, so thus I have to believe the mic could pick up his voice while singing 6-12 inches away.
As of today, it seems this debate still lives, with this thread being the #1 source of info on the subject. Perhaps someday we may finally get an a definitive answer...it was live with a minorly badly synched audio and video feed, it was lip-synched, there was post production overdub, or just Dave with funny mouth movements. We may never know.
Also wanted to state my opinion that Megadeth and Metallica were never really Thrash/Speed-Metal/Death Metal bands (Slayer could probably fall there, with Anthrax being borderline). While they did have songs that crossed into that area, I do not think that they could really be classified completely in that category. And to be classified as a Thrash/Speed-Metal/Death Metal band, I think the majority of your songs have to fall into that category. This of course is a very gray area and is really a matter of opinion, so it can be debated till the end of time.
LOL...although I DO like beer, I probably wouldn't be welcome around here...as my tastes for beer include the likes of Bud, Bud Light, Genny Light, Coors Light, Blue and Blue Light. Try not to hate me.Amazing. Homebrewtalk.com is the best resource for this.
Darth: Welcome to Homebrewtalk, do you like beer. Stick around and we will teach you how to make your own. Or at least enough to make people think you are doing it yourself
How does a tour equate to being a sell out? I feel the term "sellout" has to do with changing your music to appeal to the masses, rather then to your core fans who appreciated your music for what it was. "Selling out" isn't a completely negative term, as it often leads to more success. It just means that you chose to abandon your roots to go down a path that would gain you more widespread popularity, often at the expense of original fans. Again it is semantics though.are slayer, megadeth, and anthrax sell-outs now because of the "Big 4" tour?
are slayer, megadeth, and anthrax sell-outs now because of the "Big 4" tour?
LOL...although I DO like beer, I probably wouldn't be welcome around here...as my tastes for beer include the likes of Bud, Bud Light, Genny Light, Coors Light, Blue and Blue Light. Try not to hate me.
Enter your email address to join: