Anthrax's Worship Music Update

I don't know Spec, I'm pretty picky about hard drive space, I might have to hear it BEFORE I download it illegally.

Shawn D. wrote:

Thrasher73 wrote:

I have no certain expectations for this.It will just be cool to have some new Anthrax tunes.

"Most Intelligent viewpoint of the thread award".

Alright! I'd Like to Thank everyone who made this all possible:D

Shawn D. wrote:

I don't know Spec, I'm pretty picky about hard drive space, I might have to hear it BEFORE I download it illegally.

It can't be much worse than the Bush albums, and I have those on the hard drive.

Eyesore wrote:

mc666 wrote:

i think those who are praying for a return to pre-Persistence Of Time era thrash are going to be very disappointed. i am pretty much expecting another groove metal album with a couple of faster "thrash" influenced songs. pretty much like We've Come For You All, but with Joey. of course, that's fine by me as i loved those Bush albums.

I feel the same way. I loved the Bush-era stuff.

Make that three of us, I like the Joey Belladonna albums, but I prefer John Bush's voice, an excellent vocalisy

I really dig "Sound Of White Noise" and "Greater of Two Evils". Wasn't that thrilled with others I've sampled thus far.

I'd like the check out a good live recording or DVD at some point, I just never checked to see what's available.

I see the Bush years as hit or miss. I think they have some fine bookend C.D's with "Sound of White Noise" and "We've Come For You All", but both "Stomp 442" and "Volume 8" are weak IMO. I find Stomp 442 to be boring and Vol 8 is just odd.

Thrasher73 wrote:

I have no certain expectations for this.It will just be cool to have some new Anthrax tunes.

I'm with you, bud. I haven't heard a bad Anthrax album yet, thrash, groove, Joey or John. It's all good to my ears.

Shawn D. wrote:

I like the title, if they pick the right cover art, it could be killer.

I'm also curious to hear this one. I like some of the Bush era too (I've always loved his voice), but I think Anthrax was pretty killer on that "Big 4" video, so new material should be interesting to hear.

I'm not looking for Spreading The Disease, it's 25 years later, I'd be happier if they just let themselves evolve and do whatever comes naturally now that Belladonna is back in the fold.

My days of wanting bands to "magically" return to the sound of some album WAY in the past are long gone. I don't want to go back to High School...so I don't expect Anthrax to go back that far either.

Well, I'm close-minded, notoriously so."Spreading" IMO was there finest album,slightly melodic, excellent songs which made a cohesive album.
"Among" had its moments but it wore it's hardcore influences on its sleeve-side two starting with "Indians" was definitely weaker.

"Euophoria" had the Be All, End All a classic song, but the album as a whole is weak.It's a polorizing album, some hate it, some love it.

"Percistance" to me, had WAY too many lyrics, making it a ponderous listening experience also. Just look at that lyric sheet!

I don't want to go back to high school itself-but I loved living in those times from Sept '85 to June '89. I'm very nostalgic for those years and I would have no problem with Anthrax doing a new album with NWOBHM & "Spreading" influences. I detest groove metal, and If a band that I like does a new style than what I'm used to, I'm quick to drop 'em. I didn't like the Bush era at all. I honestly think that these bands should do the style of music that they do best, I'm not interested in half-thrash, groove or funk stylings in my thrash. I understand that they're "musicians" and they have to have a creative outlet, I just wish they would do it as a side-project to get it out of there system. If you do have such an open mind-that's great, as well you should-but the track record of thrash bands "stretching their boundries" results in sub-par music. See Load, I Hear Black, We've Come For You All etc.
Sometimes it does work-I actually like Diablous In Musica and Back(Artillery)- but for the most part it's been a bitter disapointment.

mc666 wrote:

i think those who are praying for a return to pre-Persistence Of Time era thrash are going to be very disappointed. i am pretty much expecting another groove metal album with a couple of faster "thrash" influenced songs. pretty much like We've Come For You All, but with Joey. of course, that's fine by me as i loved those Bush albums.

Persistence is my fave of the Belladonna era, so if it is along those lines, that's fine with me....



Arttie

Anthrax have never really disappointed me. I like the Bush-era albums quite a bit. I love Belladonna and have anxiously awaited it since they announced his return several years ago. The live albums were cool, but I want something new.

troublemagnet wrote:

"Euophoria" had the Be All, End All a classic song, but the album as a whole is weak.It's a polorizing album, some hate it, some love it.

I can see that, I was never crazy about that one either, it was a little too intentionally "GOOFY" for my tastes.

Persistence I liked for the instrumental arrangements, because it's tight as hell, some good songs too.

I bought Armed & Dangerous (EP) and Spreading when they first came out, still love them (especially those live tracks on the EP...METAL THRASHING MAAAAAAD!).

I think it's hard to tell what a band "is" strongest at until they start experimenting. You kind of have to take some risks, fall flat on your face, stand back up and say...well, that didn't quite work...and move on to the next thing. Some bands return to what was comfortable before, others accept the failure or whatever and move on and try something else.

Both ways work, it just depends on the band. AC/DC and Motorhead don't really need to experiment for example.

ultmetal wrote:

Anthrax have never really disappointed me. I like the Bush-era albums quite a bit. I love Belladonna and have anxiously awaited it since they announced his return several years ago. The live albums were cool, but I want something new.

I with you on this ult, but it's starting to feel like these guys have passed up on their opportunity. I loved the live album they did, and it made me think that these guys still had something to offer. But, with all these problems they've had it just feels like we're going to get let down. I hope I'm wrong.

I pretty much agree with troublemagnet's post.

If band's didn't change, the very same people that complain about them changing would complain about them not changing, doing the same, stale thing over and over again. That's why bands evolve! Because if they don't, they're just repeating themselves. That only works for a very small group of bands.

Eyesore wrote:

If band's didn't change, the very same people that complain about them changing would complain about them not changing, doing the same, stale thing over and over again. That's why bands evolve! Because if they don't, they're just repeating themselves. That only works for a very small group of bands.

x2

Shawn D. wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

If band's didn't change, the very same people that complain about them changing would complain about them not changing, doing the same, stale thing over and over again. That's why bands evolve! Because if they don't, they're just repeating themselves. That only works for a very small group of bands.

x2

x3, the only band who can get away with not changing their sound is AC/DC.

manny wrote:

Shawn D. wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

If band's didn't change, the very same people that complain about them changing would complain about them not changing, doing the same, stale thing over and over again. That's why bands evolve! Because if they don't, they're just repeating themselves. That only works for a very small group of bands.

x2

x3, the only band who can get away with not changing their sound is AC/DC.

and Motorhead.

ultmetal wrote:

manny wrote:

Shawn D. wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

If band's didn't change, the very same people that complain about them changing would complain about them not changing, doing the same, stale thing over and over again. That's why bands evolve! Because if they don't, they're just repeating themselves. That only works for a very small group of bands.

x2

x3, the only band who can get away with not changing their sound is AC/DC.

and Motorhead.

and the Ramones.

and Ultimatum.


Wait....oops.

You know why AC/DC doesn't have to change?

Cause they play ROCK N ROLL.

ROCK N ROLL is pretty much a perfect little creation (like Blues) that doesn't really allow you to change the "form", so you have to put all your personality into it to give it life.

Puts all the pressure on the "performance" aspect, since the chord progressions and rhythms are fairly strictly laid out.

If you change it too much, it ceases to be ROCK N ROLL. If you try to "phone in" your performance, it's going to suck, because your performance is the main thing and the audience is never as gullible as you think they are.

But if you have the personality and the ATTITUDE required? You can record 40 albums of essentially the same 10 or so songs and it will never get old.

AC/DC, Motorhead (ask Lemmy in person, he will alway insist he plays ROCK N ROLL, not metal) and THE RAMONES...all have this in common.

Shawn D. wrote:

If you change it too much, it ceases to be ROCK N ROLL.

But couldn't you say the same thing about Thrash?

I don't think so, because there are no set "musical rules" for thrash. Rock N Roll is essentially built off blues chord changes married to early R&B rhythms, both of which are kind of strict in their forms.

Most of the bands originally labled as thrash came in with a variety of approches to chord shapes, scales they used for solos, specific rhythmic drives (compare Anthrax's rhythm section to Slayer sometime, very different base structure).

The reason is they all were influenced by different bands coming in, some coming from the European metal school, some bringing in NY hardcore influences, lots of sources.

For early ROCK N ROLL there is basically the "T-Bone Walker" template that Bill Haley, Chuck Berry, Little Richard and Jerry Lee Lewis picked up on. They all had different "personalities" to their music, but the chords, scales and rhythms are all built from the same blocks.

Hopefully that makes some kind of sense.

I think it fits any genre. They all have rules that can't be broken and stay within the genre.

Rock-n-roll has a lot of variety in it too.

Stuff like the Beatles sounds very different than Little Richard or Chuck Berry, which is also rock-n-roll.

The Beatles don't strictly play ROCK N ROLL, that's why the term "rock" ended up coming around, because the template changed until the term no longer applied. At least that's been my general understanding of it over the years.

The early Beatles albums were pretty much straight rock n roll albums, but by the time they got to Rubber Soul/Revolver era, they were mixing in western classical, modal jazz, indian raga (Norwegian Wood), folk, blues and anything else they could get their hands on and mix together in new combinations.

In metal terms, that's why we came up with 20 million different subgenres to describe "what" a band is. Because there were so many influences pooling in, that one name just wouldn't describe it all.

Thrash is built from the same blocks as METALLICA and SLAYER.