If you could change the thrash Big 4 -

Personally, I think it is accurate the way it is.

Thoughts?

I feel that Overkill fits in there somewhere but I'm not sure who they would replace. Anthrax, maybe?

I've always thought that Exodus should be included, don't see why it needs to be four.

I comes down to albums for me.

I cant possibly say Metallica is Thrash metal band = over the last 20 years.

So, I'd change my opinion more - to cooler younger recent bands with 2-3 releases out.

I enjoy Overkill and Testament more then Slayer, more consistent ouput but I understand why it is like it is.

In 2019? Overkill, Testament, Exodus and Death Angel.

All 4 are unique in their sound (like the original 4) and continue to fly the flag for thrash (unlike some of the originals I could mention).

MetalGuy71 wrote:

In 2019? Overkill, Testament, Exodus and Death Angel.

Those are actually some good choices right there.

007 wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

In 2019? Overkill, Testament, Exodus and Death Angel.

Those are actually some good choices right there.

The thing I've always appreciated about the Big 4 was the diversity. Yes, they all played thrash, but there was no mistaking a Slayer song for Anthrax or Anthrax for Metallica. They all had a sound, either vocally, musically or both, that defined them. I feel that way about the new 4 I mentioned too.

I wouldn't change anything. Were there any other thrash bands that were as important as those four at the time? I think the only argument is for Exodus, but they were slow off the mark and didn't put out Bonded By Blood until 85.

Testament and Death Angel didn't even have albums out until 1987 and Overkill was a little late as well in 1985. Bobby Blitz himself said they didn't belong in the Big Four and are a second generation band that was influenced by the Big Four.

I do think Anthrax is the weakest link in the Big Four, but they sold a ton of albums and they were very popular in the 80s - certainly more popular than any other thrash band that wasn't named Metallica, Megadeth or Slayer.

I wouldn't change it.

I don't know. This whole big four term seems lame. Back in the day when all of them were thrash and in their prime, I don't recall them being refered to as the big four. If it was a term made up back then, then I say keep it the way it is. However, if it was more recent (the year 2000 or later) then I say get rid of metallica and anthrax, and insert Overkill and Exodus. Those two band have out out much better albums in their latter years, put out great albums in the early days, and not once strayed from their roots.

I think it’s ok the way it is. Yeah I would agree that Overkill and Exodus could probably replace Slayer and Anthrax but I understand their place in history. I also think Testament and Death Angel deserve a spot too. Why does it have to be the big 4? Why not the elite 8? Haha!

I would switch out Anthrax for Overkill or Exodus.

Flotsam and Jetsam
Overkill
Testament
Exodus

Dark Horseman wrote:

I enjoy Overkill and Testament more then Slayer, more consistent ouput but I understand why it is like it is.

I'd replace Slayer with Anthrax in your sentence, but I also understand why it is like it is.

Also, Metallica, Megadeth, and Anthrax are also much more accessible than bands such as Dark Angel or Demolition Hammer (Slayer is the one truly "extreme" band in the "Big Four"). That needs to be considered.

Admittedly, I am not as big a fan of Thrash as others her; I don't own much beyond the 7-8 bands already listed. I don't have an issue with the way it's currently constituted, as those 4 would be the progenitors and most well known of the genre; but I could also make a case to include Overkill, Exodus, Testament, or Death Angel as they are the current flag wavers and still epitomize the genre.

Sepultura would qualify as huge by thrash standards for Beneath the Remains and Arise. (Sadly, I don't see Schizophrenia mentioned nearly as much by the presses, probably because it wasn't officially released in North America until a few years after it came out.)

I'm not fully grasping the concept of the original post here. Are you asking if I would like my favourite thrash metal band to be more popular? Like, the band members would have bigger houses, exotic European sports cars, and concert tickets would cost 6x as much, and I would only get to see them live in packed arenas? Not to mention they'd be pushed to do pussy ballads and cut their hair.

I think I'd rather keep the bands I like to myself.

None all that, Lar. I have just seen a lot of elitists [not saying there is anything wrong with that] say that, what has "become known as", media-ly speaking, the Big Four, needs adjustment. Specifically, that Anthrax is the weak link. This was just a post to get opinions on what people would change about this perspective.

Now go crawl back into your igloo and crank some King Diamond. Just kidding.

I tend to agree with Uncle about Anthrax being the weakest link.

Witchfinder wrote:

I wouldn't change anything. Were there any other thrash bands that were as important as those four at the time?  I think the only argument is for Exodus, but they were slow off the mark and didn't put out Bonded By Blood until 85.  

Testament and Death Angel didn't even have albums out until 1987 and Overkill was a little late as well in 1985. Bobby Blitz himself said they didn't belong in the Big Four and are a second generation band that was influenced by the Big Four.

I do think Anthrax is the weakest link in the Big Four, but they sold a ton of albums and they were very popular in the 80s - certainly more popular than any other thrash band that wasn't named Metallica, Megadeth or Slayer.

Thou I would probably put Overkill in over Anthrax, I have to agree, I wouldn't change a thing. As you point out, they were very popular, sold tons of records, of course they helped influence Limp Bizkit, which is a major sin.

It feels as though the prevailing idea is that the Big 4 "earned" the right to be the big 4, but no longer really "deserve" it as their output has declined in quality and they have not stayed consistent in being thrash.

I feel like this happens in other genres too where the Top Five get the most recognition but there was a lot of contemporaries who were just as deserving or better. We know this, cause it's our passion, but the casual fan does not.

I don't know if the Big Four was ever about the quality of music. Just records sold.

Lari wrote:

I don't know if the Big Four was ever about the quality of music. Just records sold.

That's it. Plus they were the first to get records out (well not Megadeth but Dave had history in the scene)

The only thing that gets me a little about the Big 4 thing is that it makes thrash look like an American thing when it was probably the most global underground music phenomenon in the pre internet age.

But you can't argue that they were the biggest bands

Boris2008 wrote:

Lari wrote:

I don't know if the Big Four was ever about the quality of music. Just records sold.

That's it. Plus they were the first to get records out (well not Megadeth but Dave had history in the scene)

The only thing that gets me a little about the Big 4 thing is that it makes thrash look like an American thing when it was probably the most global underground music phenomenon in the pre internet age.

But you can't argue that they were the biggest bands

That's a great point, Boris, about it being underground but global.