posted August 27, 2003 16:56
So this is something which has been bothering me since the late eighties (Does this mean that I have too much time on my hands!?!) - that whole heavy metal hardcore punk crossover business. I must admit right now that I never was a big thrash fan. Sure there are exceptions but in the main I view Thrash as being a bastardization of metal. Does this make me a purist? I suppose however that it was enevitable for the crossover to happen what with one group of people going so far left and the other group going so far right that eventually they would converge headon on the other side of the spectrum! I agree with Bruce Dickenson when he said that he couldn't relate with thrash. So what is youse peoples' opinions about this epic controversy? Inquiring minds want to know!
| IP: Logged
Motordeth
VoivodFan
Member # 153
posted August 27, 2003 19:29
Thrash is Metal, huh!
| IP: Logged
Layla's Dad
VoivodFan
Member # 48
posted August 27, 2003 20:41
Indio, I would say you are a purist of metal. Thrash is an offspring of metal and punk, Motorhead and Venom would be pioneers of course. The funny thing is that metal is an offspring of rock n roll, which is an offspring of Mississippi Delta blues. So while you are indeed a purist of vintage metal, you have chosen another "bastardization" to be a purist of.
| IP: Logged
El Indio
VoivodFan
Member # 18
posted August 28, 2003 03:40
Yes, I suppose that you are right. In fact no sooner had I originally posted the first message than it dawned on me that I was probably going to provoke someone into making a reply such as yours. I guess that I shouldn't try to impose these parameters on something which is quite dynamic in nature. As far as punk goes, I like alot of it. For me it is just your basic hard rock riffs which is alright by me. Motorhead has to be one of my all time favorite bands! I never really viewed them before as a progenitor of thrash! Strange... Unless I just misinterpreted what you have said. I guess one of my beefs was that here I was just getting into metal when, jesus, all these bands came along and sort of popularized a new form of music - which caused a whole pile of bands to jump on the bandwagon - when I believed that there was still alot of potential with metal as it was before this change happened. Then again I can understand where or why alot of this thrash happened. It was sort of a new manifestation of punk albiet with more heavy metal type riffs. To punk metal also implies a kind of urbanization and perhaps politicization of metal. I think I'm starting to go off on one of my tangents again. I guess it is a testament of how popular metal per se became to have these different groups of people come along and sort of adapt parts of it and blend it in with their own favorite types of music. And vice versa I guess. What are you talking about Indio? I can't think straight when I am straight dammit! I need some hootch action to loosen up my mind!
| IP: Logged
Emlyn K Helicopter
VoivodFan
Member # 44
posted August 28, 2003 03:48
Try playing your old school records at 45rpm. This is how I weaned myself onto the quicker, more urgent vibes of bands from the Bay Area.
I think my neck muscles must be thicker and stronger than they were 15 years ago - I can no longer mosh in time to the fast mid-section of 'I Am The Law'. Also, I lose my balance.
posted August 27, 2003 16:56
I agree with Bruce Dickenson when he said that he couldn't relate with thrash. So what is youse peoples' opinions about this epic controversy? Inquiring minds want to know! 
posted August 27, 2003 19:29
