Dave Mustaine = Lipsyncer

[seanybubbles]

"Piracy Porter"....nice! I still listen to the music of metallica ( all 4 first albums), but they make me sick as individuals. What a bunch of deva's!

 

[Mxxpower]

Well, apparently the blood in the water concert wasn't an official release by Megadeth, maybe the dubbing of his vocals was why. There isn't any mention on their own forums at all.

I managed to find sleepwalker live on you tube, sounds like the version on blood in the water, but you can plainly see the vocals match perfectly to his lips.

 

[Endovelico]

"Piracy Porter"....nice! I still listen to the music of metallica ( all 4 first albums), but they make me sick as individuals. What a bunch of deva's!

Theres a funny story regarding their divasseness. They once sued a band called Naranja metallica (translates to Metallic Orange a play on the title Clockwork orange) for name infringement.

 

[Endovelico]

When I saw them, they played their old sh!t, tough guy. Just because I don't buy their albums doesn't mean they can't thrash.

And I like Countdown to Extinction. There is a lot of crap on EVERY album, the first three included.

They can't. They were never Thrash. Not bashing anyone who likes it, i'm just amazed at how people insist Megadeth or Metallica are thrash. Metallica was thrash for about 5 seconds, thats about it.

 

[DeathBrewer]

Uh. Actually, Metallica was thrash for a at leas a couple of hours (aka albums.)

What do you want to call it, Speed Metal?

 

[pnj]

not thrash?

1980's albums = thrash/speed metal from both bands mentioned...

 

[Endovelico]

Uh. Actually, Metallica was thrash for a at leas a couple of hours (aka albums.)

What do you want to call it, Speed Metal?

Minutes was a figure of speech, i would call KEA Thrash, albeit not pure refined thrash as later picked up by following bands. Calling RTL Thrash would be a stretch though. Not really Speed Metal either, a more watered down, melodic hybrid.

 

[Endovelico]

not thrash?

1980's albums = thrash/speed metal from both bands mentioned...

Why is that self evident? I don't agree with that at all. And i'm not bashing them for it. Granted, genre definitions (in any field) are subject to different interpretations but from my experience knowledgeable Thrash enthusiasts don't label them as Thrash, at all. I don't aswell and i have over 300 Thrash cds (lost count) so i have listened to my fair share of Thrash.

Heres some examples of Classical Thrash (80's) and The revivalist bands(2000-2010), you be the judge:

Sacrifice:


Demolition Hammer:


Sacrilege:


New stuff:

Fueled By fire:


Gama Bomb:


Bounded by blood:


Violator:


The FBF and GB song talk about Thrashing being back, and the old "thrash" bands letting thrash fans down, ironically enough.

Listen to it, if you still think it even midly resembles Megadeth or Metallica (ignoring certain exceptions) then you might want to have your ears checked.

EDIT: Throwing one of my favourite old Thrash bands ever (Sacrilege). Female fronted and very unknown surprisingly. So good.

 

[DeathBrewer]

Meh. A lot of supposed "real thrash" bands are terrible. Arguing semantics on "how thrash are they" doesn't interest me, especially when you can't put them into a category. I suppose Testament isn't real thrash, either.

 

[Endovelico]

Meh. A lot of supposed "real thrash" bands are terrible. Arguing semantics on "how thrash are they" doesn't interest me, especially when you can't put them into a category. I suppose Testament isn't real thrash, either.

Whether you think it's good or bad, it still doesnt change the definition (or most peoples opinion) of whats Thrash. It's not semantics any more than defending Budweiser isn't a eisbock is semantics.

Testament was in the beginning, but lost its trail just like other popular bands of the 80's (Note how the new retro-Thrash bands popping up actually mock and distance themselves from those old bands that changed its sound). What i notice is people think certain bands are Thrash because "thats what they have always been told" and when presented with evidence of the contrary they usually either concede or sulk. Maybe Thrash just isn't your thing, nothing wrong with that.

 

[Endovelico]

Don't get me wrong, there is definitely alot of gray just like in any taxonomy. But theres some shades that are just obviously black.

 

[DeathBrewer]

So what you're saying is that Bands like Metallica and Slayer started what eventually evolved into Thrash, but we should just describe them as "somewhat thrashy" heavy metal?

Give me a different genre, cuz I don't see why just because Thrash evolved that means that the bands that started it are suddenly not Thrash.

 

[the_bird]

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.

 

[Endovelico]

So what you're saying is that Bands like Metallica and Slayer started what eventually evolved into Thrash, but we should just describe them as "somewhat thrashy" heavy metal?

Give me a different genre, cuz I don't see why just because Thrash evolved that means that the bands that started it are suddenly not Thrash.

Their first records could in fact be called Thrash, but there are people who make the distinction. Not me.

Now, if you think one album or the fact that they were the originators of the style enough to justify calling them Thrash, eventhough they haven't released a Thrash album in over two decades then thats your prerogative. I fail to see any logic in that, personally.

What i was addressing is that most of their albums aren't Thrash, and because of that i don't call them Thrash. Just like i don't call Darkthrone or Sepultura Death Metal (eventhough their first recordings were DM.)

Theres no clear name given to that style, most people put it under a catch-all definition that holds all the bands that "quit" Thrash or that have some roots in Speed/Thrash but are still vastly different. Theres no clear definition of it's called. It's a shade of blue not gray, so i'm not worried.

And regarding your last sentence, i think you might have missed the point. It's not that Thrash evolved, infact it has stayed relatively the same it's that THOSE bands who played Thrash in the beginning quit playing it.

The bands i listed are considered either legends or some of the best Thrash being played today. There are many similarities with the old Thrash of Metallica, Slayer, etc. Thats a given, but you can't honestly tell me Ride the lighting had anything to do with either KEA or anyother Thrash recordings of the era.

 

[Endovelico]

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.

Oh god, its these cool guys again. I guess you think pointing out that Guinness isn't a porter snobish aswell? Jesus Christ.

I was expecting it though. If i actually go to other forums and i point out something the kids always come up with either the "elitist" or "snob" line. If i point out to someone Bock isn't made from the bottom of the barrel, i'm a beer snob. If i point out that one given band is not genre "X" i'm a snob. And so on.

By the way, please don't tell me you use labels such as Stout, Porter, American Pale Ale and so forth. Cause you know, that would make you both an hypocrite and a snob.

 

[DeathBrewer]

Their first records could in fact be called Thrash, but there are people who make the distinction. Not me.

Now, if you think one album or the fact that they were the originators of the style enough to justify calling them Thrash, eventhough they haven't released a Thrash album in over two decades then thats your prerogative. I fail to see any logic in that, personally.

What i was addressing is that most of their albums aren't Thrash, and because of that i don't call them Thrash. Just like i don't call Darkthrone or Sepultura Death Metal (eventhough their first recordings were DM.)

Theres no clear name given to that style, most people put it under a catch-all definition that holds all the bands that "quit" Thrash or that have some roots in Speed/Thrash but are still vastly different. Theres no clear definition of it's called. It's a shade of blue not gray, so i'm not worried.

And regarding your last sentence, i think you might have missed the point. It's not that Thrash evolved, infact it has stayed relatively the same it's that THOSE bands who played Thrash in the beginning quit playing it.

The bands i listed are considered either legends or some of the best Thrash being played today. There are many similarities with the old Thrash of Metallica, Slayer, etc. Thats a given, but you can't honestly tell me Ride the lighting had anything to do with either KEA or anyother Thrash recordings of the era.

OK...here is where we somewhat disagree. I think that the early albums AND THE BANDS should be considered Thrash. Some Testament could be considered almost Death Metal...they have greatly evelved over the years, experimenting with many different styles...I like it all, but I understand it's not "traditional" Thrash. Much of their early Thrash sounds a lot like Metallica.

So...Slayer hasn't changed their style at all. They're still Thrash, right?

When they play concerts, they play their old Thrash. This is even true for Metallica now (or so I hear)...so does it matter what they are playing or only what they are putting on their new albums?

Also, I'd still like to hear a genre. What are their new albums, if not Thrash?

 

[Endovelico]

OK...here is where we somewhat disagree. I think that the early albums AND THE BANDS should be considered Thrash. Some Testament could be considered almost Death Metal...they have greatly evelved over the years, experimenting with many different styles...I like it all, but I understand it's not "traditional" Thrash. Much of their early Thrash sounds a lot like Metallica.

So...Slayer hasn't changed their style at all. They're still Thrash, right?

When they play concerts, they play their old Thrash. This is even true for Metallica now (or so I hear)...so does it matter what they are playing or only what they are putting on their new albums?

Also, I'd still like to hear a genre. What are their new albums, if not Thrash?

That is when it gets messy. If some band makes 1 Thrash Album, 1 Blues Album and 1 Techno album, what do you call them? I remember an argument where some guy said Metallica was Thrash Metal because thats what they got known for. While i don't follow that definition, that is certaintly a good argument.

What i was addressing though (indirectly) is that people will often say that since Metallica's first album is Thrash then Metallica is Thrash and so all their albums are thrash because they are made by a Thrash band. A bit circular, but whatever.

I would disagree that Slayer play the same stuff as in the beginning, actually.



Is not the same as the other stuff they put out further down the line. But i'm glad you mentioned Slayer, because i haven't checked out any Slayer album since God Hates Us All, and i was looking for a recent example of their music to try and make a point...



...And that is definitely Thrash... If their recent albums are similar to that, then they are def. Thrash. Seems i was too quick to have lost hope on them, after all. So i'll concede to Slayer, definitely. (Not during the 90's though).

Well regarding the genre thing, i've seen people refer to it as Groove Metal or neo-Thrash just for distinction purposes, so people know they are talking about most of the thrash from the late 80's / 90's.

 

[Endovelico]

By the way, do you like the German giants of the 80's? They are a good example of what we are talking about. Destruction and Tankard for instance have gone back to their roots, while Kreator has been stuck with that 90's sound.

Or atleast i'm assuming, i gave up on them (Kreator) along time ago.

 

[DeathBrewer]

I like SOME Kreator...most of it is terrible. I just saw Destruction not long ago...they were bad-ass...haven't listened to a lot of the albums, though.

 

[Endovelico]

I like SOME Kreator...most of it is terrible. I just saw Destruction not long ago...they were bad-ass...haven't listened to a lot of the albums, though.

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.

 

[Bobby_M]

Not that I give two thrash albums what happens to this thread, but nice derail.

 

[Endovelico]

Not that I give two thrash albums what happens to this thread, but nice derail.

Undercontrol now, but you can't tell me theres actually 9 pages of on-topic discussion of Mustain lip syncing...

 

[MarsColonist]

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.

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"?

 

[DeathBrewer]

lol.

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.

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."

 

[Endovelico]

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"?

Exactly. It's a communication tool. If a friend or my girlfriend tells me i know a good Metal band for you, that says nothing to me. Chances are i will hate, because i don't listen to most styles of metal. If they tell me "I have a good retro-German thrash band for you" eventhough it sounds completly ridiculous to people who aren't aficionados (as you put it) i know EXACTLY what she/he means and he/she knows i know what h/she means.

The surprinsing thing, is that this came from a freakin' beer forum poster. Homebrewers are among the nerdiest people when it comes to styles and i have no doubt that when i say to a friend "I'm feeling like having an Imperial Russian Stout" other people will most likely think i'm a beer snob.

 

[Endovelico]

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."

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)

 

[DeathBrewer]

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"?

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.

 

[DeathBrewer]

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, 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.

 

[Endovelico]

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.

Thats a whole 'nother issue. Not as straight forward as you put it. Should we just call beers, Lagers or Ales then? Its the same exact thing.

It's a communication tool, people who want to use it, use it. But there has to be some consensus on the definitions, even if just broadly.

 

[Endovelico]

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.