I am quite a lover of thrash metal and am a big fan of Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer etc. I have read this genre is haing a revival. does anyone else here share a love for thrash?

The new Metallica stuff sounds horrid.  Worst ever.

I've preordered the new Metallica album, I think it's probably got the worst name 'Death Magnetic'. I've heared a few songs, I think they're ok, not as good as the pre-load stuff but alot better than St. Anger.

Yeah, I did rehersals for the St Anger tour and that stuff was not as good as the old stuff was.  Enter Sandman, Fade 2 Black - mindblowing good, the newer stuff, not so good.  Every group has a 'buy by' date just like milk.

I don't know much about this type of music but I'm surprised Laura477 hasn't chimed in, lol.

Quote from: tekla on September 11, 2008, 12:55:46 AM
Yeah, I did rehersals for the St Anger tour and that stuff was not as good as the old stuff was.  Enter Sandman, Fade 2 Black - mindblowing good, the newer stuff, not so good.  Every group has a 'buy by' date just like milk.

Milk does have a buy by date and once it's passed it goes off and just get's worse. However it can't go back good agian like what some bands do. Metallica (from what I've heared) haven't quite got back to where they where but perhaps one day...

Some other bands such as Megadeth and Annihilator where thought to be past their sell by date  until last year when they released thir new albms (United Abomintions and Metal respectively) And they really shown that they had alot left in them and are very capable of making good albums. So don't give up hope on Metallica just yet.

Quote from: MeghanAndrews on September 11, 2008, 01:48:08 AM
I don't know much about this type of music but I'm surprised Laura477 hasn't chimed in, lol.

Actually, I go by Laura91 on the forums.....anyways....I have always hated, hated, HATED the term thrash metal, it's speed metal, people. "Thrash" metal never made any sense at all (although the old late 80s zine "Thrash Metal" was pretty hip, despite it's dumb moniker). As far as the old school bands like Metallica, Megadeth, Anthrax, and Slayer are concerned (the "big four" as they were always known, although some people would substitute Exodus as well). All of those bands went down the tubes years ago in my opinion: Anthrax in 92, Megadeth in 93, Metallica started their fall in 91 (I absolutely despised the 'black album' when it was originally released, although it doesn't sound that bad nowadays. "Enter Sandman" was and still is one of the worst songs ever written by anyone at anytime, though.) and Slayer bit the dust in 94 and Exodus should have just called it quits permanently after Paul Baloff passed away. There has been a lot of talk about the whole "neo-thrash" revival but it's a joke. It's nothing more than a bunch of people attempting and failing at recreating that era. The late 80s have been over for a long time, guys, get over it. Not that there is anything wrong with nostalgia (I love listening to a lot of stuff that I grew up with) but that whole revival idea is just stupid. Besides, anyone who still listens to metal after they turn 30 is just pathetic. (wait...what??) *laura's head explodes*

I think age has a lot to do with it, so does stardom.  Blues just kinda get better as people grow up and grow old, but the really good metal seems to be done by people in the late teens through the twenties, by the time your in your thirties it seems harder to do.  Stardom does not help, you get fat, lazy, too many fancy dinners, living large - hard to summon up the angst and energy to do proper metal.  I still see some kick ass metal, but its the kids not the big stars doing it.

Actually, that's not true at all, my last line was drenched in sarcasm. There are plenty of metal bands that have been around a long time that are still putting out quality material. Some of these bands (like Napalm Death and Deceased for example) have improved with age. So, I don't think that it's a question of age but overall quality. It's true that it's all subjective though, so opinions don't matter at all in this case. 

Oh I still like it, as much as I ever did, which is about an hour's worth.  So I have to be careful on a mulit-bill band night - which metal shows almost always are - because if I watch an opening band or two, I'm burned out when the headliner hits, and if I want to watch the headliner, I have to skip all the openers.

Yeah, I agree about seeing them live (although one exception to that for me was when I saw Napalm Death and Obituary. I wanted to hear the opening bands mostly to hear if the sound mix was worth anything. The venue that I saw them at had an incompetent sound engineer and I was hoping that it would be improved, luckily it was, not to mention that they had the utterly godly Simon Efemy running the boards for that tour. I was unaware of this until later on that night). I went to one show and the headlining band that I was so psyched about seeing (Deceased) canceled at the last minute. After sitting through three hours of lousy rookie bands and awful sound quality I had to bail. My ears just couldn't take it anymore and I was bummed out anyways.

Often I find the openers mixed better as they are using the in-house guy who knows the system and the room, the headliner has their own guy so often does not know either - and will always turn it up too high.

Its going to be interesting to hear some metal at the venue I've been working on, we put in a new system, 11 Meyers Milos a side with 11 subs, four on the floor left and right, and 3 flown in the air, ought to cut down on distortion.

Quote from: tekla on September 11, 2008, 10:53:55 AM
Often I find the openers mixed better as they are using the in-house guy who knows the system and the room

Well, the in house soundman had no clue at all how to mix. Either he was a total moron or maybe they had a lot of dance music at this club, I don't know. Basically, this guy did everything that you shouldn't do to mix a live band (muddy bass, ear piercing highs, and mids that felt like an ice pick was being shoved into your ear). I did get a glimpse of the board and it was a Mackie VLZ-Pro 16 track. There was outboard gear being used too but I couldn't see exactly what they were so no specifics there. They had a front of house soundboard too but I don't know what it was since I didn't get a glimpse of it. But the sound that was produced at this place before the Napalm/Obituary gig was awful. When I saw that gig by the way they had an entirely new set up and some type of what looked like a 32 or 48 track board. I never hung out by the board at that show though, so I couldn't say what brand it was or anything but the difference in sound was like night and day.

Mackie VLZ-Pro 16 track

Iccky, that's like highschool equipment, you need at least 32, if not 64, but be that as it may, its never Mackie.  Great for lectures with slides, bad for music.