.

.

Dude, we get it. You hate everything. Zzzzzzz.

Painkiller wrote:

I believe this happened sometime in 1988 or 1989, when even Slayer started putting out groove-laden shit. The exchange of speed and aggression for lazy, chugging riffs is what turned many die-hard metalheads away.

The way I see it, metal became this stripped-down, plodding nonsense that was the perfect bridge for hillbillies and Brian Johnson-era AC/DC enthusiasts to jump ship. Pantera is one of the biggest culprits of this macho-tuff-gai era, having played a really horrible version of Exhorder's music.

Generalize much?

Painkiller wrote:

Pantera is one of the biggest culprits of this macho-tuff-gai era, having played a really horrible version of Exhorder's music.

WALK ON HOME BOYYYYYYYYYY 

I would say that that a true die hard metalhead has gone through every genres of hard music and enjoyed them all. He's been interested to hear Nirvana, Korn and even Limp Bizkit, and uses no arbitrary qualifiers to put other bands down.

True die hard metalheads are a rare things to spot, especially on internet discussion boards.


That said, I'm not a true die hard metalhead and I think the best years for thrash metal have been 85-86 and 1990-1992. And even during those years there were tons of bands that didn't have balls to begin with. I'd guess some of my favorites didn't have them. And I'd guess some of your favorites didn't have them either.



EDIT:
by the way, I don't enjoy Pantera much either. I like the very early stuff and Power Metal and Cowboys from Hell from the Anselmo era. The heavier stuff is to my ears quite boring. Yesterday Don't Mean Shit and Hellbound from Reinventing the Steel were quite ok though.

Thrash metal hasn't lost anything. My problem with the genre is that it hasn't gained anything. for the most part, modern thrash is an emulation of the bands that influenced the more modern ones. The last pure thrash band I really payed attention to was Havok. Skeletonwitch is one of my favorite bands of the past few years, but I know that that calling them thrash is something that could be argued.

Slower music isn't a problem. Groove laden riffs aren't a problem. Hell, I can't even comfortably say its a lack of good musicianship; because the thing with music is that there is no objective good or bad. I may not enjoy a lot of modern thrash metal but I know plenty of people on the forum who still love the stuff like they did when it was the big craze. Something isn't objectively bad specifically because you, or I, or any other person doesn't enjoy it.
Different strokes for different folks.

I really don't think Pantera and Exhorder are alike apart from the vocals.

I remember some killer thrash metal albums from the early 1990's.

.

This will likely get me banned or at least censured, but I love Pantera.
"You can't be something you're not…"
I like Slayers groove laden shit...
Metallica too…….Oh yes he did.
Steel Panther, Oh no he didn't.
The balls are there. If you really want to find them, you gotta feel around.
Love at first feel…, wait…. that was before Brian Johnson…
 

It hasn't, you're just not listening to the right stuff.You gotta dig deeper than the mainstream stuff to find the good.Slayer and Pantera are not good examples of what I think of when it comes to thrash.Let them do their thing and find bands that you dig.I could name you dozens of great thrash bands but I'm sure you already know.

.

Painkiller wrote:

I believe this happened sometime in 1988 or 1989, when even Slayer started putting out groove-laden shit. The exchange of speed and aggression for lazy, chugging riffs is what turned many die-hard metalheads away.

The way I see it, metal became this stripped-down, plodding nonsense that was the perfect bridge for hillbillies and Brian Johnson-era AC/DC enthusiasts to jump ship. Pantera is one of the biggest culprits of this macho-tuff-gai era, having played a really horrible version of Exhorder's music.

How would you know what turned metalheads "away" in 1988 or 1989?  You weren't even alive yet.  Your timeline is nonsense - Thrash sales were at their peak during this time and crested in about 92.  Thrash crapped out in about that year when there was no place left for many bands to go - they all wanted a hit like the Black Album.

Also, your Pantera observations are boring and pendantic.  You need new material, it's not 1996 and Panterrible.com is no longer online.  Further Kyle Thomas doesn't agree with you:

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/kyle-thomas-speaks-out-on-the-pantera-exhorder-feud/

.

I think it's safe to assume that sales = not turning away metalheads. Thrash was thriving in 88 and 89 and good albums were still coming out in that period. I think thrash crapped out a few years later.

So Exhorder is responsible for tough guy groove metal? Isn't that the logical conclusion?

.

Painkiller wrote:

I believe this happened sometime in 1988 or 1989, when even Slayer started putting out groove-laden shit. The exchange of speed and aggression for lazy, chugging riffs is what turned many die-hard metalheads away.

The way I see it, metal became this stripped-down, plodding nonsense that was the perfect bridge for hillbillies and Brian Johnson-era AC/DC enthusiasts to jump ship. Pantera is one of the biggest culprits of this macho-tuff-gai era, having played a really horrible version of Exhorder's music.

Ah, the old Exhorder insult. Anyone suggesting Pantera ripped off Exhorder is not worth talking to.

.

May not be the kind of punk you like (and admittedly, not my type either), but they were still a particular brand of punk. It's like the hordes of people who used to deride genres like nu metal as not being metal - just because you don't like something, doesn't make it so.

Also, I think metalhead777 makes a good point about a lot of thrash bands simply looking to the past for their influence and, as a result, relatively little innovation happens in the genre. It's not a case of lost balls, so much as it is just a bit of stagnation. Of course, there are always exceptions to that - Testament's The Gathering remains one of my favourite thrash albums and came out well after the genre's prime period, for instance. It still feels relatively fresh now.

Thrash died out in the early 90's, because the bands wanted to expand their sound, and got lost in the shuffle when death metal bands were being signed left and right. As far as I'm concerned Kyuss kept me interested in metal music for the duration of the 90's and early 2000's. 5 minutes after Kyuss broke up, a stoner rock revolution kept my interest for a while. Orange Goblin, Fu-Manchu, Solarized, Nebula, Sheavy, and a ton of others....

Eyesore wrote:

Painkiller wrote:

I believe this happened sometime in 1988 or 1989, when even Slayer started putting out groove-laden shit. The exchange of speed and aggression for lazy, chugging riffs is what turned many die-hard metalheads away.

The way I see it, metal became this stripped-down, plodding nonsense that was the perfect bridge for hillbillies and Brian Johnson-era AC/DC enthusiasts to jump ship. Pantera is one of the biggest culprits of this macho-tuff-gai era, having played a really horrible version of Exhorder's music.

Ah, the old Exhorder insult. Anyone suggesting Pantera ripped off Exhorder is not worth talking to.

There is a strong vocal similarity.  Phil was seen wearing their shirt.  He was friends with the band, and a big fan of other NOLA bands at the time because that is where he was from.  So yeah, it's very, very possible that Kyle Thomas was a big influence for him.  The rest of the band, no way.

It's certainly worth talking about.  I guess some are more concerned with casting some folks out as lepers than discussing music with them because their views disagree with theirs.

Painkiller wrote:

I believe this happened sometime in 1988 or 1989, when even Slayer started putting out groove-laden shit. The exchange of speed and aggression for lazy, chugging riffs is what turned many die-hard metalheads away.

The way I see it, metal became this stripped-down, plodding nonsense that was the perfect bridge for hillbillies and Brian Johnson-era AC/DC enthusiasts to jump ship. Pantera is one of the biggest culprits of this macho-tuff-gai era, having played a really horrible version of Exhorder's music.

Uh, OK. Even ACDC's music "had balls" as well as PANTERA's.

Thrash never lost its balls, just its quality.

I agree with ToB, there. Though I'd maybe switch "quality" with innovation. There aren't too many bands you could label as "unique" in the scene, anymore.

Though, for me, that's never been a hang up. I can find something to like in most any thrash band, even if they are, technically speaking, generic.

I think that the problem (from my point of view anyway) was that thrash ran out of good ideas. It shone really brightly from '83-'84 and for me was starting to fade around the early '90s. I think that the pressure was on the big bands to replicate the sales figures of Metallica and Pantera and compromises were made to appease the record labels.

Smaller bands were trying to move with the times and innovate their sound, some had become very good musicians and wanted to show that off, either by getting too technical, or proggy or by taking the death metal route, I'm not sure that this ever really worked for thrash bands, I loved the raw energy of the early stuff.

Some of it was just guys who had made this their job, just trying to make a living to feed their families, going with the flow to sell some records, I don't think that there was any ball losing involved. I just think of thrash as a flame that burned brightly for a short period of time, but kind of fizzled after a while because the good stuff had been done.

The thrash revival is kind of fun for a while, but some of it almost feels like Steel Panther style parody, I don't think that original spirit can be replicated.

But that's just how it is for me, if kids feel the same way about Havok and Municipal Waste as i did about thrash in the '80s then that's great.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Quote :

.  I guess some are more concerned with casting some folks out as lepers than discussing music with them because their views disagree with theirs.

Dismissing mostly everything people state with hypothetical what if's as basis of argument in a condescending manner and coming across as their opinions are facts is what I see as basis for lack of discussion than mere disagreement of personal views.

Like I've stated before, people are not gonna want to hear what ya have to say (regardless of insight). If you go about saying it in a totally wrong manner.  In other words. it's not what you have to say, but the way you say it.