Plenty of bands are still looking to push the extremes to the maximum, but now that's regarded as pointless and immature by many people.

I would argue that it's probably not a good thing if bands build upon poor foundations. At the very least, bands contribute more of value by exploring established genres. I think you construe the concept of musical redundancy too broadly; as far as I'm concerned, if a band writes original compositions and riffs, it is therefore not redundant. It doesn't need to have any new techniques or atmosphere in its music for those compositions to be worthwhile. While failed musical experiments may, from a certain perspective, be more interesting than new compositions in an established style, the latter are infinitely more 'listenable' or enjoyable.


First, I never thought I'd see the day that a metalhead had a problem with 'thrash for thrash's sake.' Truly, we live in dark times. Anyway, I would argue that you are, once again, wrongly conceiving of the dilemma. I'll grant that if two albums are perfectly equal in quality, then the more original should be preferred. However, it's very rare that this is the case. Generally, I'd argue that the most well-executed albums in a particular style are not the first in that style. Thus, 'retro' albums can occasionally be among the best in that style. (For example, I think Diamond Plate's demo, for example, is likely one of the best thrash metal demos ever.) I think that categorically favoring progression and innovation over established styles discourages styles from reaching their maximum potential.

Note: I am not arguing that the thrash revival has produced the best thrash albums overall; I'm just arguing that it's unreasonable to criticize the revival solely on the basis that it is a 'retro' movement.

What does a retro thrash contribute? I don't see it. Look, if you're satisfied with records that are "listenable" and "enjoyable" then great. I like my metal challenging, I like my metal to be ambitious. There was enough great thrash made in the 1980s to last me a lifetime. I don't see the need for more of the exact same thing.

And it's one thing if bands are "exploring established genres" at the frontiers. What is retro thrash exploring? What new lands has it discovered? Obscura was exploring what death metal can do, retro thrash is doing the opposite: instead of exploring they're taking the safest, most established paths.

Are you therefore suggesting that to you the hordes of old school DM acts (Tribulation, Deathevokation, Nocturnal Graves, Cemetery Urn, Repugnant, Mortem etc.) and countless old school thrash acts are inferior, no matter how good is the music they make, to things which try to explore diffrent areas (see the mentioned Opeth example) and quality does not come into it?

I do not know why Enforcer - a band from Sweden who basicly play back-to-the-old school heavy/speed metal like in the 80's and do it in masterful fashion with tunes as good as the masters of old is worse than a band who tries to explore something?

I don't think there is any genre of music that is more progressive and forward moving than metal right at this time.Sure the retro thing will always be around but there are more bands mixing and matching different genres to come up with some totally cool sounds and monster conglomerations of extreme metal .

I don't know where you got that from, the only message I can see in his post is that the two are both important. An interesting musical experiment that falls flat on its face is redeemed by trying something different, and an excellent but predictable retro album is demeaned by its inability to create something new. I don't think that he's implying that every band has to get in touch with their inner Mike Patton and change direction on a whim, just that bands should strive for originality.

It is possible I misread that post - that kind of message came through to me but it is entirely possible I misread it. If I did sorry - sleep deprivation causes problems sometimes.

I like my metal to not suck, and that's the first thing I take into consideration. I still say it doesn't have to be completely new and groundbreaking to be good, and certainly I've heard a lot of avante garde shite that made me want to burn everything released in recent years and just go back to listening to my old Venom records. It's not just about being "enjoyable," things can be good and meaningful to the listener regardless of the genre and how many bands have made albums in that genre before. A record can be challenging to listen to based on a number of factors, not just if it's a yet-unheard-of subsubsubgenre.


This. Likewise, I can't think of ANY "retro thrash" that I actually liked, but it's the idea of judging it based just on BEING retrothrash that irks me. It should be the quality of the music.

Why condemn throwback bands that are intended for homage and not to be remembered for generations to come when bands that are supposedly at the forefront of the newest metal sound are painting the genre into the corner anyway? Brutal death and black metal are going toe to toe for the genre with the least breathing room imo.

* Progress for its own sake, same as originality for its own sake are harmful.

If one concentrates on being different at any expense and by all means, usually some things are neglected. Such things typically are : artistic value and the quality of material. This results in a tasteless and bland output. The masses, who are typically devoid of any taste in art will praise it and deem it the major break through. Such moods are dominant not only in metal, rock, music but in art as a whole.


Now we arrive to the next point - the boundaries, the limits of a certain form of art. Are there any ? Yes there, but these boundaries are vague, due to the nature of art, yet still they exist. Of course there is always some borderline material in existence, as there are the shades of gray between black and white.

* Progress within certain boundaries is much harder to achieve, than progress by expanding the boundaries. When applied to metal this statement takes the following form : It is harder to progress within the boundaries of metal, than to progress by incorporating external elements.

Thrash Metal. The genre is a product of its time. That time is gone, so are the factors that shaped Thrash Metal. Current Thrash Metal will inevitably lack these.

Thrash Metal is depleted and it is impossible to expand it without incorporating foreign elements. If one does so, the output will no longer be Thrash Metal. This is the easy and the wrong way at the same time.

There exists the hard way - certain progress within the boundaries of the genre. Some of the people who posted in this thread referred to it as refinement ; I agree with them. Refinement, does not mean cloning as some people here stated. In this case it implies careful analysis of the existing material with the purpose of finding key aspects, so that to improve them, rework them, while still retaining the essence. Refinement is to be done carefully, because if overdone it might result in abandoning the boundaries of the genre and the loss of its essence.

The so-called Retro Thrash bands in most cases do not even try to make a deep and careful analysis of the original material. They take the most obvious, superficial features exaggerate them and pose as the saviors of the genre. Some bands intentionally parody others and some intentionally copy others. In most cases "retro" bands add some elements form the other genres like Death and Black Metal, thus moving away from the original concept. Usually the result of such approach is artistically worthless. Despite this, "retro" bands function well as an opposition to the modern mainstream metal which is even further removed form its original concept. It does not kill metal - in its original form it is dead and depleted.

Conclusion.

A well executed refinement is artistically worth more than an overambitious attempt at reinventing the genre. Reinventing in this case without abandoning the boundaries is impossible as I said above.

Theres classic/80's Slayer, and then there is modern Slayer. Diabolus In Musica was Slayer's first modern album.

I mentioned Amon Amarth and Motorhead because both bands are well known and both haven't really tried to change that much. Plus, both bands released albums last year that got put in every major music magazine's "best of 2008" list.

There's one extremely stagnant genre that hasn't really been mentioned here. Prog metal in the "Hey guys, let's sound exactly like Images & Words!" mold isn't going to have a revival anytime soon, because it hasn't gone away.

It's amazing, the lengths that you have to go to find original prog metal these days. Most of the good, original bands - Pain Of Salvation, Vanden Plas, Symphony X, Shadow Gallery, Threshold - are well known, and most of the faceless hordes of lesser-known bands are only interested in sounding like DT.

Ironic that a genre called progressive metal should have so little progression in it.

That's pretty much what I've thought for a while now; good post. Prog is pretty enervated, and even the bands that sound good aren't so much Prog as simply complex Heavy Metal.

This reminded me of something that I've been wondering. Why aren't there any Rust in Peace worship bands?

You know what, forget I asked that question. Let's just pray there are no RiP worship bands.

Allow me to clarify one thing: I never said that I'm 'satisfied' with listenable and enjoyable metal. I just don't think that it should be criticized for being what it is. My favorite bands tend to be huge innovators; however, there are plenty of people with musical taste that I respect who just like straight-forward, well-played thrash.

Besides, I don't think that the thrash revival is 'more of the exact same,' which is exactly what I've been trying to argue. Toxic Holocaust, Municipal Waste, Warbringer, etc. really don't sound so similar to so many 80s thrash bands. Sure, there exist some bands who rip off old riffs, but that's bad regardless of the context being 'retro' or not. Saying that thrash revival bands are offering more of the same seems to me to be based on a superficial appraisal of the bands in question.

There's some exceptions, listen to Scale the Summit, it's instrumental and very organic sounding, made by youngsters.

Slayers 80's sound was gone a little before DIM came along don't you think?

The weird thing for me is that to Noktorn and like-minded people on this subject, is that there seems to be no middle-ground for them. It seems to be:

Forward thinking bands= good.
Derivative, regressive bands= bad.

Can't something be derivative yet enjoyable if not amazing? I don't know, I could be responding to arguments that were never made, but that's sort of the feeling I'm getting from all this.

After reading his second post I get the idea he thinks he is going to save metal (and lead it forward into new territory) with his new band while everyone else is killing it (non progressive). Just some grandstanding effort to feel important.


About the 'retro' bands, I don't really see the harm in it but I don't listen to any of the mentioned bands. I don't listen to any retro thrash, but if I were listening to the radio and heard a thrash song that was kicking arse, and I didn't recognise the song, and I found out after it played that it was a new thrash band, I'd still think it killed.

Of course, but the huge point most people are ignoring is not just that retro thrash is a dumb idea but that nearly all retro thrash bands are fucking terrible.

Interesting that the whole discussion has been about retro thrash, when the OP also mentioned retro death.

That would be a tough battle to fight, seeing as 1) virtually all new-oldschool death metal bands adamantly deny being 'retro' and 2) 99% of the people on this board like (/are fanatically devoted to) them anyway

I think in most cases it's just as bad, but it's not nearly as high profile. Although a lot of retro death metal sucks it at least avoids the high-fiving bro aspect of bands like Municipal Waste which makes them get more ire from me.

You've got to take Municipal Waste with a grain of salt.

Oh okay. Well that answers my second question as well, that being people are so oddly exclusive as to what can and can't be imitated. Exodus, fuck no. Hellhammer, hell yeah, I love Warhammer. But if it's actually about the quality of the bands and not the idea in general than okay.

I still see an odd disparity in your hatred of retro-thrash and your liking of Warbringer.

Is not wanting my thrash to act as gay as fucking possible really such an enormous demand?

I just think you need to chill out a bit. Have a glass of warm milk and a nap; it'll do you a world of good.

The one thing that I find weird is that many people seem to forget that much of Thrash was like that to begin with. There really has always been quite a bit of silliness in the genre, that as well as a strong sense of comradery (I guess bro mentality). These aren't new developments.

And bad thrash isn't a new development, either.

Thrash "metal" was rather silly in the 1980's, and it's just insanely ridiculous nowadays.

Look at it this way: heavy metal basically started as a separate genre in the late 70s early 80s with NWOBHM (before then it was a handful of bands mucking around with a heavier sound), and by the early 80s we had thrash, by the late 80s death metal was fairly solidified, by the early 90s we had the 2nd wave of black metal, and since then pretty much nothing nearly that big. It took only about 15 years for metal to go from infancy to being comprised of many genres, and it's been about 15 years since last we saw any new ones. I'm not claiming metal is "dead" or anything, it's just that our genre has, essentially, grown up. Once a person reaches their 20s, they cease to change rapidly and dramatically; metal's just basically settled down, its character developed, and now it will be more of a gradual change and refinement of existing traits.

I agree with Noktorn that slavish worship of old bands is a bad idea, but that in no way means that older styles should be considered "dead", or that everyone must strive for innovation at every turn; Noktorn also seems to have this silly notion that newer is always better, when many times that's clearly far from the case.

An interesting aside: there's a constant cold war between the prog metallers and the oldies on progarchives, with the former usually labelling the latter close minded and the latter saying the former don't get "it", whatever. This piqued me to the point of looking up the prog metal top 100 to see if there was indeed something I missed that these guys were so thrilled off. And I found it is indeed mostly albums by the bands you - PriestofSadWings - mentioned, there doesn't seem to be anything like discovering underrated gems in prog metal. The ones which are not rated highly don't really deserve better most of the time. Exceptions like Psychotic Waltz exist, but they are adored on PA, so even they don't count. Perhaps a flawed notion that prog metal must distance itself from 80s metal as much as possible because it's "old and obsolete" is responsible for the genre becoming so dull except in its more extreme faces.

Maybe nobody has enough coke to do that!

I honestly don't understand the categorical hatred of retro-thrash bands. I mean, aren't these the same people who complained when nu-metal was being hailed as the "new progression of metal," and wailed for a return of the "good old days?"

And now the "good old days" have returned as much as you could hope for, and you're complaining about a lack of innovation. Some people are just never satisfied, I guess.

Yes, there are a lot of bad retro-thrash bands out there. But as some of you might recall, there were also a lot of bad thrash bands back in the 80s as well. I'm also pretty sure that nostalgia is giving some of you fonder memories of those 80s bands, regardless of their quality. And the same goes for death metal as well.

But just as there were a few REALLY good ones back then, so are there a few really good ones now. And honestly, would you rather see a retro-thrash movement... or a return to the groove/nu metal of the 90s? Not all innovation is good innovation, but by returning to the "good times," we can increase our chances of getting the innovation right this time around.

I think bands should not be forming with only the intent of playing _____ Metal in mind. Then you're serving a name before the music, and there's only so far you can go within established territories before you become something else. When I see local bands at the Gilman playing the same thrash formula rehashed for the 395737th time, I can infer that they made a band solely for the purpose of playing that style. The style of music should be a more natural thing, although obviously within the parameters of metal since that is the subject of discussion. Again this is just my thinking, I personally don't consciously strive to follow someone or blaze a new path, I just write.

Actually, I rather agree with this to a degree. Not taking it to an extreme, but especially with the "local band" example.

I'd say that if your musical vision involves something like what someone else has already done, there is nothing wrong with that. It's slavishly aping that style to the point that it is, paraphrasing you, unnatural that there is a problem.

That said, some people are just more creative writers than others. I don't need to bring up examples to prove this point.

What are you talking about?

Exactly, how the fuck was thrash silly in the 80's?

As a sidenote here - I mentioned this on the first page of the thread but it got promptly ignored - I agree with the mentions that the original thrash scene was not all great. Remember the likes of Quick Change? Faith Or Fear? Or other similar masterpieces? Or b-grade thrash like Atrophy?

What I am saying is this: the new thrash scene is a reflection of the old one. And yes I prefer to have a retro thrash scene where some bands are good and lots of them suck to a metalcore scene where all bands suck. Thank you.

I'd rather see a return of the spirit of the good old days instead of bands who are just trying to ape the style of older bands. "Old school" is good, "retro" is usually not. Hell, I like Apokalyptic Raids and Warhammer because those bands are obviously truly passionate about what they do, and they're definitely NOT trying to do anything new; exactly the opposite. It's just that I can't find that same passion in retro bands. It's just a poor imitation of the old style and lacking the same spirit that made Bonded By Blood a legendary album.

Define 'new'; I'm not saying that simply because a band is modern, they're good; far from it. But you can do novel spins on an older style of the genre without really being 'new'. Look at a band like Coffins; their particular style is very oldschool and certainly has large elements taken from various other oldschool death and thrash metal bands, but until they came around, no one really sounded QUITE like them. Not a 'new' style of music, but an interesting one.