Talk:Thrash metal/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Before you jump to conclusions

Be sure to read all the related articles such as the speed metal, groove metal, and other related sections to find out more about the subject than just blindly inserting your two cents worth. Remember too, that claiming to be a fan of a certain genre does not automatically make you an expert on the subject, so the lesson is read up first. Subphreeky

I am getting really tired of the typical Metallica fans coming in here and thinking they know everything about thrash metal because they own the black album. After And Justice, Metallica has little to nothing to do with thrash metal at all, yes they helped pioneer (using Dave Mustaine), but then they changed their direction, and no not to technical or progressive avenues, but to just more alternative metal directions. Stop and educate yourself fully before changing the article, and come in here to the talk section and run it by some of us who check the article on a somewhat regular basis. Subphreeky

I wrote most of this stuff. Anthrax kinda slipped my mind (Overkill basically gave them their start in the NY scene around '81-83), and Suicidal weren't all THAT important. Maybe a sentence about them, DRI, Corrosion of Conformity, etc, as the crossover subgenre? If anyone would like to dispute factual correctness (as opposed to omissions and mis-emphasis), let me know.

Actually one of the first Speed/Black/Thrash Metal Bands where "EVIL BLOOD" (from 95'called DJINN) from YUGOSLAVIA(now Croatia) who relocated to U.K. in 1989 and are steel going strong.Their first Album was out in 83'called -Evil BLOOD-,second 84'-Midnight in Sodom- and third 85' Empire of Death any Diehard Metalhead from East Europe can tell you that.When Evil Blood first Album was out only Venom and Metallica had albums out all rest(Slayer,Anthrax and so on..was out in 84' upwards,and Overkill where never Thrash Metal Band.They are just Heavy Metal Band.So first where VENOM in 81' with "Welcome to Hell",second EVIL BLOOD in 83'with "Evil Blood" and Metallica with "Kill'em All" Hali Satan!!!Hans from GERMANY

EVIL BLOOD is playing again under original name..they started in 1982...for me they are the first Thrash Black Metal Band in the World!Venom is more N.W.O.B.H.M. and Metallica was second and speed of EVIL BLOOD songs in 82-83 was the fastest ever up to thet point,noone was playing that fast,dark and brutal like them.Iam glad they're still around.THRASH forever Bruno Granzzieri,Rome


thrash metal is not influenced by punk and i believe many would agree with me on here. Lue3378 05:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, punk has almost if not anything to do thrash.

It's not a GREAT influence but punk has influenced Thrash, sorry but that's the way it is. The screaming and fast riffs and aggressive music of Thrash is stated by Metallica, wish I could give you a link to the quote but I can't, was influenced by punk, Slayer even made a cover of a punk song "Guilty of being white" and are rabid punk fans. Maybe not bands like anthrax but many of the newer thrash bands, if slayer is new, are directly influenced by punk, how much is open to debatte.

Christ, who wrote this. "Thrash metal has nothing to do with punk??" Thrash metal *is* punk. Listen to "Beneath the Remains" again, or "Pleasure to Kill"...I'm not even gonna waste time talking about the infinite thrash-HC crossover bands that were going on, COC, DRI, SOD, Nuclear Assualt...etc etc


Thrash Metal IS influenced by Hardcore Punk. I mean, look at Overkill, their names were tribute to their favorite Punk bands. Thrash Metal was influenced by the hardcore punk rock genre, along with NWOBHM. Neuro perplexion --

I agree with the above statement. If punk and hardcore were irrelevant to thrash metal then surely Slayer wouldn't have released "Undisputed Attitude" (a collection of hardcore and punk covers and Metallica wouldn't have covered all those songs by Anti-Nowhere League or the Misfits. One could argue that they merely chose to cover these bands because they "liked the tunes", but come on, two bands (3 if you count Anthrax taking influence from their local NYHC scene) is a bit of a coincidence don't you think?

This is really incredibly inaccurate. I'll fix it later if nobody else feels like it. --Lezek

Yeah, please do. I have always heard the four thrash metal pioneers were Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer and Anthrax. Suicidal tendencies (that would make it 5 btw)? I mean pff..
I've heard about the classic triads of Thrash Metal, Bay Area (Metallica, Megadeth, Testament?), US - non Bay Area - (Slayer, Anthrax, ?) and Germany (Kreator, Sodom, Destruction), maybe they should be considered somehow. (no time to properly edit the article no, maybe later). Valhalla 09:23 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I too think thrash metal isn't influenced by punk rock in a way that matters. I started a discussion about this on the speed metal talk page. Remnant76 (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Testament is seminal but

I don't remember Testament ever being bigger than Slayer. Slayer had like 3 albums already before Testament put out their first one in 1987. Reign in Blood came out in 1986.

Testament WASN'T bigger than Slayer. As stated previously, The Legacy wasn't released until 1987. In fact, they were considered one of the more popular second wave of thrash bands. Yes, they did play on the Clash of the Titans tour in the later part of the decade with Slayer, Megadeth and Anthrax (Suicidal replaced Anthrax on the Euro leg of this tour), but that was mainly due to the fact that Metallica were already selling out arenas at the time. I've been a thrash fan since the start of the scene and this is how it was. I certainly hope revisionists don't include Testament as one of these seminal groups. Slayer was one of the best selling thrash acts out there and Reign in Blood cemented their popularity at the time. Globey 08:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I don't think you have to put out an album to be popular. Anyway I've heard that quite a lot about Testament being in the Big Four. In regards to Valhala, I've always heard about the big four: Anthrax, Megadeth, Metallica, and Slayer, and the big triad of Teutonic thrash: Destruction, Kreator, and Sodom. Subphreeky

True, you don't have to have albums out to be popular. Perhaps Slayer wasn't considered thrash yet at that time? I am from the San Francisco area, but did not turn onto thrash until about 1984, when I was in the Navy, and ironically, a guy from Michigan turned me onto Metallica while we were stationed together in the Chicago area. Anyway, I got out of the Navy in 1986, and was a big thrash fan at age 22, and returned to the Bay Area. I remain unconvinced about the notion of Slayer "replacing" Testament. But, maybe I am remembering the scene wrong, who knows.

Neanderthalprimadonna 12:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Nice summary, but where's Venom? I've never heard Priest referred to as Speed Metal though and the band would likely agree. They are the definition of Heavy Metal. Speed Metal to me has always been a genre name searching for a home. Even Wikipedia just redirects Speed Metal back to Thrash Metal. The big 4 were always Metallica, Slayer, Megadeth and (unfortunately) Anthrax. The only band close enough to being in this circle was Exodus, who actually play a much more pioneering role in the genre than this article indicates. They certainly weren't influenced by Slayer's Haunting EP. Bonded was already written and recorded by the time Haunting came out.

Judas Priest not speed metal? Maybe on their earlier stuff, but Painkiller was DEFINITELY speed metal. --Eel 02:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Isn't Judas Priest concerned Heavy Metal more than anything else? Shandolad 13:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

dude venom isnt a thrash band they were the inventors of black metal and the best black metal out there. but they come nowhere close to thrash.

Lars in Metal Church? I had no idea, but thankfully that didn't happen. Kirk Arrington's drumming on the first MC record was killer.

Lars in Metal Church (or being asked to join or whatever) is a funny thing. There's no mention of it whatsoever in any official or unofficial Metallica history and the main source appears to be Metal Church itself. Anything's possible, I suppose, but why such an event (regardless of how small) wouldn't have shown up in any Metallica interviews over the years makes the whole thing a bit suspicious to the point of being myth. Still, I'd love to hear more from Vanderhoof about why it's part of Metal Church's history.
Pillsbur 00:12, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

This is all quite interesting. In regards to the classifications of speed and thrash metal, these genre names were for the most part used interchangably during the 1980's and such. Metallica of course refered to themselves as power metal, as did Venom, mainly to differentiate themselves from the hair metal scene that was taking over heavy metal. Even Kreator called themselves 'Hate Metal.' There is of course much debate over the popularity of thrash bands. One thing I think can be agreed upon is that the big four of thrash are: Anthrax (yes somewhat unfortunately), Megadeth, Metallica, and Slayer. The big triad of Teutonic thrash I hope is agreed upon is: Destruction, Kreator, and Sodom. The other three bands; Exodus, Overkill, and Testament (which round out to a big ten of thrash metal) are being much debated to most popular and their places in the original big four of thrash. My findings indicate numerous sources stating that Testament was in the big four before Slayer released Reign In Blood, but who knows, obviously the arguement of Slayer's album coming out first makes sense. I think there should be a little more added to this article, such as Anthrax, some various other influential thrash bands, and indeed the controvertial issue we are discussing. Subphreeky


Another point to bring out is that Anthrax's Among The Living was not released until 1987 either. And in 1987 Testament already had a live album, almost immediately following their debut. Subphreeky

I'm not sure what you mean by pointing out Testament's live album. They "already" had a live album following their debut makes it sound like that proves Testament's superiority. Testament probably had a live album out after their debut simply because their record company needed something to sell while the band was writing new tunes. Didn't Slayer also have a live EP between their first two studio albums? I'm not trying to argue, just curious about why live albums seem so important. Pillsbur 23:26, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

My point is that they were an already established live act. I don't know about Slayer's live album, but that would go along the same point. Anyways, the main issue I was talking about was Testament being part of the big-four before the release of Slayers 1986 Reign In Blood. The scene was not how we see it today. I really have no idea why bands like Suicidal Tendencies keep poping up here. Subphreeky May 14, 2005

Testament came later. They would be second wave of thrash. Anthrax weren't really thrash after their first album in my opinion. They had their own style. Suicidal were a punk band who later became a thrash band. Again second wave. I listened to punk and metal at the time and thrash bands were definitely not influenced by hardcore. Not at first.

Pantera

Why isn't Pantera on the list? I've always considered them as one of the big four (instead of Anthrax)

Pantera's too new to be part of the big four. Or well, their first 3 albums weren't thrash. POINT IS, Pantera, while great, wasn't in the thrash scene early enough to be part of the big four.

Pantera were never thrash. Listen to Cowboys... and Vulgar... and then listen to Bonded By Blood. After that, you can't tell me Pantera were thrash. It's like calling Limp Bizkit black metal - totally wrong.

I think its also worth mentioning some other less noted, but equally important thrash bands from the second wave that strove to new heights of musicianship. Anacrusis and WatchTower are 2 that come to mind - both pioneers in their own way of the prog/thrash scene (thus 'technical thrash' was born).

If you listen to Cowboys From Hell, there most definately thrash elements throughout, but to call them a full-on thrash metal would be inaccurate. I've always considered them to be half-thrash, half-groove. On another note, Machine Head I think fits in the same category as Pantera, but their new record, Through The Ashes Of Empires, is almost pure, modern day thrash.

Pantera are not thrash! Theyre kinda power metal. As thrash and speed metal being the same that comment was writtne by someone who has never listened to Thrash in their life. -- Pantera isn't Thrash, they were Power metal prior to the Cowboys from hell album at which point they were half-thrash/groove metal.

they did pretty much "invent" the groove metal along with Sepultura so I'd say they're groove metal but groove is very influenced by thrash so using the term half thrash half groove would fit quite well.


How do Pantera sound like power metal? There aren't as melodic at all. Pantera sounds hardly anything like Stratovarius, Helloween or Blind Guardian.

__ Comments on this: Talks a big Pantera fan. Pantera IS trash metal, no matter what you say. It has always been trash. And it IS melodic. Just listen to some solos like Floods, or at least listen Cementery Gates. Do what ever you want... but talk to people everywhere, PANTERA should be here. Because it HAD an effect on Trash Metal as it is today. Thanks anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.177.17 (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because you're a big time Pantera fan doesn't mean you can label them thrash metal and automatically be right, this has been stated before, anyway, I don't believe it to be a typo, and you call the genre "trash" metal, which is wrong. Essentially, Pantera are NOT a thrash metal band, they're groove/heavy metal.ThePerfectVirus (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Sidebar

Shouldn't the contents on the sidebar be changed to reflect the page, be titled Thrash Metal and contain links to subgenres of Thrash Metal etc? Hm, perhaps not, but I can't help but thinking that an addition of a new sidebar which contained subgenres of Thrash and also told that Thrash was subgenre of Heavy metal would be better.Shandolad 13:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


The Truth and Theory Of Pantera being Power Metal

OKAY, I will say this. Pantera has A LOT more elements of thrash than Power Metal. In fact, they have NO Power Metal elements in their music. Pantera is a post-thrash metal band. Post-thrash (the way I see it) is really thrash metal played heavier. Since Thrash metal is punk-influenced metal, Pantera is basically just Thrash Metal turned up a notch. I personally feel that (now this is just a theory) Half-Thrash metal is Thrash without a punk influence, BUT with a hardcore-punk influence in the music and with I guess you could say a blues-ish undertone with the scaling with solos.

The closest influences Pantera has to Power Metal are minimal, BUT it would be the vocal style in Cowboys In Hell, in particular, Cematary Gates. If you look at the subgenre heavy metal often from what I have heard tends to be a little bluesie you could say, which is why I believe that Half-Thrash/Groove/Post-Thrash has the blues influence, also meaning that this genre of music has a Heavy Metal mixed with Thrash Metal and Hardcore influences. Like I said, it's JUST a theory, but as for saying that Pantera is power metal. ALL WRONG, but yet, I can see where people would say that.

- Ryan F.


The earlier Pantera records are Power metal and bordering glam. 1983: Metal Magic 1984: Projects in the Jungle 1985: I Am the Night 1988: Power Metal. 

Post-thrash (the way I see it) is really thrash metal played heavier

Post-thrash heavier than Thrash??? Wtf, Heavier than Thrash Metal my ass! Slayer, Sodom, Kreator, Morbid Saint, Dark Angel and Sepultura sh*t all over that argument.


Yeah, I don't know what that guy is talking about but he obviously had no idea or clue as to anything about thrash metal. Pantera's early stuff was basically glam metal, and they they changed to what you call "post-thrash," which isn't even a real genre. Post-thrash is just another word for either groove metal (which is exactly what Pantera is) or thrashcore. I dislike both of those genres and they are certainly not at all heavier than thrash metal. They're weaker if anything. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


I consider Pantera to be a neo metal band, as in a metal band that took in many influences of the 80's and came out with something way different, they have elements of thrash but they don't fit the genre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.162.1 (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar

I agree with this comment. Techno Thrash, Progressive Thrash, Whatever-You'd-Call-Thrash-That-Leans-Toward-Death, Teutonic (Destruction, Sodom, Kreator), British (Acid Reign, etc.), Bay Area vs. other places. The genre is full of subgenre's, and there's plenty of room for pages detailing them. Hah, and plenty of time for arguing who goes where and what gets included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.78.86 (talk) 09:36, 20 November 2005‎ (UTC)

Proposed Merge With Speed Metal

I think since Thrash and Speed Metal are one and the same thing, they should be merged. Any suggestions regarding this are welcome

I'm gonna have to disagree with that. I think of thrash as a subgenre of speed metal. For EXAMPLE, Judas priest's Painkiller is definitely speed metal, but it's certainly not thrash. --Eel 05:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I would have to agree with Eel. Thrash and speed are not the same. It is a common misconception that many metal fans have. Following Eel's decision to provide an example, Bulldozer and Helloween (Helloween EP/Walls of Jericho) are both speed metal however they are not thrash. Pasajero 20:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong disagree. Merging these two categories is insane. Speed Metal is a lot different than Thrash Metal. Thrash Metal is repetitive by definition, the speed is an element, but not important as in Speed Metal. Speed Metal can be symphonic too (see Rhapsody band) but Thrash not. --Olpus

The proposed merge with speed metal should not go ahead. The two are independent, because as it has been mentioned above, a song can be a speed metal song but not a thrash metal song. JohnC1987 16:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a MAJOR difference between speed and thrash metal. I mean it would be closer to merge black and speed metal than speed and thrash metal (compare Venom's "Black Metal" and Slayer's "Reign In Blood" quite similar). Certainly there are similarities, however, Slayer, being the definitive speed metal band sounds VERY different from Metallica the prototypical thrash band. --69.231.192.87 07:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Manuel Trejo 1/6/06 11:44 pm PST

Slayer is the definitive speed metal band? My friends and I have always known them as the definitive thrash metal band. The closest I get to speed metal are painkiller(really the only speed metal album Judas Priest has) and megadeth(which is definitely more speed metal than other thrash). marnues 06:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

another Strong Disagree here 85.138.1.15 20:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again this is a case of people not reading all of the material they have available to them, for the past few years or so, many people ahve proposed a merge with speed metal and we have always opted against it, because they are completely different subgenres of metal. Subphreeky

The pages have been merged. The idea of Speed metal as a separate genre is a recent solution to the problem in some peoples minds about the great degree of varity in the thrash metal sound. in the 1980s, speed metal exclusively refered to thrash metal bands like slayer and metallica. Bands that are now considered speed metal by some were known as power metal then. speed metal does not exist outside of thrash and most who believe it does are young and were not there, or have not studied metal's history well enough. This speed metal theory is only a few years old, originating around 2002. There was no "speed metal" genre that could be seen as a separate movement from thrash. Most of the examples of "speed metal" are either thrash metal with clean vocals or power metal(which in itself was often thrash with clean vocals, and this is where things get cloudy). Never the less, by bands, magazines, and fans, speed metal meant thrash metal to metal at large. Educate yourself by listening and reading 80s material, not reading metal-archives.com forum pages. - wolfgang van bachtoven

Speed/Thrash and Pantera

First of all, Speed Metal and Thrash Metal I don't think are the same thing. If they were, they would have a proper name for it. Thrash Metal consists of more punchy riffs and is more rhythmic sounding than Speed Metal. That's how I see it anyway.

Pantera are NOT power metal. If you listen to power metal, the singers usually have different kinds of voices. Phil Anselmo does NOT have a power metal voice, and Dimebag Darrell does NOT write power metal riffs (listen to "Fucking Hostile", you'll know what I mean).

Let me bring it to everyone's attention that at one time the speed and thrash articles were the same. This was discussed and it was concluded that speed and thrash are not the same. It is for this very reason that speed metal and thrash metal are now separate articles. Pasajero 12:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if your aware of this but Pantera released an power metal album called Power Metal and Cowboys from Hell still had some power metal influences. As for your saying Phil Anselmo doesn't have a power metal voice, I suggest you liten to Cemetary Gates, if I remember correctly there's an almost obnoxiously high 'gates'. Kravitch

Power metal my ass. It wasn't even a power metal album to begin with. Power Metal was the name of the album which was just glam rock. Though it has been said that Pantera did inspire Power metal by the name of the album. ALSO Since when does power metal have a thrash vocal. Just because Phil (at the time) was able to since Falseto does not mean he is power metal. Look at King Diamond for example, he sings in falseto, BUT his band is not power metal either. -Ryan F.

I have heard Cemetary Gates, but I still don't think he has that Power Metal voice. I don't disagree with you entirely but I just think Phil doesn't use a power metal voice as much. I also agree with you, about the Power Metal album and their influences. I suppose it's still just personal opinion.

Most of you guys must not know that one Pantera's biggest influences is KISS. Which is not thrash.

That's a good point, but it doesn't mean Pantera isn't thrash. I mean, the dead kennedys and minor threat (both punk bands) influenced slayer, but slayer's not punk. --Eel 05:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And Metallica was heavily influenced by the Misfits in their earlier days, but Metallica isn't punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.230.63 (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I dissagre with the proposed merge of Speed and Thrash. They are two different genres, bands like Judas Priest and Motorhead are speed, it's a totally different genre. And Pantera was Glam until cowboys and then they were Groove/half thrash. Neuro perplexion

Pantera did play Power Metal during their early years but became heavier like they're nowadays when they became famous, preferring that kind of music. so there might be small dabs of power metal in the music since they played that before.

Speed/thrash

I see everyone has said that "Painkiller" is speed metal. But when was painkiller put out? Think about that!!! We can talk about thrash since the very beggining of the 80's and about "speed" since the very beggining of the 90's. I think "Speed Metal" is fiction and that the great "painkiller" is just heavy metal. Saying that something is "speed metal" is stupid, as it is more than just "a name searching for a home"........it is inexistent.

No one ever said speed metal came out in the beginning of the 90s. You just assumed that since everyone used "Painkiller" as an example. The reason why they used it as an example is because it is considered one of Priest's best speed albums and is a very popular one at that. Speed metal had already been formed in the late 70s. "Stained Class" and "Hell Bent for Leather" come to mind both which came out in 1978. The first thrash demo was in 1981 (Red Skies demo; no vocals though), the second being Metallica's Hit the Lights. 78 (speed) < 81 (thrash) Pasajero 17:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, as for speed metal being just heavy metal, that's kind of like saying thrash metal is just speed metal. The way I see it, Speed Metal is a certain type of Heavy Metal (For example, electric wizard is definitely (very) heavy metal, but there's NO way ANYONE would call them speed metal.), and Thrash Metal is a certain type of Speed Metal. (also just because i love venom i wanna mention that venom's welcome to hell was another of the first thrash metal albums, and it was also from 1981.) --Eel 02:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that Electric Wizard is considered to be just about the heaviest, slowest doom metal out there, and not usually classified as "heavy metal". From what I understand, "heavy metal" is mostly used to group in the NWOBHM and a few earlier bands, including Black Sabbath. I agree with you entirely that speed metal is another genre of metal entirely from thrash. From what I understand, it existed as a separate strand of metal and mostly developed earlier on than thrash. Thrash is a product of NWOBHM and other earlier metal, mixed with punk rock. Guys from Anthrax, Metallica, and Slayer have been saying this all along.

Conflicting information

The first section ends with a mention of Artillery's We Are The Dead being from 1982. The second section mentions it as being 1985. First off, which is correct? Secondly, should it be mentioned twice anyway? I think the whole article needs a tidy and restructure as there is a lot of repetition, definitely some POV (some of which I agree with, but hey!) and there's quite a scattered approach to dates etc. IainP (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The correct year for the mentioned Artillery demo is 1983. Pasajero 00:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've updated the page to reflect this. IainP (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Following the Artillery page to their record label web site, I found that Artillery was formed in 1982 and that the first two demos, Shellshock and Deeds of Darkness, were RELEASED in 1984 so clarification needs to be made there as well as the Artillery page. Subphreeky

Celtic Frost?

I've only heard a few of their songs, so I'm not qualified enough to remove them from the list, but are Celtic Frost really thrash? The few I've heard don't sound like it. 72.40.101.236 16:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I have to say I agree, what few songs I have heard of Celtic Frost I would not classify as thrash metal. Although I am not completely qualified either. Someone who knows more about them should clarify Subphreeky


CELTIC FROST, VOIVOD, AND DESTRUCTION

Thrash also included Celtic Frost "Morbid Tales", Voivod "War and Pain" and Destruction "Infernal Overkill" and were primary inventors of the art form as much as anyone.

I thought Celtic Frost were closer to black metal then thrash, or "proto-black metal".
I don't think they are thrash.--Fukhed666 09:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, Celtic Frost is definitely NOT black metal. But they are not thrash metal either. Theyre gothic/death metal or more decently doom-death metal. Crying Devil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.156.250 (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably say Celtic Frost (Morbid Tales/Emperor's Return + To Mega Therion) fit loosely into the proto-black/thrash genre, sort of playing a simplified type of Thrash (but awesome nonetheless). They were a huge influence on the black and death metal scene anyway. Metal Gimp (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It really depends on what era of Celtic Frost you are talking about. Morbid Tales, Emperor's Return, and To Mega Therion are very clearly within the thrash metal genre, although they certainly overlap with early black metal and death metal. Into the Pandemonium had some thrash songs but was more avant-garde metal and gothic metal, while Cold Lake was glam metal(!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad the Impaler (talk • contribs) 04:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Album Cover Pictures

I don't think that the album cover pictures should feature two Metallica, one Slayer, and one Sepultra... As the big four, or Four Horsemen (of Thrash Metal), are widely acknowleged to be: MegadetH, Metallica, Slayer, and Anthrax; there should be an album covershot of each. Rust In Peace, 03:27, 3 March 2006‎ (UTC)

I agree, only one Metallica album cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.18.242 (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2007‎ (UTC)

>I actually remove one of the metallica's but someone re-added it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.163.163 (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2007‎ (UTC)

Thrash or Trash?

Why do you write Trash with an ache after the T of it? Stephan KŒNIG 09:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

'Thrash' is the correct English spelling; "trash" in English means garbage. (Wikieizor 04:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC))
No. Actually:
  • Thrash = early Metallica's music style
  • Trash = Italian television
Hmm, let me correct that for you:
Thanks. Do not worry, I were just kidding. I know too well how, currently, 'Tallica are pitiful and can quietly make a video featuring beautiful girls from my country's horrid TV. ;) Egr, 3/7/2006

I don't remember where I heard this (i think it was some metal forum), but when "Thrash" was translated into other languages, it was mistranslated was "Trash". Would be great if someone could find a source. (Damned Headbanger 16:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

If anyone has that phony Metallica Bay Area Thrashers CD if you look at the cover it actually says Trashers.

Haha yeah I have that thing and have noticed that as well.--E tac 00:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
What the hell is trash? It's english for bloody garbage. Not the band obviously. --I am king Thundermaster367 09:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, shouldn't it be mentioned in the article? I mean, that thrash metal is not trash metal. Azrael Nightwalker (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why people refer to thrash metal as "trash metal" isn't because of an opinion that thrash metal is trash in most cases i think. Some thrash documentary took up this subject and i think that the conclusion was that people who didn't know a lot of english (meaning many europeans mainly) maybe thought that thrash was a misspelling and that if referred to "trash" (kind of what Damned Headbanger said), as most of the early thrash metal recordings were a bit trashy sounding. Note that i too thought that the correct term for the genre was indeed trash metal for years! And as an answer to your question: maybe it's worth mentioning if it just states that it has been misspelled trash occasionally, with a good source too of course. Grinder0-0 (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely Trash Metal. When I used to read German metal music magazines, they always wrote it as Trash. Not because it's bad, but as a definition for the sound, similar to what Grunge defines. 85.4.231.87 (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

merge groove metal

Groove metal does not need an article by itself (yet) as it is a minor subgenre still and only in minor issues different from thrash. Spearhead 20:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree. It definitely deserves mention, but is a stylitic difference and not a large subgenre. +Johnson 20:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I dissagre. Groove Metal isn't Thrash so it doesn't fit in this category. This is a mistake a lot of people tend to make but Groove Metal is not Thrash Metal, if you listen to albums like Pantera's Vulguar Display of Power vs albums like Kreator's Pleasure to Kill or Dark Angel's Darkness Descends, to make that association just doesn't work. Damage Plan's albums are a far cry from Thrash as well, Thrash and Groove Metal are very distinct from each other, Thrash is riff oriented fast music that has a distinct recognizable sound, it's like making an association that Speed Metal and Thrash Metal are the same when they aren't, it's like saying Judas Priest is a Thrash Metal band, it doesn't work. I dissagre with the idea of merging the two topics, Groove Metal is HALF Thrash, it is NOT Thrash, go and listen to Machine Head a groove band and listen to Vio-lence and you can see the differences between the two and you can tell the distinction between the two genres. So I don't like the idea, Groove Metal might be a result from Thrash Metal but that doesn't mean that it is, it's like saying we should merge Thrash Metal with NWOBHM because it was influenced by that genre of music. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neuro perplexion (talk • contribs) .
Touché. +Johnson 07:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge Though peaple called Pantera thrash for a while they are much more similar to White Zombie(sans the industrial influence of course) or Fear Factory. These bands certainly have similarities to thrash but the musical emphasis is less technical and more groove based. Probably why it became more popular, especially next to grunge. I can partially understand why it could be merged with nu-metal, but the same problems arise just in reverse. Probably the biggest problem is that metal just wasn't popular enough in the 90's for people to claim a unifying genre. However I really feel that there is a distinct characteristic of a lot of metal made between the rise of grunge and the rise of nu-metal(which draws heavily from groove metal and hip-hop). marnues 20:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't Merge: Thash and Groove are totally differnt genres. Food for thought - In my mp3 genres categories I use all the usual genre classifications except when I get to bands/albums that are not so easily categorised: Samael (all Cds), Fear Factory(all Cds), Alchemist(all Cds), Moonspell - Sin, Therion - Vovin, Tiamat - Wildhoney and anything by Mike Patton. These aren't so easily categorised to a narrow sub-genre - what do I do? Categorise them simply as 'metal' at the higher level because they are in effect special that way. Pantera fit perfectly in the 'metal' genre. Loud and noisy, but special.

Don't Merge: Thrash and Groove are different. Although Groove may appear as a subgenre of Thrash, due to it originally deriving from Thrash, it would be stupid to combine the two. They are completely different in their sound and in the tempo. To combine Thrash and Groove would be similar in its stupidity as combining Death and Thrash as they are two completely different genres.

Don't merge here too. Nonsensical at best.

Don't merge! 85.138.1.15 20:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

DONT MERGE Very different...Pantera and Devildriver are notably different to thrash/speed metal. Isilioth

Subgenres Of Thrash

I think it is rather childish deeming Death Metal, Groove Metal and Black Metal simply as subgenres of Thrash. This is because although they may have evolved from Thrash, each is a completely different genre of music now. Most Death Metal nowadays cannot really just be called a subgenre of Thrash. Although it evolved from Thrash, it evolved into its own genre rather into just a small subgenre. Death is recognized as its own genre on many other sites and by many people, and so should be recognized as its own on here. What would be better is if instead of saying "subgenre" and then listing death, black and groove, it could be better saying Derivative Forms or something else which does not suggest that death metal, black metal and groove metal are just subgenres of thrash.

This is actually a good point. marnues 22:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Groove Metal

The way I see it, groove metal is simply slow thrash, with occasional violent bursts of speed, e.g. the second half of Machine Head's "A Thousand Lies" or "Fucking Hostile" by Pantera. At its peak-the early to mid nineties-it was the blistering antidote to the grunge and britpop being force-fed into the rock scene by commercial radio stations. Of course the early bands (e.g. Sepultura, Exhorder) would have been frequently confused with original thrash metal groups, and likewise later bands such as White Zombie would have been lumped in with the nu-metal crowd. What fascinates me about the genre is that it's a mutant-an anomaly, if you will-in heavy metal history. Very little is said about post-thrash/groove metal despite the fact that many of its chief players, especially Pantera, achieved legendary status. Furthermore, Biohazard could qualify as groove metal despite their obvious rap influences, although I am unsure as to whether or not Fear Factory qualify as a groove metal band due to their strong industrial death metal leanings. However you define them, they are clearly not nu-metal, and as their closest cyber metal contemporaries would probably be Red Harvest, post-thrash comparisons seem almost irrelevant. If anyone knows where Life of Agony fits in, I'm interested.

I think a lot of the problem is that Groove Metal does not have a defining point to say that this is their moment in musical history. Early Groove Metal bands attracted Thrash crowds when it was established in the mainstream in the late 80's. In the early 90's it drew a lot of comparisons with the direction that many thrash bands were taking, further blurring lines between them. Then metal seemed pretty much dead in the mid 90's until nu-metal came around. I think this was when it was the most prominent but because metal wasn't popular in any form around this time, no one outside the scenes were paying any attention. Nu-metal hits and every band that isn't "true metal" gets labeled nu-metal. Groove metal being some sort of half way point between the metal styles of thrash and death metal and that of nu-metal (at least the metal influence with nu-metal), so it generally gets lumped into the nu-metal crowd since they're not "true metal." Now that the nu-metal craze is pretty much gone we can finally go back, pick the pieces apart and figure out what really happened. I personally have little problem labeling a genre after the fact. We tend to have a less biased view of music in this way (and fewer fanboys screaming their lungs out about the bands). I am moving away from White Zombie as one of the main groove metal bands. They certainly do play groove metal, but they have too many other obvious sounds in their music. I'd keep them around, but I'm lumping them more into alternative metal. I'll personally stick more to the Panteras, Sepulturas, and Fear Factorys (they have more pronounced industrial/death influences, but still groove with it). marnues 10:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Bay area thrash merge

I removed the tags for the merge - no discussion here or at the Bay Area thrash page... besides, Bay area thrash was more of a scene, and not a genre, IMO. Skeletor2112 09:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

True... But they are inter-related. The scene spawned many bands of the genre, like Testament and the like. Vegetaman 12:40, 15 August 2006 (CST)

I would oppose the merge between The Bay Area scene and genre, they are separate topics, if inter-related.Tubefurnace 11:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree as someone said, inter-related but separate topics!

Exciter

I would have to argue that Exciter were a thrash band back in the beginning of their career. There first two albums were right next to the first two Metallica, Exodus Bonded by Blood, Megadeth Killing Business, Anthrax Fistful of Metal (which is definitely thrash), and Metal Church's first in our record collections. I even saw Exciter open for Megadeth right after Killing is my Business came out in a small bar in New Orleans. Helstar were an early thrash band as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.188.225 (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2006‎ (UTC)

Venom and England

I can't believe that Venom have only had one other mention on here. Listen monkies, Venom INVENTED thrash, Metallica IMPROVED it and Slayer PERFECTED it. End of story. Move on.

England had quite a thriving thrash scene in the late 80's. Onslaught were probably the best of the bunch but they let themselves down by replacing vocalist Sy Keeler with the bloke from Grim Reaper. He was truely awful.. Honourable mentions must also go to Sabbat and Acid Reign. There is no doubt in my mind that Sabbat influenced the black metal movement of the 90's. Martyn Walkiers' rasping vocal and the folk influence are clearly evidence of this. Acid Reign were a great live act - truly very funny. They deserve more credit than they got at the time. Guitarist, Kev, was also involved with Lawmower Deth. Slammer and Xentrix were OK. Slammer were Metallica clones - albeit good ones and Xentrix became more famous for covering Ghostbusters than anything else. Which was a shame as they had a lot to offer. -D.A.M and Re=animator seemed to support everyone. Lastly and definitely least, I should also mention Virus. If only to stop and remember just how dreadfully appalling they and their frontman Henry were.

>I agree but insted of metallica improving it, it was Megadeth.

Venom didn't create thrash. Motorhead did. Venom just happened to be a huge influence on that genre and black and death metal as well. Motorhead created thrash, though, before Venom ever came along. Venom can only be credited with creating black metal. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Motörhead?

There's sure some passion on this edit page, and I don't want to rock the boat too much, but can someone at least tip the hat to Motörhead for their thrash genre influence as early as the '70s? Kiwichipster 00:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I will! Dark Executioner 14:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Motorhead pretty much created thrash. Navnløs 22:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC) funk ya!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.95.174 (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Guys, Lemmy himself stated that he hates Motörhead being associated with metal. He's adamant Motörhead are rock'n'roll, hard rock'n'roll may be, but R'N'R nonetheless. Motörhead have nothing to do with thrash metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snelle Fjöll (talk • contribs) 19:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Modern Day Thrash

I don't think that modern day thrash was not embraced enough on this article. No, its not as popular as older thrash metal, but it still exists, yet, the article just scratches the surface of it, I think more should be added about modern day thrash.

If you're talking about so called Neo-Thrash, most of it isn't really Thrash to some degree, hence the passing note. If it's notable enough and has critial mass for it's own section or article, it should be add. Otherwise, the passing note is all it gets. Possibly something that needs looking into. Dace59 14:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words, opinions asserted as facts, etc.

This article is bursting at the seams with them. "Many of the best thrash albums of all time [were released in 1986]"...ok, but what if we disagree? I was appalled when I read, "Slayer's Reign in Blood is universally acclaimed as a classic"...preposterous, Reign in Blood is a decent rock record but nothing more. And the idea that Master of Puppets is "regarded as not just one of the best thrash metal albums ever also but metal in the metal and rock genre" might be true for most people, but that doesn't change the fact that this statement reeks of weasel words. This article should seriously be cleaned up.

Also under the list of thrash metal bands it lists "Other crucial thrash metal bands include:" as if its up to whoever created this page which bands are worth noting and which aren't. I've added noteable bands only to see them removed. If you want to have a list it should be all inclusive or perhaps it should describe what makes a band "crucial".


What makes a band "crucial" in general, is the amount of influence on latter bands, pioneering the genre, general popularity, and album sales. While these are some of the factors, it is a combination and sort of hard to quantify. As a matter of fact the afforementioned albums, Reign In Blood and Master Of Puppets, are indeed universally acclaimed landmark albums in the genre of thrash metal. Saying that they are not is like saying that Elvis should not be associated with Rock 'n Roll! Not to mention the fact that they cannot really be considered "a decent rock record" at all, they are not really rock albums at all! Subphreeky

These albums are highly regarded by many people who are thrash fans, and others who arent. They are claasics in many peoples minds and influenced whole genres and bands. They are an important part in thrash history and should be noted because of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.162.1 (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Big Four Has Five

The big four of thrash section- there are five bands here. Choose one to remove someone who would know which is least notable please... Tom walker 23:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It's fixed now as one user had just added Pantera, which is incorrect. Prolog 23:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lars Ulrich best drummer?

The reference doesn't say anything about "due to their ability with the double bass as well as adequately keeping time". but mentions "Drummers are ranked for their influence, innovation, originality, and technical ability". Ulrich probably ranks highly on thee first three and not as much on the last point. Anyway, Ulrich isn't particularly known for his time keeping skills or his double bass skills. Besides that Hoglan is mentioned with Death, which isn't thrash anyway and Menza isn't included in the article's list but in the ref. Furthermore "DigitalDreamDoor.com is a non-commercial, personal website" doesn't seem to make it a reliable source.

Funnily enough none of the drummers are actually mentions on 100 Most Skilled Drummers Spearhead 10:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Okay, I won't argue Lars Ulrich's drumming ability. I do think that the way it is worded in the article mentions that they are the best drummers in rock music, not over as in your link mentioned above. Yet, I think your point about the website being cited being a personal website is a vaild one. I move that the sentence be removed all together since it is one person's opinon rather then the opinon of experts in the field. Per WP:RS I would like to see the comment lifted off of the article. --Pinkkeith 17:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not necessarily disagree with the statement that "Many thrash drummers are revered as some of the best drummers in rock music, due to their ability with the double bass as well as adequately keeping time." - actually this would hold for all extreme metal genres. Finding some proper references might actually do the trick here - the examples are POV here. Also the grammar is awkward. Spearhead 17:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Lars Ulrich is a terrible drummer... Cubankid2195 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.115.26 (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Citing sources

I am going through the sources and standardizing them with template:cite web where needed. I would like to see everyone use this template since it is the current wiki standard. Any objections? --Pinkkeith 17:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Clean up

I attempted to clean up the grammar and confusing sentence structures in parts of this article. The constant edit wars have renderred the article nonsensical in parts. The article could still use a lot of work. The only piece of information that I removed was a short phrase that was probably planted by the Lars fanclub. It seems fitting that the article is actually written in a thrash metal style (rapid fire words, barely distinguishable, excessive hammering on a keyboard and an overall feel that is very likely to induce head banging)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastplanet (talk • contribs) 04:18, 18 February 2007‎ (UTC)

list of thrash metal bands

This list list of thrash metal bands is largely redundant with the list provided in this article, although somewhat differently organised. Either one is unneeded. Most of the important bands are already mentioned in the article text, so I propose to remove the Notable artists section completely. Additionally the list of thrash metal bands should be cleaned up and re-organised. Spearhead 16:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I did some work on the list of thrash metal bands. These are the things that I would like to have a second opinion on.

1. "blackplaige (US/Arizona". I don't know about this band. I searched it on google [[1]] and found this: http://www.joinmyband.co.uk/jmb/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2610

2. Craven Argentina does not have an article on Wikipedia.

3. Criminal does not have an article. The link provided redirects to Crime.

4. Defiance does not have an article. The link provided links to the disambiguation page , which mentions a metal band of the same name.

5. Prestige does not have an article. No link is provided on the list page.

I think blackplaige is a local band or something like that. The google search returned only 4 results. As for the rest of the bands, I don't have any knowledge about them. Weltanschaunng 06:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

difference between kill em all and ride the lightning

fight fire with fire

is there a song that sounds remotely like this on kill em all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.193.253 (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2007‎ (UTC)

Crossover Thrash

Does anyone know why the article was deleted and the page redirected to this article? Inhumer 22:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

dude someone totally messed with it. crossover thrash was deleted and redirected here, where the word "crossover" appears a grand total of 3 times, with no real explanation of crossover thrash, except a link to "crossover thrash" under "fusion genres" which of course just redirects to this page. wtf?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.39.211.133 (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
I totally agree that it needs a page. I mean, it's far more relevant than some of the other sub-genres/fusion genres that have pages (deathrash, blackened thrash, Brazilian thrash). Adamravenscroft 10:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Could someone who knows alot about the genre rewrite it possibly? Inhumer 17:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's my link: User:IL7Soulhunter/Sandbox/Crossover thrash, it still needs work, but i'll get it done soon. —π₰₯ ĬLʡ$Φǚɭђµπt₴ŗ ₯₰π 22:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, i have finished work on crossover thrash, and i'm going to replace the redirect with it. If you don't think it should be replaced, message me on my talk page. —Metal of Head 22:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Crossover Thrash is back--Dsalazar23491 16:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thrash Today

Trivium (The crusade), Megadeth (United Abominations), Slayer (christ illusion). Thrash is on a comeback. hell, even metallica may go back to thrash.

if slayer winning a grammy doesn't indicate that, than what does? this NEEDS mentioning.24.139.30.154 04:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Except, you know, Trivium isn't Thrash. Inhumer 17:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether they are or not, it's modelled heavily on thrash and it's inarguably a prominent example of the genre's influence on current metal and the increase in popularity of the styles of the genre. Adamravenscroft 21:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Combat KIMB.jpg

Image:Combat KIMB.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Images

OK, so I changed the images a little bit, the previous images failed to illustrate any points made by the article - Killing is My Business was in the early section, despite being released in 1985, 2 years after the origin of thrash (this was Kill 'Em All once, I expect it was fanboys...); Slayer and Megadeth had two covers, while Anthrax, another one of the big four had none; and finally South of Heaven and Rust in Peace weren't placed next to the eras they represented. So, I have replaced the images, as per this reasoning:

  • Kill 'Em All - it's the first thrash LP, so one of the most important images to illustrate the origin section.
  • Reign in Blood - considered one of the greatest by most critics and fans, so deserving of a place illustrating thrash's pinnacle in '86, as well as one of the big four.
  • Master of Puppets - as above, also, I believe that being the biggest band by far, Metallica are worthy of two covers, in addition to them being very important.
  • Among the Living - representing Anthrax, one of thrash's big four previously unmentioned, often regarded their best release.
  • Extreme Aggression - not being too familiar with Kreator, I didn't change it... I guess it shows the evolution of thrash towards the late '80s and the development of sub-genres.
  • Rust in Peace - symbolising the final thrash of the early '90s before its decline, as well as another of the big four (as well as trying to show what are considered the best albums of the big four... it's pretty even between this and Peace Sells, but I guess the mid-'80s section is too crowded.

There could be more images representing more bands and descriptions of the relevance of all of these covers in the captions and maybe the final section needs some images of modern thrash albums (Megadeth, Exodus, Overkill etc.) Apart from this, I think we have it alright for now. Please do not change the covers, discuss it here first so that we can reach a conclusion of what is suitable for the article. Adamravenscroft 15:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

All of these seem to make sense, though Among the Living does not seem as vital as the others. I love Anthrax, and I love that album, but the current context does not seem to warrant the inclusion of the its cover. A mention would suffice in the current context. WheehW (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Metallica - Kill Em All.jpg

Image:Metallica - Kill Em All.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I gonna put www.thrashmageddon.com as an external link, I really adore there.

Modern Thrash

This is ridiculous. This article goes on and on about thrash during the 80s, thins out in the 90s, and mentions hardly anything on the 21st century. Yes, internet and VH1 have contributed to exposure, but they have done so in all other genres. There are plenty of new thrash bands out there. Don't be so stingy when applying the subgenre to a band, otherwise we'll have so many subgenres that they won't even be of any use. This might not be 80s thrash, but its STILL THRASH! Arkyopterix 21:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with this to some extent. United Abominations sold something like 100,000 copies in its first week on the market, Slayer made the top ten with CI (I believe), and Metallica has an upcoming album that is likened to their early sound. Thrash is making at least a sub comeback, and does deserve a mention beyond what is currently there. -Motleh 05:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Quite correct that thrash is on somewhat of a comeback, although be careful: a lot of things get called thrash these days that really really aren't (e.g. Bullet For My Valentine, Trivium, Sanctity). Yes, it doesn't have to sound explicitly 80s, but nevertheless, just because something plays fairly fast with a rough guitar tone and vocalist doesn't mean it's thrash metal. Prophaniti (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I've got a good paragraph on the "new wave" but it keeps getting taken off, i'll put it up again.
DaneBramage8020 (talk) 13:36, 05 November 2008 (UTC)
It's unreferenced original research and nn listcrufting. And unreq'd here. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
And if I reference it? DaneBramage8020 (talk) 13:54, 08 November 2008 (UTC)
If you can find a reference or two that state exactly what you're saying (including the very long list of band names), then we'll all be happy. Random name (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I wont start an edit war in the page or anything, but you people want REAL new Thrash? listen to friggin Evile. 'Nough said. —Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin's live version of Immigrant song is 10X faster and harder compared to Queen's Stone Cold Crazy

Led Zeppelin's live version of Immigrant song is 10X faster and harder compared to Queen's Stone Cold Crazy. Now with that being said, this WILL remain in the article, no questions asked. Zephead999 01:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it won't. You don't just go on your opinion and do things like that. You should provide reliable sources, or at least discuss it with us in order to see if the change is appropriate. Being assertive gets nothing done here but a block from editing certain articles. -Motleh 05:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


We want a reliable resource? Listen to the ******* live album, "How The West Was Won". The guitar solo on heartbreaker is lightning fast, that's a fact, not an opinion by the way. And then listen to Immigrant song on that album is well, it's way heaveir then anything Queen has done. Which by the way is not an opinion. Because if you think that IS an opinino then why don't we take the term "heavy metal" off every band on this website? Because I know plenty of people who will say Metallica, MegaDeth, etc. etc. etc. is not thrash metal, heavy metal, whatever. Now with that being said the things I added to the Thrash metal article WILL remain. Zephead999 07:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down. Maybe the solo is fast, it doesn't make it thrash metal, you could as easily say that jimi hendrix was the influence for thrash metal, and thrash metal is not defined by its solos (nor is any other genre, except neoclassical maybe). You say that that Immigrant Song is heavier than anything Queen have done, that doesn't make it your opinion? I find it very hard to believe too that you can, just by examining 30 year old songs and interpret them so simply, can find the root of the thrash metal genre, neither can you deny that Queen was an influence of thrash metal because of this "discovery". So, unless you can find a realiable source (Please see WP:V) to what is now original thought, then I don't think this is appropriate in this article. And, no one can guarantee that your edits will stay in the article, if what you have written is useful and follows Wikipedias rules, maybe it will stay. Grinder0-0 15:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine, well at least take out how it was "unusually fast and heavy". Again Led Zeppelin's played immigrant song 10X heavier and at least 3 or 4X faster than Stone Cold Crazy. Zephead999 21:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Who says that certain Zep songs weren't unusually fast and heavy for their time as well? You're not proving anything by providing such arguments and being so pushy, if anything you'll just get in trouble or get the article protected. Please provide a reliable source (and verifiable, as Grinder0-0 said) that confirms or denies your argument. -Motleh 21:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Look buddy let's get back on topic, if you think Queen's song is thrashy then for sure, no questions asked Immigrant's song is thrashy as well. U don't have any source for Queen's so why should I have a source for Zep's song? Look buddy I'm not going to record a snippet of the song and send it to through e-mail. Install limewire and download it, that should be a quick way of doing so. Now excuse me, I have to re-add that info on the article. Zephead999 00:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have heard Immigrant Song, but as my personal opinion is irrelevant to the article and is neither a fact, it is also irrelevant in this discussion, and unless you can source your statement it is useless. The Queen statement is original thought now, as it is unsourced, I think it should be removed (as well as the rest of the unsourced "influences"). The only ones I've read about in magazines is Accept (song: Breaker), Judas Priest, Celtic Frost, Venom (maybe more). Also, the whole point of this discussion is that we come to a agreement of what is best for the article, so please try solving your disputes before you make any further edits regarding this subject. Grinder0-0 14:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you both are missing the point. To quote individual songs as being the origins is going to spark (legitimate) arguments like this. I think the whole section needs to be re-written with the seminal bands' quoted inspriation (with references) rather than the hodge-podge of individual songs that is there now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.50.4.4 (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Got rid of Queen's Stone Cold Crazy

I'm sorry but Queen's Stone Cold crazy was not unusually heavy and fast for their time, Led Zeppelin played WAY faster material thant hey have at that time, and ever will. Zephead999 01:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See above. -Motleh 05:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See above Zephead999 07:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of extrapolation

I am sorry to see my additions keep being deleted, and I apologise if they do not meet Wikipedia requirement, If the additions could be edited by someone more experienced into something acceptable I would much appreciate it, but please don't delete the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamsmith2311 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 1 August 2007‎ (UTC)

I have used the Sekhmet image not for self promotion but because it is the only image I/we can use without possibly breaking copyright. If someone would volunteer a better image I would be very appreciative! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamsmith2311 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 1 August 2007‎ (UTC)

South of Heaven-Death Metal-ish?

How the hell is South of Heaven more of a death metal-ish album than something like Reign in Blood? That should be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Metal 1993 (talk • contribs) 20:55, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

?

"Slayer released the slower, more melodic South of Heaven the same year, as did Anthrax with State of Euphoria, Megadeth with So Far, So Good...So What!, Overkill with Under the Influence and The Years of Decay (1989), Annihilator with Alice in Hell (1989), Forbidden with Forbidden Evil, Nuclear Assault with Survive and Handle With Care (1989), DRI with 4 of a Kind and Thrash Zone (1989), Exodus with Pleasures of the Flesh (1987) and Fabulous Disaster (1989), Coroner with Punishment for Decadence and No More Color (1989), Sodom with Persecution Mania (1987) and Agent Orange (1989), Destruction with Release from Agony, and Kreator with Terrible Certainty (1987) and Extreme Aggression (1989), all pushing the aforementioned bands to new commercial heights ."

This is all wrong. None of these albums pushed the bands to 'commercial' heights. South of Heaven was a slow Slayer album but wasn't commercial. None of those other albums are commercial at all, even though some of these bands got more commercial later on. Doppelganger 00:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Speed metal removed

I altered the article to remove speed metal as a separate genre and as an origin of thrash. This is spotty revisionist history and just isn't true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.20.224 (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

All your edits have been reverted because they are incorrect. The speed metal scene pre-dates thrash by several years. Motorhead, and their contemporaries were releasing speed metal albums 4-5 years before Metallica, Anthrax, Exodus, Slayer and Megadeth emerged. The thrash movement would not have started without the influence of the earlier speed metal bands. 156.34.213.120 (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


Motorhead started as a rock band that grew faster and harder, and do not even meet the standards of so called speed metal. Motorhead have always claimed they were rock n roll. Furthermore, if we had to include Motorhead with any metal genre, NWOBHM would most fit the bill. You cannot substantiate the existence of a speed metal genre or scene and thus the page is being put back as I set it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.20.224 (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

D.R.I. should be among the top thrash bands

If everyone is in agreement, DRI should be included among the top of thrash band list of the late 80's. Any thrash metal fan living during that time knew of DRI, and had at least Thrashzone in their collection. Ok to add a small paragraph about them? Nathraq (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone Please make a page for Fueled by Fire!!!!!!

They are one of the newest thrash bands to come out and I think that someone should make a page for them and put a link to it in that last paragraph where it talks about newer thrash bands.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.12.165 (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You know we have a page for something like that already at Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Performers and bands. But make sure it follows WP:MUSIC. One album and news of a second one soon could be enough. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 21:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Music samples

There are none on this page. Someone should correct that! Death metal and black metal both have at least one. 165.196.83.20 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Metallica - One

I removed the completely asinine statement about "One" being a complex song, that is possibly one of the most obnoxiously ignorant things I've ever heard. None of Metallica's music is "complex," especially compared to the other thrash bands of the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.52.174 (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I have reverted your edit. It is sourced, and you can't remove it just because you disagree. That is called POV pushing.Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the citation in the article calls the album "dense and layered" but that's the album. It certainly doesn't mention One as being particularly complex. I'm adding a citation request. Random name (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking at that cite again, it really doesn't support any of what the sentence in question says - it only says that And Justice was as dense and layered as a prog album. Am I looking at the wrong link? The Allmusic one on prog metal? Random name (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

- Glad you removed that part, Metallica does have a few very minor technical rhythmic compositions but like you said, it's childs play when you compare it to the complexity of bands like Megadeth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.245.224 (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to be honest with you all, "One", being of origin on the "...And Justice For All" album basically shows its integrity as a complex song almost immediately. That entire album was the most complex album they have put out to date. Other songs on the album also exhibit the complex arrangements. Why would the band try to NOT play a song live, unless it being expressively complex. I vote keep it. It is complex, and it is thrash, though not original thrash, perhaps something like.. melodic thrash. Think about it... Ever tried learning that song on guitar? It take a little more than guitar knowledge and a tab to play it. It takes skill, and gear. Things that prove its worth as a difficult song. Just my take on the subject matter. -V —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.197.228 (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

thrash metal and metalcore ?

The thrash metal and metalcore sections have to be cleaned up in terms of clarity. For fan purposes, metalcore and thrash metal are easily distinguishable but since this in a wikipedia page and differences are describe in words there should be more detail. I am particularly referring to implied similarities between thrash metal and metalcore, for example metallica's kill em all is stated to have punk influences and many NWOBHM bands are stated to have punk influences. While this is very true, doesn't this imply that thrash metal and NWOBHM bands are simply " heavy metal + punk influences " ? Technically from reading wikipedia on this part of metal the common person would assume heavy metal and hardcore punk together is Metalcore and not thrash since on the metalcore page it states metalcore is " fusion genre that incorporates elements of the hardcore punk and heavy metal genres". So i think there should be more detail to how they are different despite both of them being heavy metal with clear punk influences —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.132.71 (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that seeing that from what I can see there aren't a lot of differences. Metalcore has screaming and Thrash doesn't. BlueGoat (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

TRASH made in ENGLAND!!!!

the trash metal is a cration by QUEEN

  • metallica not!!
Queen weren't influenced by hardcore punk. The best description for Stone Cold Crazy is speed metal. Thrash metal doesn't have singing, it usually has shouting etc. Ever heard Queen shouting (etc.) like in thrash metal? Also, go to school --Metal of Head 22:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
That's quite contradictory. Take Tornado of Souls by Megadeth for example, a song that's widely recognized as thrash metal. Not only does it have sung lyrics, but if you compare it to Stone Cold Crazy on a strictly musical basis, you'll notice it doesn't have any more hardcore punk elements than the Queen track does. In fact I'd say the latter applies to all pure thrash metal songs. As for Stone Cold Crazy being Speed Metal, isn't Speed Metal also defined as being hardcore-influenced? Remnant76 (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Queen hasn't a single thing to do with Thrash metal. All evidence points to Thrash Metal as a genre bring born in the U.S. The grammatically-challenged troll above makes a gimmick out of spamming this to EVERY music genre in existence and trying to tie the birth of every genre exclusively to England. His posts should not be taken seriously, much less argued in support of. I don't know how he was never deleted when plenty of equally or less troll-like content in discussion sections have been. Theburning25 (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Canadian scene?

Hey, there's a section in this article on Canadian thrash (talks about Voivod, etc), and I think it deserves to be moved into the section on regional scenes, as it's a bit too Canada-focused. Any thoughts on what defines Canadian thrash? Random name (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

99.239.149.219 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Canadian bands gigging on the scene in 1978 like Hell Razor who later became Exciter (Ottawa speed metal) and Voivod (Montreal progressive metal) were attempts to break away from simplistic commercial music. Conservative Canadian record labels, mostly American owned, were lothe to sign any kind of out-of-mainstream music. Even famous clubs like the old Maples Inn (Western Montreal), Barrymore's(Ottawa), The Gas Works (Toronto) and Norm Silver's Mustache (Montreal) were resisting cutting edge bands in favor of more digestible, soft "radio" music cover bands. Though not thrash at their inception, these bands migrated toward a more heavy, high-speed sound almost as a form of rebellion and a search for a higher energy music. By 1981 most club circuit metal bands disappeared but Exciter and Voivod carried on, and later joined a scene developing throughout the U.K., and the United States that included Mercyful Fate, Motorhead, and later bands like Slayer and Metallica. 99.230.106.223 (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


Notable Canadian Thrash bands include : Anvil (Tom Araya from Slayer confirms this in his interview in the recent (reference) award winning Anvil movie documentary "Anvil - yeah man, they were good, Anvil were fast, they were Thrash"), Sacrifice (thier song "Reanimator" was the theme song for the Much Music Power Hour/Power 30 in Canada for years, becoming like a Canadian metal anthem of sorts), Annihilator (referred to at times as a Thrash reference on the page, but not specifically as Canadian), and late comers such as Entropy in 1990(released independant CD albums Ashen Exisitence in 1990, and thier follow up LP Transcendence in 1993, with video play and interviews on Much Music Canada - reference Encyclopeadia Metallum - Entropy, CAN, reference Facebook, Entropy Bio Page). LOUDER 99.230.106.223 (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Another notable Canadian Thrash/Speed band was Savage Steel (thier 1988 album release was fast thrash, with vocals in the style of Joey Belladonna from Anthrax - reference Encyclopaedia Metallum) LOUDER 99.230.106.223 (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

U.K. regional scene

I feel there should be a section under the regional scenes for U.K. thrash. Certainly in recent times there's been a huge surge of thrash metal in the U.K., certainly at least as significant as anything in Poland or Australia, probably much more so. I'm happy to put something in, but as I don't know specific music terminology that well I don't know how precise I can be alone. Anyone else able/willing to contribute. or just have anything to add about this? Prophaniti (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say just go for it, and people can update whatever you put in as needed. Which particular bands are you thinking of? Some examples might help us come up with what defines the scene. Random name (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the particular area I might struggle with: I feel there are enough bands to warrant such a section, but pinning down what could be considered typical characteristics isn't my area. However, here's a selection of U.K. thrash bands, most of them formed in recent times, but some older.

I've included internal links where articles exist, and links to their Metal-Archives pages where they don't (which themselves contain links to myspace pages and therefore music samples too). It's also probably worth noting that Garry Sharpe-Young's book "The Definitive Guide to Metal" has a section on U.K. thrash metal, lending weight to it's claim as a scene of note, and it could also possibly be useful for defining the sound. Generally (backed up by the book) the scene was following on from the U.S. thrash, and so it's sound is more a blending of other styles from the early thrash bands rather than a truly new one. Prophaniti (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

What about White Thrash from Peterborough, they have an album coming out in January! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.151.197 (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is already overflowing with names of bands, many of whom don't need to be listed here. Unless you can establish the noteworthiness of the band, best leave them out for now. Random name (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Little known thrash band from Victoria. House of Commons. Unreal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahkwi (talk • contribs) 02:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Work needed

Folks, this page is in a bit of a state at the moment. It starts off pretty well, but once you hit the mid to late 80's, it goes a bit wrong. Lots of random mentions of band albums with uncited editorial comments. At times it seems more like an attempt to cram in the histories of all the major bands. I know they're all important, but this is just a page on thrash metal the genre. Would there be any major objection if I started thinning out the uncited material? (I already took out one, but more is needed.) Random name (talk) 10:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a blurb at the end of the Queen/Led Zepplin rant. I think the article falls apart immediately. I don't have the time or reference resources to do the project myself, but I say go for it. I would check out Headbanger's Journey documentary to start. It's the only scientific (and I mean that) study on the subject that I know of. It steers clear of bias or informs the viewer when there is author bias. There is also a book by Chris St. somethingerother called Heavy Metal: a History (or something like that.) It's good as well, but is somewhat biased.
I think that is the problem with this article in general is that everyone wants THEIR favorite band or song to be more important than anyone else's. Stick to refereced material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.50.4.4 (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles Thrash

Would it be possible to include a separate section in the "regional scenes" part for LA Thrash? I say it has a separate sound from the Bay Area scene and definitely was not crossover either. Bands from the scene would include Slayer, Dark Angel, Evildead, Viking, and several other underground bands. 71.62.5.36 (talk) 05:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Testament

shouldnt testament be in the big 5 of thrash there heavier than anthrax Seth4000 (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Seth4000

Heaviness shouldn't be a factor here and if it was then the top 4 (or 5) wouldn't be there anymore (except Slayer possibly). FireCrystal (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)



hello all, i've just arrived to the party, and not a moment too soon. As far as testament goes, and the top thrash metal bands in general, it has always seemed to be matter of innovation and excellence. obviously this is subjective to a certain extent, but not entirely. i listened to some testament back in the day, and though they were popular, they were not terribly innovative, and no more than competent musicians. This is not enough to warrant inclusion as one of the top thrash bands by any means.

generally accepted as thrash innovators and consistently excellent musicians are, of course: metallica, anthrax, and slayer. though i only really listen to one of their albums (rust in peace), i won't argue if others include megadeth in the top slots, as mustaine was partly responsible for the innovative work of metallica's early output. J M B (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying Megadeth itself never innovated? Remnant76 (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

pantera thrash

couldnt pantera be thrash metal (Seth4000 (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)) Seth4000

There's already about 8 subjects on this, read up.ThePerfectVirus (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguous

from the side bar : "Resurgence in mid 2000s." This sounds ambiguous, cos the mid 2000s, technically, is the year 2500. Obviously I know what is meant by the phrase, but is there a better way to phrase it? The phrase may become more problematic in the future, when the next decade starts. Like, when we say mid-1900s, we don't refer to 1905, we refer to 1950. Ckannan90 (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice thinking there. The only suggestion I have is the 00's but that doesn't make much sense because as you said it would be a problem in the future and could be any 00 years from 1900 or 2000. At the present, 2000s is understandable to use. FireCrystal (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually when I think of it, in 100 years, I believe it would be a lot easier to understand what decade (or century) the section is talking about. Just think about it, when a new section (2010's) arrive which will actually be pretty soon (were just some years off) so there isn't much to worry about until then. FireCrystal (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

History is misleading

If someone took the "History" section of this article as their only source, they'd look like idiots because they'd think Metallica were the first thrash band, which is complete and utter nonsense. Exodus and Overkill both started playing live about a year before Metallica, and Exodus was even a minor influence on early Metallica and Slayer, who formed around the same time as eachother, about a year after Exodus/Overkill. I don't mean to be a prick, but to say Metallica were the first band to ever play Thrash is bullshit, because most of the material on Kill Em All was half thrash half speed metal, while around the same time Exodus was writing and recording Bonded By Blood, which was a full-on thrash attack. P.S. Metallica only released 4 mediocre albums in the 80s before they completely stopped making anything that was remotely worthwhile.68.202.82.33 (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice little pov rant there. But completely your own opinion and completely unreferenced. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
This Exodus / Metallica debate is a tedious one - I notice that the Exodus pages entirely ignore the initial NWoBHM sound that Exodus had. Indeed, the only reference one can find on the subject is the definitive one - Garry Sharpe-Young's "Thrash Metal" sums it up nicely with the phrase "Initially the band operated in NWoBHM territory, performing covers by the likes of DEF LEPPARD and UFO, prior to adopting their more familiar Thrash stance." (Note the all caps are his, not mine.) This NWoBHM sound can be heard quite clearly if you listen to their 1982 demo, which is on youtube with the track names "Whipping Queen" "Death and Domination" and "Warlords."
This is something someone will eventually have to deal with on the Exodus pages, but something tells me it will be a tedious, and occasionally incoherent debate, so I'm ignoring it all for now. Someone else can take it up if they like! :) Random name (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
As an aside, I don't know Overkill much, so I just went off and listened to Raise the Dead, which was on their 1983 demo. It's so NWoBHM it could actually be an Iron Maiden song. Nothing wrong with that at all, but let's not pretend it's thrash. Random name (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

It seems like this article is increasingly subject to ongoing low-level vandalism. At what level could we ask an admin to put a basic level of protection on the article? Simply requiring a registration to edit would filter this stuff out. Any ideas? Random name (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thrash metal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Quick-fail

I'm quick-failing this article because it has multiple issues listed at the top that are still relevant, as well as many citation needed tags. It seems the nominator is not familiar with the GA nomination process. Timmeh!(review me) 00:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing this Queen entry

Folks, the "Stone Cold Crazy" thing has been in this article without refs for years now. Can anyone honestly give me a reason not to remove it? I ask because looking at previous comments, it has been removed, only to be re-added for no obvious reason. Please note I'm not asking for opinions, I don't care if people think it sounds thrashy, I just want to know if anyone has a cite, or can think of any potential cite for the statement that it has been credited as being a thrash song. Did a thrash band say it was? I know Metallica covered it, but that isn't exactly citeable material.

Anyone? Random name (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as a further note - dug through the history of the article, and I've found there was a cite - it was some random guy's webpage, and didn't even call "Stone Cold Crazy" the first thrash song, instead saying it was one of a few influential songs. So, still no encyclopedic cite, and the cite that was there is misrepresented anyway. Will still wait a day or two in case someone pulls out a miracle cite they've been hiding under their bed. Random name (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

New Wave of Thrash Metal

This should have its own section. The article mentions bands such as Evile, Bonded by Blood, Gama Bomb, Toxic Holocaust, but it shouldn't just be two sentences —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.200.153 (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So long as you can add good cites / references to what you think the article should have in it, why not add it yourself? Sounds like you know more about it than I do, at any rate.Random name (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Metal Church

I've seen that Lars tried out as a drummer for Metal Church before he joined up with James Hetfield. Metal Church's first demo seems quite thrash to me - does anyone have a ref that explores the possible link there? Can't help but wonder if it was actually Metal Church's firest demo that led to the early thrash we've got listed as being the first thrash. Only problem is finding out what month the demos in question came out - Metal Church's was in 1981, as was the compilation that had Hit The Lights. I can't put it in atm as it's OR, but would love to find something out there that discusses it. Random name (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The origin of the term "Thrash metal"

The article "Metal Forces" states that the zine originated the term Thrash Metal. Yet it is not mentioned in the thrash metal article. FIX THIS NOW or this article will forever be doomed to be the worst of all time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.13.52 (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Often spelled incorrectly

"Often spelled incorrectly as trash metal isnt really needed, its only spelled trash metal by people on the internet (inparticular youtube) and people who dont like the genre, the people on youtube spell it like that because they type fast and make a spelling mistake, its not needed on this article, i am removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.10.54 (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


Power Metal

Why is power metal under a derivetive form of thrash, its not, so im removing it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.10.54 (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Random Name, why did you undo my work?

Allmusic has been used as a source on other pages here on wikipedia. Regardless of your opinions on "Stone Cold Crazy" and "Symptom of the Universe" you can't deny that the website has called them both precursors to the genre of thrash metal.-- 00:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockgenre (talk • contribs)

Turning an encyclopedia article into an example farm doesn't improve it any. Listcrufting ans example-overkill should be avoided. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It is your opinion that they don't improve the article. I believe if something is listed as a precursor to a genre it is an important note in the genre's history. 01:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)-- 01:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockgenre (talk • contribs)
The sub-genre's history begins in 1981 with the formation of Metallica. Anything previous to that "or precursor as you refer to it" is subjective opinion which cannot be added to Wikipedia with any sort of credibility without having multiple indepentent sources. Wikipedia is not just a random series of lists and examples. Improve your edits and the requirement to revert them will be taken away. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It put the "Stone Cold Crazy" and "Symptom of the Universe" sections under "Origins" which aren't Origins just precursors(I noticed that the NWoBHM gets a nod which predates Metallica). And isn't it an opinion in itself of you saying the formation of Metalliva is the start of the genre. And may I ask you how many sources do I need? I already have one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockgenre (talk • contribs) 01:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry I forgot to sign that post and I don't get why my other posts that I sign only show the dates. I'm typing the tildes. 01:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockgenre (talk • contribs)
Hello Rockgenre.
I think The Real Libs sums up my feelings pretty well. Particularly in the case of Stone Cold Crazy, the claim that it is a precursor to Thrash is a bit contentious, and I'd thus suggests it needs more than one entry from a random Allmusic editor. Further to that, when you look at the article, the author is not even saying that the statement in question is his - he states it to be the opinion of some fans of the song / band. Random name (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Just as a further note, I rather like this comment from earlier in the discussion page, stemming from an argument just like this one.
"To quote individual songs as being the origins is going to spark (legitimate) arguments like this. I think the whole section needs to be re-written with the seminal bands' quoted inspriation (with references) rather than the hodge-podge of individual songs that is there now."
I would suggest we do exactly this. Thoughts? Random name (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Alright if more sources are what I need to make my argument valid, then you shall have more sources when I get around to it. Until I have these multiple sources for "Stone Cold Crazy" and "Symptom of the Universe" I will not add them back on to the page. Though, rest assured, when I have these sources I will add the songs back on the page. If the NWoBHM, which predates thrash gets a nod, then thier is no reason why those songs shouldn't(I also hope to give Budgie, a nod on the page, but I have no source for them yet.) And as for my edit warning, well can I just say that I'm new here and don't intend to stay here very long. Rockgenre 04:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockgenre (talk • contribs)
Hi Rockenre - many thanks for that. When searching for things like precursors to thrash metal, you might be better served by simply reading, rather than searching for cites for these two songs. You will, I expect, find that there are many, many different opinions on this, which is why I still think citing those sources the bands themselves played / credit as influences is the best way to go. You don't seem to have expressed an opinion on that suggestion - are you dismissing the idea completely?
As you've probably noticed from elsewhere in this discussion page, my main problem with the Queen song is that it was first added to the Thrash Metal page by someone who used a personal website for a cite. It was on the page long enough for it to be copied by pages that effectively mirror Wikipedia content, and I can't help but wonder if that is largely the reason why it gets a nod in the article you cited.
Symptom of the Universe - the problem is that you'd be more likely to make a case that the entirety of the Sabbath catalog influenced NWoBHM, which led to thrash. At that point, one has to ask, how far back do you bother going? If you track influences back far enough, we could probably include people back to the origins of rock in its African American roots. If you're wondering why NWoBHM gets a nod, it's because that was the style of music many thrash metal bands started off playing / covering, as you can find in the early demos of bands like Metal Church, and as cited by those bands as influences.
So in short, I don't mind cites, and it's great to see people interested in this article, but a bit of perspective is needed - I promise I'm not arguing these points casually, as I've done my best to read up on these things over the last little while. There's a real lack of RS documentation on Thrash Metal, but that doesn't mean we have to blindly accept everything thrown out by a random guy on a website. Where possible, discussion on this page is useful. And finally, bear in mind that consensus is needed when objections are raised - it's nothing personal, I promise, though I appreciate that it can feel pretty personal when someone takes out something you've added into an article. Random name (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how the mere fact that some bands we now regard as thrash metal bands—popular as they may be—have covered songs from earlier genres, proves that those songs or genres are thrash metal influences. It's an illogical conclusion. Even if one band in particular admits to have been influenced by some earlier bands, that doesn't mean the genre itself (thus the whole of thrash metal bands) is influenced by those bands, especially when you consider that musicians themselves can't be certain what their own music is influenced by. There's only one accurate way of defining influences, and that's by analyzing the stylistic similarities in the music itself. Beyond that, citing any kind of influences is contentious, because there's never enough evidence to support it. Remnant76 (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Budgie

This band was noted as being, "among the heaviest metal of its day"[1]. Certainly they can be described as precursor to thrash metal. May I mention them under origins? Rockgenre (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC) I know what I just did is about to be removed(as it was on the extreme metal page), but I don't see why it should because the source I used was on the page for "1960s in heavy metal music". Rockgenre (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Crocker 1993, p. 106 "Still recording into the eighties, Budgie was among the heaviest metal of its day."

Hi Rockgenre, the problem with the listing of Budgie is that while they're clearly influential to metal, making a direct link to thrash once again leaves us with the question of how far back to go. If NWoBHM led to thrash, and Budgie led (tenuously) to NWoBHM, then who led to Budgie, and do we have to include them as well? We'd need to include people like Hendrix for getting the use of distortion going, perhaps some rock artists from the fifties, and so on. No article exists in a vacuum - when we list NWoBHM, people who want to know where that came from can look on the NWoBHM page. That said, the NWoBHM people might not want the link either - you've got a cite listing them as heavy for their time, not a cite that actually says they were influential on that particular genre. Hope that helps. Random name (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

But Metallica do site them as an influence and I know that Anvil were fans of In for the Kill! I have no source right now(my internet one was removed) for them being the precursor to the NWoBHM(though I know Iron Maiden covered them and I know Diamond Head's song "Am I Evil" is a rip off of the last 30 seconds of thier song "Hot as a Docker's Armpit"). All I know is that they have been called the heaviest metal of thier time. Since they were they can definately be seen as forerunners of extreme metal and certainly thrash. Rockgenre (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to believe that they were the heaviest band of their time, but that doesn't necessarily lead to them being an immediate precursor to thrash metal - if you can find a cite for Metallica saying they're an influence that would be handy, but again, Metallica may list many influences, as might Slayer, Anthrax, and Megadeth. Do we want to list them all? Random name (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I got something here from Blabbermouth that's says they were a seminal influence on the NWoBHM http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/Blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?Mode=Archive&Date=12/3/2008&PageNum=3 and that Sweet Savage covered them. Is this a reliable source? If so I'll add them to the NWoBHM page and I won't keep carrying on about them being precursors of thrash metal. Rockgenre (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that's reliable or not - don't know much about it, might be inclined to say yes. Saying Budgie are an influence on NWoBHM strikes me as non-controversial, but I have to admit I don't edit that page - hopefully the people there will agree! Random name (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It's essentially irrelevant. They may have been an influence on NWoBHM, but so was Hendrix, Elvis, many many prog bands, classical music, even things that were a negative influence on the genre. Without a direct cite from a reliable source saying that Budgie were a direct influence on thrash, they should not be included. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If you read Dave Mustaines autobiography "Mustaine" he says that one of the main reasons he answered the ad for lead guitarist in Metallica was because they listed Budgie as one of their influences, and he never really met anyone that was really in Budgie, so he answered the ad. This could mean that without Budgie the Original Metallica lineup would have never occured and Metallica may have never created any of their music and the genre would be different, therefore Budgie is definitly not just a Metallica influence, but a influence on dave mustaine, so neither Megadeth Or Metllica would be the same without them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.162.1 (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Anvil

I'm curious, why are Anvil under origins listed as a speed metal band? The real life Spinal Tap, are arguably the first thrash metal band(Motorhead, albeit influencial to thrash were always more speed metal than thrash and Venom were by the standard of thier time, black metal). I believe Tom Araya called them thrash in thier film(if the movie is still on youtube I can post it for proof.) Rockgenre (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Anvil were a spped metal/power metal band and a great influence on many thrash bands. But they've never playered thrash metal during their entire career so there would be no point in trying to claim it here. 142.167.163.133 (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Anvil, power metal? Doubt it. By today's standard they are speed metal, but at thier time they were very heavy. And I did check youtube Tom Araya did call them thrash(unfortunately there is some rather unpleasant nudity in the scene which I don't believe you would want to see). Rockgenre (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Robert Trujillo

In the section that states that some bassists actually use their fingerrs instead of a pick, you also should have Robert Trujillo alongside Cliff Burton. Rob and Cliff both dont use picks and Jason Did use a pick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthraul (talk • contribs) 15:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


Origins

Yeah. I saw an issue in origins, and I'd like to ask about it. Why does it imply that Judas Priest was part of the NWOBHM? And what does it mean by 'early work'? Were Rocka Rolla and Sad Wings of Destiny instrumental to the creation of thrash? I'm going to remove Priest's name from the NWOBHM paragraph to avoid further confusion. Any feedback is invited. (Albert Mond (talk) 09:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Though predating it at first, Judas Priest eventually did become a part of the NWoBHM. I have a book called 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die which clearly mentions this on page 460: "Though originating in 1973, Priest slotted into the new wave of British heavy metal, alongside Iron Maiden and Def Leppard." Rockgenre (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily mean they were a NWOBHM band. In fact I saw this argument over on the Judas Priest article and consensus was that JP was not a NWOBHM band. They predated the movement. To be considered a part of the NWOBHM bands had to release their first album in a very specific set of years. Certainly JP infl. the NOWBHM and played alongside many NWOBHM bands, but to say they were part of that movement goes too far. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 03:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Musical traits

The Musical traits section currently (after my undo) says:

"Thrash metal generally features fast tempos, low-registers, complex guitar riffs, high-register guitar solos, double bass drumming, and aggressive vocals."

Now here's a question - does anyone have a cite for what thrash actually is? I think we generally understand it, but clearly from the recent edit to the page, some of it might be up for debate.

With regards to the particular change that was made, it's interesting - it was an OR change, but my defense of the existing wording is, after I think about it, OR as well. I think we need some sort of cite for this bit - I'll see if I can actually find anything. Random name (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Lest we forget

Yeah, the "Big Four", blah blah blah. Southern California hardcore punk, I believe is a forgotten link. Bands like Dr.Know, Ill Repute, R.K.L. and the like are super important to the genre. D.R.I. massive influence. Social Distortions "Mommy's Little Monster" is a brilliant example. Pantera was totally glam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahkwi (talk • contribs) 02:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Warheads

The section

Altough some experts mention Warheads (1979-1981) as a proto-trash band.[1]

was removed[14] with a comment "everything I'm removing is OR apart from the warheads thing - seems like one source, didn't even see the band name warheads on the page". The source is http://www.alltomstockholm.se/klubbkonsert/article640847.aos and it is found towards the bottom of the page. The claim is made by Peter Jandreus who wrote "The encyclopedia of Swedish punk 1977-1987". He may ofcourse be biased. There certainly is metal in it.[15] // Liftarn (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, since no one has objected and it looks like it was removed by misstake I restored it with slightly changed wording. // Liftarn (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your entry says "some experts" but you seem to have one. Given that the band in question is virtually unknown, having had zero released albums, I'd say Warheads may not even meet the requirements for noteworthiness on their own page, never mind here. What's the reason for putting a lot of stock in this one opinion? Can someone actually trace thrash bands back to the Warheads? Random name (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I only found one source so I rephrased it. "virtually unknown" is your own view. They have been re-released again and again and continue to be popular. // Liftarn (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
To put it more politely, they are not well known - your main article on them has one cite, and it's the same one used here. The band themselves released one EP and were on a few compilations. I really struggle to call them noteworthy in the history of thrash metal. Perhaps you have some cites indicating some (even one) thrash metal band consider them an influence? Random name (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Hold on, I've finally taken your cite (I'm now using that term loosely) though Google translate, and the mention you want to use consist of the sentence "Thrash metal Metallica before, and not one (obscenity removed) has a clue about this fact." This is not what I'd consider to be a useful cite - do you have something a bit better? If they've been released a number of times and are popular, there must be a review somewhere that could be used. A documentary entry? Random name (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
They may not be well known by you. AS can guess finding online sources is difficult since you get a lot of false positives (especially since there is also a UK punk band with the same name) and they were active long before internet became popular. // Liftarn (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't care if either I or you knows a lot about a band - what it cares about is the coverage of a band by reliable sources. As such, it doesn't matter that I don't know a lot about them, and it doesn't matter that you apparently know quite a bit. Your cite amounts to a single quip at the end of an article; the fact that it is hard to find sources does not justify putting a rather substantial weight on a one-sentence mention at the end of an article. What about the author of the article - has he mentioned / discussed the band elsewhere? Any bands that cite them as an influence? Random name (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Good that your ignorance of a subject should not be taken as the subject is without merit. The quote is not from the author of the article but from Peter Jandreus who wrote "The encyclopedia of Swedish punk 1977-1987" (ISBN 9197271233). // Liftarn (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Great stuff - if they're mentioned in the book, add the book instead of the article. Also, feel free to add cites for bands who list them as an influence. In terms of the bands and the matter of whether a subject is of merit, it has nothing to do with merit and everything to do with notability, as per WP:GNG. You might want to peruse that while considering the lack of coverage of this band by reliable sources (or any sources). 77.96.88.80 (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a Hardcore Punk Genre

It may take some minor (if barely noticeable) hardcore punk influences, but that doesn't mean it should be listed alongside other subgenres underneath the Hardcore Punk header. People think of Thrash bands as being heavy metal first and foremost. Theburning25 (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm looking for some cites on the inclusion of hardcore punk in stylistic origins. Anyone have something? 82.44.14.26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC).
The Metal FAQ from anus.com cites Discharge as a precursor and influence, maybe this could be a starting point. The article for the band has a reference from Celtic Frost's Tom G. Warrior saying they were metal (J. Bennett, "Procreation of the Wicked", Precious Metal: Decibel Presents the Stories Behind 25 Extreme Metal Masterpieces, Albert Mudrian, ed., Da Capo Press, p. 34-35.) And they were extensively covered by trash bands. But I agree, it's pretty thin. zubrowka74 17:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Cool, though there are a few things in that FAQ which lead me to consider it an unreliable source. Firstly, bands like Metallica are only listed in speed metal, and secondly the thrash section definitely seems out of kilter - it only seems to talk about punk bands and some crossover bands who were really only crossover well after thrash had started. 82.44.14.26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC).
Some people call DRI speed metal and the big four thrash, some people classify them the other way around. I've seen both really, thrash as the mainstream genre à la Metallica and thrash as DRI and Nuclear assault with very short, punkish songs. People use the term interchangeably and I'm pretty sure it could be sourced both ways. I think it's not a big deal if hardcore punk gets mentioned or not. zubrowka74 22:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Mustaine's "snarl"

How is Mustaine's voice a snarl? I highly recommend this be edited out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.222.59 (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In dave mustaines autobiography he calls his voice a snarl, mostly because of the way his face looks when hes doing it99.173.22.96 (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Mike

it's not black and white

Too often humans try to make things black and white and this form of music is a perfect example. Metallica was never a total thrash band i.e. not one of their albums is full on thrash (fade to black, escape, leper messiah), they had elements of it to be sure but were essentially the most influential and popular. They also had arguably the best name. Venom had slow plodding songs (warhead) ala Black Sabbath but were not a full on 'thrash band' either. Motorhead is not metal never was never will be. Speed fueled biker rockers. The point I'm making is no one band is 'responsible' for what essentially was a response to the post industrial world in which the members of all the practitioners were apart of. A way to express oneself against the big machine instead of doing something suicidal. It was the spirit of its age and to try to pinpoint one band is ridiculous and pointless. Many bands created and refined the sound. It evolved out of many influences (not exclusively musical). I see this when people try to explain any genre. What is Heavy Metal? Was Black Sabbath all metal all the time? No. Judas Priest? Maybe. But it doesn't matter who was the first because no one human is responsible for reflecting via artistic means the spirit of ones age. Chomperface (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This article

It's horribly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.42.87 (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say "well then, you should work on it," but having tried that, I can confirm it's a pointless exercise. This article will be forever stuck in the land of "I insist on adding the details of my favorite album by my favorite band, and also they should be listed first in any listing of bands." 82.44.14.26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC).

Extreme metal ?

I never viewed Thrash metal as "extreme" but it seems the article about it has a source claiming it is one of the three main sub-genres of this group. Given this was removed with Gunmetal Angel's last revert, should it be put back ? zubrowka74 17:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oregon and Virginia are part of New England?

"Thrash is also emerging in popularity in the New England area,[citation needed] thanks to Municipal Waste (from Richmond, Virginia) and Toxic Holocaust (from Portland, Oregon) who appeal to the area's predominant punk rock and hardcore culture."

I say nay, nay! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.1.245.147 (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ AoS: "Punken lever", quote "Thrash metal before Metallica".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thrash_metal/Archive_1&oldid=1184262131"