Name some bands who have been around for more than a decade and you like their new material better.

I would say Threshold. Their early stuff is good, but I think they've improved as the years have gone by and March Of Progress is one of their best.

MetallicSeminarian wrote:

krokus wrote:

DEATH ANGEL and TESTAMENT new albums are better than a lot of the older ones. Also OVERKILL last two albums are amazing.

I like some of the new stuff by both Testament (Dark Roots of the Earth) and Overkill (Ironbound), but I just can't put them on the level of stuff like Practice What You Preach and The Years of Decay.

They are really good though. Both bands continue to put out stuff worthy of their legacy and worth picking up, for sure. Even if they don't quite equal their old stuff, at least they're still around kicking all kinds of booty.   

Yes, they are releasing great stuff. THE ELECTRIC AGE is even better than IRONBOUND in my opinion. I could not believe it when i bought it because IRONBOUND is such a great album.
About the last TESTAMENT album, its maybe my fave TESTAMENT album. All songs are great, the singer sings better than before, the sound of the record is just amazing etc...also the new DEATH ANGEL is amazing. Best album since reunion.

brokentulsa wrote:

Rush
.

Some of the newer material from Rush is quite good, but better than the classics?!     

That would be King's X for me. I think their last 3 or 4 albums are great.I don't dislike the older stuff, just don't listen to it as much anymore.

I am brand new to this site, had to get in on all these great topics. Even though I am about the same age as a lot of you guys it looks like I am not as adapt at technology as you are. Might take me awhile to get the hang of it. 

  Anyway, I agree with several that have already been mentioned, Motorhead, Iron Maiden, Megadeth, Overkill and Saxon, but their in one I have not seen mentioned, and that is Europe. 

  Their first two albums are classic metal, then came the Final Countdown era, which broke the bank, But I think the last three reunion albums are all excellent, specifically the last one Bag of Bones.

Welcome to the board!   

Thanks, been reading on here for awhile, thought it was time I started giving my 2 cents.

Europe's self-titled debut is a pretty damn good album though. Are you sure you like the new ones better?

I thought Bag of Bones was a great album.

I agree the first two Europe albums are classics, but I really  like the last three better. Not a fan of the Final Countdown or the one after that.

Overkill:

Most would disagree, but albums like "Feel the Fire" bore me into oblivion. "The Years of Decay" was amazing, but none of them hold a flame to the new (and strangely revitalized) high-octane, modern Overkill releases like "Ironbound" and "The Electric Age." They're really consistent about putting out material too, we don't have to wait a decade for something new, unlike Testament/Metallica/Exodus.

Death Angel:

Well of course "The Ultra-Violence" was a classic, not really accessible, but those riffs and banshee shrieks can't be beat. However, their second output "Frolic in the Park" was worse than Lupus. Who would have thought an album called "Frolic in the Park" would turn out to be a stinker, right? "Act III" was all cute and radio friendly, but I enjoyed it for the most part. The new Death Angel is so much more angrier, with vocals that just ooze discontent, and the solos are so damn sexy. (Dethroned, The Dream Calls for Blood, to name a few)

Exodus:

While "Bonded by Blood" is one of the first classic debuts I actually enjoy, the two that followed were straight-up drink coasters. As blasphemous as it is, I would take any of the newer albums any day, especially "Tempo of the Damned"- one of the finest releases in modern thrash metal. I also thoroughly enjoy the Rob Dukes material, but others would choose to sit and bitch about the vocals instead of taking notice of the brilliant riffs and solos laid out by Gary Holt and Lee Altus.

DakotaRogers wrote:

However, their second output "Frolic in the Park" was worse than cancer. Who would have thought an album called "Frolic in the Park" would turn out to be a stinker, right?

  

corplhicks wrote:

DakotaRogers wrote:

However, their second output "Frolic in the Park" was worse than cancer. Who would have thought an album called "Frolic in the Park" would turn out to be a stinker, right?

  

  

Almost forgot. Deep Purple, the last four with Steve Morse are better that anything they did in the 70's. In fact my favorite album by them is Purpendicular.

eh, Death Angel......same league as Testament for me. The first ones are the best, yeah, but.... when it comes to thrash....there's still so much better you can do..

DakotaRogers wrote:

However, their second output "Frolic in the Park" was worse than cancer. Who would have thought an album called "Frolic in the Park" would turn out to be a stinker, right? "

I couldn't disagree with you more. I just think it's too sophisticated a metal album for many a listener's ears. It's an intelligent album which breaks away from some formulaic rule of thrash, so then it unfortunately is labeled as their worst record or how you compared it. Bad analogy also; you must have never had anyone close to you die from cancer, otherwise I'm guessing you wouldn't be so cavalier when comparing the two.

Frolic Through The Park is an album I can still listen to occasionally whereas most straight-ahead thrash releases from the 80s I got bored with and abandoned a couple decades ago.  I heard a few songs from the new album and thought "too bad it doesn't sound like Frolic or Act III".    

Quote :

"The new Death Angel is so much more angrier, with vocals that just ooze discontent, and the solos are so damn sexy"

Oh yeah, when I think sexy... heavy metal guitar solos are always the first thing that pops to mind.   

metalinmyveins wrote:

I couldn't disagree with you more. I just think it's too sophisticated a metal album for many a listener's ears. It's an intelligent album which breaks away from some formulaic rule of thrash, so then it unfortunately is labeled as their worst record or how you compared it. Bad analogy also; you must have never had anyone close to you die from cancer, otherwise I'm guessing you wouldn't be so cavalier when comparing the two.

Hey man, you can like what you like. I just didn't enjoy it at all, the songwriting was awful, the lyrics were mediocre (even for that time), and the riffs felt as if they were copy and pasted together. As for the whole "sophisticated" thing, I mostly listen to the progressive/technical spectrum of thrash, so I'm more than accustomed to strange/out-there songwriting and the bizarre tempo changes, etc. But "Frolic" was just sloppy.

And maybe I have had someone close die that way, maybe that's my strange way of dealing with it.

S.D. wrote:

Oh yeah, when I think sexy... heavy metal guitar solos are always the first thing that pops to mind.   

Definitely. Nothing makes my pickle stiffer than the guitar stylings of Rob Cavestany.  

A lot of the bands listed I can agree with are just as good as the classics.Overkill,Testament,Death Angel,Kreator etc.Not better but just as good.I like newer Hirax better.Like Ult said,I think New Age of Terror is their best.Death would be another good example.Sounds of Perserverance is their best work,IMO.Ill also throw in Shadows Fall.I think they've really evolved over the years into a great metal band.

Opeth
Anathema
Riverside

As much of a fan as I am of Exodus (including the stuff most people hate) I do have to say I agree with liking the newer stuff better. I'm certainly more likely to go for those than the older ones these days.

Tankard has always improved IMO..STAY THIRSTY!

Orion Crystal Ice wrote:

Tankard has always improved IMO..STAY THIRSTY!

I need some Tankard. Where should I start?