Talk:Thrash metal

Before you jump to conclusions

Be sure to read all the related articles such as the speed metal, groove metal, and other related sections to find out more about the subject than just blindly inserting your two cents worth. Remember too, that claiming to be a fan of a certain genre does not automatically make you an expert on the subject, so the lesson is read up first. Subphreeky

I am getting really tired of the typical Metallica fans coming in here and thinking they know everything about thrash metal because they own the black album. After And Justice, Metallica has little to nothing to do with thrash metal at all, yes they helped pioneer (using Dave Mustaine), but then they changed their direction, and no not to technical or progressive avenues, but to just more alternative metal directions. Stop and educate yourself fully before changing the article, and come in here to the talk section and run it by some of us who check the article on a somewhat regular basis. Subphreeky

---

I wrote most of this stuff. Anthrax kinda slipped my mind (Overkill basically gave them their start in the NY scene around '81-83), and Suicidal weren't all THAT important. Maybe a sentence about them, DRI, Corrosion of Conformity, etc, as the crossover subgenre? If anyone would like to dispute factual correctness (as opposed to omissions and mis-emphasis), let me know.

Actually one of the first Speed/Black/Thrash Metal Bands where "EVIL BLOOD" (from 95'called DJINN) from YUGOSLAVIA(now Croatia) who relocated to U.K. in 1989 and are steel going strong.Their first Album was out in 83'called -Evil BLOOD-,second 84'-Midnight in Sodom- and third 85' Empire of Death any Diehard Metalhead from East Europe can tell you that.When Evil Blood first Album was out only Venom and Metallica had albums out all rest(Slayer,Anthrax and so on..was out in 84' upwards,and Overkill where never Thrash Metal Band.They are just Heavy Metal Band.So first where VENOM in 81' with "Welcome to Hell",second EVIL BLOOD in 83'with "Evil Blood" and Metallica with "Kill'em All" Hali Satan!!!Hans from GERMANY

        Mhhh... JERK, maybe actually cram something into that swollen head of yours about music!

thrash metal is not influenced by punk and i believe many would agree with me on here. Lue3378 05:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, punk has almost if not anything to do thrash.

It's not a GREAT influence but punk has influenced Thrash, sorry but that's the way it is. The screaming and fast riffs and aggressive music of Thrash is stated by Metallica, wish I could give you a link to the quote but I can't, was influenced by punk, Slayer even made a cover of a punk song "Guilty of being white" and are rabid punk fans. Maybe not bands like anthrax but many of the newer thrash bands, if slayer is new, are directly influenced by punk, how much is open to debatte.

---

Christ, who wrote this. "Thrash metal has nothing to do with punk??" Thrash metal *is* punk. Listen to "Beneath the Remains" again, or "Pleasure to Kill"...I'm not even gonna waste time talking about the infinite thrash-HC crossover bands that were going on, COC, DRI, SOD, Nuclear Assualt...etc etc

---

Thrash Metal IS influenced by Hardcore Punk. I mean, look at Overkill, their names were tribute to their favorite Punk bands. Thrash Metal was influenced by the hardcore punk rock genre, along with NWOBHM. Neuro perplexion --

---

I agree with the above statement. If punk and hardcore were irrelevant to thrash metal then surely Slayer wouldn't have released "Undisputed Attitude" (a collection of hardcore and punk covers and Metallica wouldn't have covered all those songs by Anti-Nowhere League or the Misfits. One could argue that they merely chose to cover these bands because they "liked the tunes", but come on, two bands (3 if you count Anthrax taking influence from their local NYHC scene) is a bit of a coincidence don't you think?

---

This is really incredibly inaccurate. I'll fix it later if nobody else feels like it. --Lezek

Yeah, please do. I have always heard the four thrash metal pioneers were Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer and Anthrax. Suicidal tendencies (that would make it 5 btw)? I mean pff..

I've heard about the classic triads of Thrash Metal, Bay Area (Metallica, Megadeth, Testament?), US - non Bay Area - (Slayer, Anthrax, ?) and Germany (Kreator, Sodom, Destruction), maybe they should be considered somehow. (no time to properly edit the article no, maybe later). Valhalla 09:23 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Testament is seminal but

I don't remember Testament ever being bigger than Slayer. Slayer had like 3 albums already before Testament put out their first one in 1987. Reign in Blood came out in 1986.

Testament WASN'T bigger than Slayer. As stated previously, The Legacy wasn't released until 1987. In fact, they were considered one of the more popular second wave of thrash bands. Yes, they did play on the Clash of the Titans tour in the later part of the decade with Slayer, Megadeth and Anthrax (Suicidal replaced Anthrax on the Euro leg of this tour), but that was mainly due to the fact that Metallica were already selling out arenas at the time. I've been a thrash fan since the start of the scene and this is how it was. I certainly hope revisionists don't include Testament as one of these seminal groups. Slayer was one of the best selling thrash acts out there and Reign in Blood cemented their popularity at the time. Globey 08:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I don't think you have to put out an album to be popular. Anyway I've heard that quite a lot about Testament being in the Big Four. In regards to Valhala, I've always heard about the big four: Anthrax, Megadeth, Metallica, and Slayer, and the big triad of Teutonic thrash: Destruction, Kreator, and Sodom. Subphreeky

True, you don't have to have albums out to be popular. Perhaps Slayer wasn't considered thrash yet at that time? I am from the San Francisco area, but did not turn onto thrash until about 1984, when I was in the Navy, and ironically, a guy from Michigan turned me onto Metallica while we were stationed together in the Chicago area. Anyway, I got out of the Navy in 1986, and was a big thrash fan at age 22, and returned to the Bay Area. I remain unconvinced about the notion of Slayer "replacing" Testament. But, maybe I am remembering the scene wrong, who knows.

Neanderthalprimadonna 12:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nice summary, but where's Venom? I've never heard Priest referred to as Speed Metal though and the band would likely agree. They are the definition of Heavy Metal. Speed Metal to me has always been a genre name searching for a home. Even Wikipedia just redirects Speed Metal back to Thrash Metal. The big 4 were always Metallica, Slayer, Megadeth and (unfortunately) Anthrax. The only band close enough to being in this circle was Exodus, who actually play a much more pioneering role in the genre than this article indicates. They certainly weren't influenced by Slayer's Haunting EP. Bonded was already written and recorded by the time Haunting came out.

Judas Priest not speed metal? Maybe on their earlier stuff, but Painkiller was DEFINITELY speed metal. --Eel 02:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Isn't Judas Priest concerned Heavy Metal more than anything else? Shandolad 13:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

dude venom isnt a thrash band they were the inventors of black metal and the best black metal out there. but they come nowhere close to thrash.

Lars in Metal Church? I had no idea, but thankfully that didn't happen. Kirk Arrington's drumming on the first MC record was killer.

Lars in Metal Church (or being asked to join or whatever) is a funny thing. There's no mention of it whatsoever in any official or unofficial Metallica history and the main source appears to be Metal Church itself. Anything's possible, I suppose, but why such an event (regardless of how small) wouldn't have shown up in any Metallica interviews over the years makes the whole thing a bit suspicious to the point of being myth. Still, I'd love to hear more from Vanderhoof about why it's part of Metal Church's history.

Pillsbur 00:12, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

---

This is all quite interesting. In regards to the classifications of speed and thrash metal, these genre names were for the most part used interchangably during the 1980's and such. Metallica of course refered to themselves as power metal, as did Venom, mainly to differentiate themselves from the hair metal scene that was taking over heavy metal. Even Kreator called themselves 'Hate Metal.' There is of course much debate over the popularity of thrash bands. One thing I think can be agreed upon is that the big four of thrash are: Anthrax (yes somewhat unfortunately), Megadeth, Metallica, and Slayer. The big triad of Teutonic thrash I hope is agreed upon is: Destruction, Kreator, and Sodom. The other three bands; Exodus, Overkill, and Testament (which round out to a big ten of thrash metal) are being much debated to most popular and their places in the original big four of thrash. My findings indicate numerous sources stating that Testament was in the big four before Slayer released Reign In Blood, but who knows, obviously the arguement of Slayer's album coming out first makes sense. I think there should be a little more added to this article, such as Anthrax, some various other influential thrash bands, and indeed the controvertial issue we are discussing. Subphreeky

Another point to bring out is that Anthrax's Among The Living was not released until 1987 either. And in 1987 Testament already had a live album, almost immediately following their debut. Subphreeky

I'm not sure what you mean by pointing out Testament's live album. They "already" had a live album following their debut makes it sound like that proves Testament's superiority. Testament probably had a live album out after their debut simply because their record company needed something to sell while the band was writing new tunes. Didn't Slayer also have a live EP between their first two studio albums? I'm not trying to argue, just curious about why live albums seem so important. Pillsbur 23:26, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

My point is that they were an already established live act. I don't know about Slayer's live album, but that would go along the same point. Anyways, the main issue I was talking about was Testament being part of the big-four before the release of Slayers 1986 Reign In Blood. The scene was not how we see it today. I really have no idea why bands like Suicidal Tendencies keep poping up here. Subphreeky May 14, 2005

Testament came later. They would be second wave of thrash. Anthrax weren't really thrash after their first album in my opinion. They had their own style. Suicidal were a punk band who later became a thrash band. Again second wave. I listened to punk and metal at the time and thrash bands were definitely not influenced by hardcore. Not at first.

Pantera

Why isn't Pantera on the list? I've always considered them as one of the big four (instead of Anthrax)

Pantera's too new to be part of the big four. Or well, their first 3 albums weren't thrash. POINT IS, Pantera, while great, wasn't in the thrash scene early enough to be part of the big four.

---

Pantera were never thrash. Listen to Cowboys... and Vulgar... and then listen to Bonded By Blood. After that, you can't tell me Pantera were thrash. It's like calling Limp Bizkit black metal - totally wrong.

I think its also worth mentioning some other less noted, but equally important thrash bands from the second wave that strove to new heights of musicianship. Anacrusis and WatchTower are 2 that come to mind - both pioneers in their own way of the prog/thrash scene (thus 'technical thrash' was born).

If you listen to Cowboys From Hell, there most definately thrash elements throughout, but to call them a full-on thrash metal would be inaccurate. I've always considered them to be half-thrash, half-groove. On another note, Machine Head I think fits in the same category as Pantera, but their new record, Through The Ashes Of Empires, is almost pure, modern day thrash.

Pantera are not thrash! Theyre kinda power metal. As thrash and speed metal being the same that comment was writtne by someone who has never listened to Thrash in their life. -- Pantera isn't Thrash, they were Power metal prior to the Cowboys from hell album at which point they were half-thrash/groove metal.

they did pretty much "invent" the groove metal along with Sepultura so I'd say they're groove metal but groove is very influenced by thrash so using the term half thrash half groove would fit quite well.

The Sidebar

Shouldn't the contents on the sidebar be changed to reflect the page, be titled Thrash Metal and contain links to subgenres of Thrash Metal etc? Hm, perhaps not, but I can't help but thinking that an addition of a new sidebar which contained subgenres of Thrash and also told that Thrash was subgenre of Heavy metal would be better.Shandolad 13:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The Truth and Theory Of Pantera being Power Metal

OKAY, I will say this. Pantera has A LOT more elements of thrash than Power Metal. In fact, they have NO Power Metal elements in their music. Pantera is a post-thrash metal band. Post-thrash (the way I see it) is really thrash metal played heavier. Since Thrash metal is punk-influenced metal, Pantera is basically just Thrash Metal turned up a notch. I personally feel that (now this is just a theory) Half-Thrash metal is Thrash without a punk influence, BUT with a hardcore-punk influence in the music and with I guess you could say a blues-ish undertone with the scaling with solos.

The closest influences Pantera has to Power Metal are minimal, BUT it would be the vocal style in Cowboys In Hell, in particular, Cematary Gates. If you look at the subgenre heavy metal often from what I have heard tends to be a little bluesie you could say, which is why I believe that Half-Thrash/Groove/Post-Thrash has the blues influence, also meaning that this genre of music has a Heavy Metal mixed with Thrash Metal and Hardcore influences. Like I said, it's JUST a theory, but as for saying that Pantera is power metal. ALL WRONG, but yet, I can see where people would say that.

- Ryan F.

The earlier Pantera records are Power metal and bordering glam. 1983: Metal Magic 1984: Projects in the Jungle 1985: I Am the Night 1988: Power Metal.

Post-thrash (the way I see it) is really thrash metal played heavier

Post-thrash heavier than Thrash??? Wtf, man how come 'Post-thrash' or bands playing in the same style as Pantera, Machine Head etc enjoy much more mainstream success than your average Thrash band?? Heavier than thrash my ass, Slayer, Sodom, Kreator, Dark Angel, Sepultura all sh*t over that argument.

Sidebar

I agree with this comment. Techno Thrash, Progressive Thrash, Whatever-You'd-Call-Thrash-That-Leans-Toward-Death, Teutonic (Destruction, Sodom, Kreator), British (Acid Reign, etc.), Bay Area vs. other places. The genre is full of subgenre's, and there's plenty of room for pages detailing them. Hah, and plenty of time for arguing who goes where and what gets included.

Proposed Merge With Speed Metal

I think since Thrash and Speed Metal are one and the same thing, they should be merged. Any suggestions regarding this are welcome

I'm gonna have to disagree with that. I think of thrash as a subgenre of speed metal. For EXAMPLE, Judas priest's Painkiller is definitely speed metal, but it's certainly not thrash. --Eel 05:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Eel. Thrash and speed are not the same. It is a common misconception that many metal fans have. Following Eel's decision to provide an example, Bulldozer and Helloween (Helloween EP/Walls of Jericho) are both speed metal however they are not thrash. Pasajero 20:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong disagree. Merging these two categories is insane. Speed Metal is a lot different than Thrash Metal. Thrash Metal is repetitive by definition, the speed is an element, but not important as in Speed Metal. Speed Metal can be symphonic too (see Rhapsody band) but Thrash not. --Olpus

The proposed merge with speed metal should not go ahead. The two are independent, because as it has been mentioned above, a song can be a speed metal song but not a thrash metal song. JohnC1987 16:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a MAJOR difference between speed and thrash metal. I mean it would be closer to merge black and speed metal than speed and thrash metal (compare Venom's "Black Metal" and Slayer's "Reign In Blood" quite similar). Certainly there are similarities, however, Slayer, being the definitive speed metal band sounds VERY different from Metallica the prototypical thrash band. --69.231.192.87 07:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Manuel Trejo 1/6/06 11:44 pm PST

Slayer is the definitive speed metal band? My friends and I have always known them as the definitive thrash metal band. The closest I get to speed metal are painkiller(really the only speed metal album Judas Priest has) and megadeth(which is definitely more speed metal than other thrash). marnues 06:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

another Strong Disagree here 85.138.1.15 20:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again this is a case of people not reading all of the material they have available to them, for the past few years or so, many people ahve proposed a merge with speed metal and we have always opted against it, because they are completely different subgenres of metal. Subphreeky

The pages have been merged. The idea of Speed metal as a separate genre is a recent solution to the problem in some peoples minds about the great degree of varity in the thrash metal sound. in the 1980s, speed metal exclusively refered to thrash metal bands like slayer and metallica. Bands that are now considered speed metal by some were known as power metal then. speed metal does not exist outside of thrash and most who believe it does are young and were not there, or have not studied metal's history well enough. This speed metal theory is only a few years old, originating around 2002. There was no "speed metal" genre that could be seen as a separate movement from thrash. Most of the examples of "speed metal" are either thrash metal with clean vocals or power metal(which in itself was often thrash with clean vocals, and this is where things get cloudy). Never the less, by bands, magazines, and fans, speed metal meant thrash metal to metal at large. Educate yourself by listening and reading 80s material, not reading metal-archives.com forum pages. - wolfgang van bachtoven

Speed/Thrash and Pantera

First of all, Speed Metal and Thrash Metal I don't think are the same thing. If they were, they would have a proper name for it. Thrash Metal consists of more punchy riffs and is more rhythmic sounding than Speed Metal. That's how I see it anyway.

Pantera are NOT power metal. If you listen to power metal, the singers usually have different kinds of voices. Phil Anselmo does NOT have a power metal voice, and Dimebag Darrell does NOT write power metal riffs (listen to "Fucking Hostile", you'll know what I mean).

Let me bring it to everyone's attention that at one time the speed and thrash articles were the same. This was discussed and it was concluded that speed and thrash are not the same. It is for this very reason that speed metal and thrash metal are now separate articles. Pasajero 12:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if your aware of this but Pantera released an power metal album called Power Metal and Cowboys from Hell still had some power metal influences. As for your saying Phil Anselmo doesn't have a power metal voice, I suggest you liten to Cemetary Gates, if I remember correctly there's an almost obnoxiously high 'gates'. Kravitch

Power metal my ass. It wasn't even a power metal album to begin with. Power Metal was the name of the album which was just glam rock. Though it has been said that Pantera did inspire Power metal by the name of the album. ALSO Since when does power metal have a thrash vocal. Just because Phil (at the time) was able to since Falseto does not mean he is power metal. Look at King Diamond for example, he sings in falseto, BUT his band is not power metal either. -Ryan F.

I have heard Cemetary Gates, but I still don't think he has that Power Metal voice. I don't disagree with you entirely but I just think Phil doesn't use a power metal voice as much. I also agree with you, about the Power Metal album and their influences. I suppose it's still just personal opinion.

Most of you guys must not know that one Pantera's biggest influences is KISS. Which is not thrash.

That's a good point, but it doesn't mean Pantera isn't thrash. I mean, the dead kennedys and minor threat (both punk bands) influenced slayer, but slayer's not punk. --Eel 05:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And Metallica was heavily influenced by the Misfits in their earlier days, but Metallica isn't punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.230.63 (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I dissagre with the proposed merge of Speed and Thrash. They are two different genres, bands like Judas Priest and Motorhead are speed, it's a totally different genre. And Pantera was Glam until cowboys and then they were Groove/half thrash. Neuro perplexion

Pantera did play Power Metal during their early years but became heavier like they're nowadays when they became famous, preferring that kind of music. so there might be small dabs of power metal in the music since they played that before.

Speed/thrash

I see everyone has said that "Painkiller" is speed metal. But when was painkiller put out? Think about that!!! We can talk about thrash since the very beggining of the 80's and about "speed" since the very beggining of the 90's. I think "Speed Metal" is fiction and that the great "painkiller" is just heavy metal. Saying that something is "speed metal" is stupid, as it is more than just "a name searching for a home"........it is inexistent.

No one ever said speed metal came out in the beginning of the 90s. You just assumed that since everyone used "Painkiller" as an example. The reason why they used it as an example is because it is considered one of Priest's best speed albums and is a very popular one at that. Speed metal had already been formed in the late 70s. "Stained Class" and "Hell Bent for Leather" come to mind both which came out in 1978. The first thrash demo was in 1981 (Red Skies demo; no vocals though), the second being Metallica's Hit the Lights. 78 (speed) < 81 (thrash) Pasajero 17:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, as for speed metal being just heavy metal, that's kind of like saying thrash metal is just speed metal. The way I see it, Speed Metal is a certain type of Heavy Metal (For example, electric wizard is definitely (very) heavy metal, but there's NO way ANYONE would call them speed metal.), and Thrash Metal is a certain type of Speed Metal. (also just because i love venom i wanna mention that venom's welcome to hell was another of the first thrash metal albums, and it was also from 1981.) --Eel 02:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that Electric Wizard is considered to be just about the heaviest, slowest doom metal out there, and not usually classified as "heavy metal". From what I understand, "heavy metal" is mostly used to group in the NWOBHM and a few earlier bands, including Black Sabbath. I agree with you entirely that speed metal is another genre of metal entirely from thrash. From what I understand, it existed as a separate strand of metal and mostly developed earlier on than thrash. Thrash is a product of NWOBHM and other earlier metal, mixed with punk rock. Guys from Anthrax, Metallica, and Slayer have been saying this all along.

Conflicting information

The first section ends with a mention of Artillery's We Are The Dead being from 1982. The second section mentions it as being 1985. First off, which is correct? Secondly, should it be mentioned twice anyway? I think the whole article needs a tidy and restructure as there is a lot of repetition, definitely some POV (some of which I agree with, but hey!) and there's quite a scattered approach to dates etc. IainP (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The correct year for the mentioned Artillery demo is 1983. Pasajero 00:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've updated the page to reflect this. IainP (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Following the Artillery page to their record label web site, I found that Artillery was formed in 1982 and that the first two demos, Shellshock and Deeds of Darkness, were RELEASED in 1984 so clarification needs to be made there as well as the Artillery page. Subphreeky

Celtic Frost?

I've only heard a few of their songs, so I'm not qualified enough to remove them from the list, but are Celtic Frost really thrash? The few I've heard don't sound like it. 72.40.101.236 16:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I have to say I agree, what few songs I have heard of Celtic Frost I would not classify as thrash metal. Although I am not completely qualified either. Someone who knows more about them should clarify Subphreeky

CELTIC FROST, VOIVOD, AND DESTRUCTION

Thrash also included Celtic Frost "Morbid Tales", Voivod "War and Pain" and Destruction "Infernal Overkill" and were primary inventors of the art form as much as anyone.

I thought Celtic Frost were closer to black metal then thrash, or "proto-black metal".
I don't think they are thrash.--Fukhed666 09:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, Celtic Frost is definitely NOT black metal. But they are not thrash metal either. Theyre gothic/death metal or more decently doom-death metal. Crying Devil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.156.250 (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably say Celtic Frost (Morbid Tales/Emperor's Return + To Mega Therion) fit loosely into the proto-black/thrash genre, sort of playing a simplified type of Thrash (but awesome nonetheless). They were a huge influence on the black and death metal scene anyway. Metal Gimp (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Album Cover Pictures

I don't think that the album cover pictures should feature two Metallica, one Slayer, and one Sepultra... As the big four, or Four Horsemen (of Thrash Metal), are widely acknowleged to be: MegadetH, Metallica, Slayer, and Anthrax; there should be an album covershot of each. Rust In Peace

I agree, only one Metallica album cover.

>I actually remove one of the metallica's but someone re-added it.

Thrash or Trash?

Why do you write Trash with an ache after the T of it? Stephan KŒNIG 09:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

'Thrash' is the correct English spelling; "trash" in English means garbage. (Wikieizor 04:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

No. Actually:

• Thrash = early Metallica's music style
• Trash = Italian television

Hmm, let me correct that for you:

• Thrash = pre-Black Album Metallica
• Trash = post-Black Album Metallica

Thanks. Do not worry, I were just kidding. I know too well how, currently, 'Tallica are pitiful and can quietly make a video featuring beautiful girls from my country's horrid TV. ;) Egr, 3/7/2006

I don't remember where I heard this (i think it was some metal forum), but when "Thrash" was translated into other languages, it was mistranslated was "Trash". Would be great if someone could find a source. (Damned Headbanger 16:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

If anyone has that phony Metallica Bay Area Thrashers CD if you look at the cover it actually says Trashers.

Haha yeah I have that thing and have noticed that as well.--E tac 00:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is trash? It's english for bloody garbage. Not the band obviously. --I am king Thundermaster367 09:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, shouldn't it be mentioned in the article? I mean, that thrash metal is not trash metal. Azrael Nightwalker (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why people refer to thrash metal as "trash metal" isn't because of an opinion that thrash metal is trash in most cases i think. Some thrash documentary took up this subject and i think that the conclusion was that people who didn't know a lot of english (meaning many europeans mainly) maybe thought that thrash was a misspelling and that if referred to "trash" (kind of what Damned Headbanger said), as most of the early thrash metal recordings were a bit trashy sounding. Note that i too thought that the correct term for the genre was indeed trash metal for years! And as an answer to your question: maybe it's worth mentioning if it just states that it has been misspelled trash occasionally, with a good source too of course. Grinder0-0 (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

merge groove metal

Groove metal does not need an article by itself (yet) as it is a minor subgenre still and only in minor issues different from thrash. Spearhead 20:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. It definitely deserves mention, but is a stylitic difference and not a large subgenre. +Johnson 20:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I dissagre. Groove Metal isn't Thrash so it doesn't fit in this category. This is a mistake a lot of people tend to make but Groove Metal is not Thrash Metal, if you listen to albums like Pantera's Vulguar Display of Power vs albums like Kreator's Pleasure to Kill or Dark Angel's Darkness Descends, to make that association just doesn't work. Damage Plan's albums are a far cry from Thrash as well, Thrash and Groove Metal are very distinct from each other, Thrash is riff oriented fast music that has a distinct recognizable sound, it's like making an association that Speed Metal and Thrash Metal are the same when they aren't, it's like saying Judas Priest is a Thrash Metal band, it doesn't work. I dissagre with the idea of merging the two topics, Groove Metal is HALF Thrash, it is NOT Thrash, go and listen to Machine Head a groove band and listen to Vio-lence and you can see the differences between the two and you can tell the distinction between the two genres. So I don't like the idea, Groove Metal might be a result from Thrash Metal but that doesn't mean that it is, it's like saying we should merge Thrash Metal with NWOBHM because it was influenced by that genre of music. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neuro perplexion (talk • contribs) .

Touché. +Johnson 07:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge Though peaple called Pantera thrash for a while they are much more similar to White Zombie(sans the industrial influence of course) or Fear Factory. These bands certainly have similarities to thrash but the musical emphasis is less technical and more groove based. Probably why it became more popular, especially next to grunge. I can partially understand why it could be merged with nu-metal, but the same problems arise just in reverse. Probably the biggest problem is that metal just wasn't popular enough in the 90's for people to claim a unifying genre. However I really feel that there is a distinct characteristic of a lot of metal made between the rise of grunge and the rise of nu-metal(which draws heavily from groove metal and hip-hop). marnues 20:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't Merge: Thash and Groove are totally differnt genres. Food for thought - In my mp3 genres categories I use all the usual genre classifications except when I get to bands/albums that are not so easily categorised: Samael (all Cds), Fear Factory(all Cds), Alchemist(all Cds), Moonspell - Sin, Therion - Vovin, Tiamat - Wildhoney and anything by Mike Patton. These aren't so easily categorised to a narrow sub-genre - what do I do? Categorise them simply as 'metal' at the higher level because they are in effect special that way. Pantera fit perfectly in the 'metal' genre. Loud and noisy, but special.

Don't Merge: Thrash and Groove are different. Although Groove may appear as a subgenre of Thrash, due to it originally deriving from Thrash, it would be stupid to combine the two. They are completely different in their sound and in the tempo. To combine Thrash and Groove would be similar in its stupidity as combining Death and Thrash as they are two completely different genres.

Don't merge here too. Nonsensical at best.

Don't merge! 85.138.1.15 20:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

DONT MERGE Very different...Pantera and Devildriver are notably different to thrash/speed metal. Isilioth

Subgenres Of Thrash

I think it is rather childish deeming Death Metal, Groove Metal and Black Metal simply as subgenres of Thrash. This is because although they may have evolved from Thrash, each is a completely different genre of music now. Most Death Metal nowadays cannot really just be called a subgenre of Thrash. Although it evolved from Thrash, it evolved into its own genre rather into just a small subgenre. Death is recognized as its own genre on many other sites and by many people, and so should be recognized as its own on here. What would be better is if instead of saying "subgenre" and then listing death, black and groove, it could be better saying Derivative Forms or something else which does not suggest that death metal, black metal and groove metal are just subgenres of thrash.

This is actually a good point. marnues 22:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Groove Metal

The way I see it, groove metal is simply slow thrash, with occasional violent bursts of speed, e.g. the second half of Machine Head's "A Thousand Lies" or "Fucking Hostile" by Pantera. At its peak-the early to mid nineties-it was the blistering antidote to the grunge and britpop being force-fed into the rock scene by commercial radio stations. Of course the early bands (e.g. Sepultura, Exhorder) would have been frequently confused with original thrash metal groups, and likewise later bands such as White Zombie would have been lumped in with the nu-metal crowd. What fascinates me about the genre is that it's a mutant-an anomaly, if you will-in heavy metal history. Very little is said about post-thrash/groove metal despite the fact that many of its chief players, especially Pantera, achieved legendary status. Furthermore, Biohazard could qualify as groove metal despite their obvious rap influences, although I am unsure as to whether or not Fear Factory qualify as a groove metal band due to their strong industrial death metal leanings. However you define them, they are clearly not nu-metal, and as their closest cyber metal contemporaries would probably be Red Harvest, post-thrash comparisons seem almost irrelevant. If anyone knows where Life of Agony fits in, I'm interested.

I think a lot of the problem is that Groove Metal does not have a defining point to say that this is their moment in musical history. Early Groove Metal bands attracted Thrash crowds when it was established in the mainstream in the late 80's. In the early 90's it drew a lot of comparisons with the direction that many thrash bands were taking, further blurring lines between them. Then metal seemed pretty much dead in the mid 90's until nu-metal came around. I think this was when it was the most prominent but because metal wasn't popular in any form around this time, no one outside the scenes were paying any attention. Nu-metal hits and every band that isn't "true metal" gets labeled nu-metal. Groove metal being some sort of half way point between the metal styles of thrash and death metal and that of nu-metal (at least the metal influence with nu-metal), so it generally gets lumped into the nu-metal crowd since they're not "true metal." Now that the nu-metal craze is pretty much gone we can finally go back, pick the pieces apart and figure out what really happened. I personally have little problem labeling a genre after the fact. We tend to have a less biased view of music in this way (and fewer fanboys screaming their lungs out about the bands). I am moving away from White Zombie as one of the main groove metal bands. They certainly do play groove metal, but they have too many other obvious sounds in their music. I'd keep them around, but I'm lumping them more into alternative metal. I'll personally stick more to the Panteras, Sepulturas, and Fear Factorys (they have more pronounced industrial/death influences, but still groove with it). marnues 10:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Bay area thrash merge

I removed the tags for the merge - no discussion here or at the Bay Area thrash page... besides, Bay area thrash was more of a scene, and not a genre, IMO. Skeletor2112 09:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

True... But they are inter-related. The scene spawned many bands of the genre, like Testament and the like. Vegetaman 12:40, 15 August 2006 (CST)

I would oppose the merge between The Bay Area scene and genre, they are separate topics, if inter-related.Tubefurnace 11:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree as someone said, inter-related but separate topics!

Exciter

I would have to argue that Exciter were a thrash band back in the beginning of their career. There first two albums were right next to the first two Metallica, Exodus Bonded by Blood, Megadeth Killing Business, Anthrax Fistful of Metal (which is definitely thrash), and Metal Church's first in our record collections. I even saw Exciter open for Megadeth right after Killing is my Business came out in a small bar in New Orleans. Helstar were an early thrash band as well.

Venom and England

I can't believe that Venom have only had one other mention on here. Listen monkies, Venom INVENTED thrash, Metallica IMPROVED it and Slayer PERFECTED it. End of story. Move on.

England had quite a thriving thrash scene in the late 80's. Onslaught were probably the best of the bunch but they let themselves down by replacing vocalist Sy Keeler with the bloke from Grim Reaper. He was truely awful.. Honourable mentions must also go to Sabbat and Acid Reign. There is no doubt in my mind that Sabbat influenced the black metal movement of the 90's. Martyn Walkiers' rasping vocal and the folk influence are clearly evidence of this. Acid Reign were a great live act - truly very funny. They deserve more credit than they got at the time. Guitarist, Kev, was also involved with Lawmower Deth. Slammer and Xentrix were OK. Slammer were Metallica clones - albeit good ones and Xentrix became more famous for covering Ghostbusters than anything else. Which was a shame as they had a lot to offer. -D.A.M and Re=animator seemed to support everyone. Lastly and definitely least, I should also mention Virus. If only to stop and remember just how dreadfully appalling they and their frontman Henry were.

>I agree but insted of metallica improving it, it was Megadeth.

Venom didn't create thrash. Motorhead did. Venom just happened to be a huge influence on that genre and black and death metal as well. Motorhead created thrash, though, before Venom ever came along. Venom can only be credited with creating black metal. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Motörhead?

There's sure some passion on this edit page, and I don't want to rock the boat too much, but can someone at least tip the hat to Motörhead for their thrash genre influence as early as the '70s? Kiwichipster 00:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I will! Dark Executioner 14:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Motorhead pretty much created thrash. Navnløs 22:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Modern Day Thrash

I don't think that modern day thrash was not embraced enough on this article. No, its not as popular as older thrash metal, but it still exists, yet, the article just scratches the surface of it, I think more should be added about modern day thrash.

If you're talking about so called Neo-Thrash, most of it isn't really Thrash to some degree, hence the passing note. If it's notable enough and has critial mass for it's own section or article, it should be add. Otherwise, the passing note is all it gets. Possibly something that needs looking into. Dace59 14:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words, opinions asserted as facts, etc.

This article is bursting at the seams with them. "Many of the best thrash albums of all time [were released in 1986]"...ok, but what if we disagree? I was appalled when I read, "Slayer's Reign in Blood is universally acclaimed as a classic"...preposterous, Reign in Blood is a decent rock record but nothing more. And the idea that Master of Puppets is "regarded as not just one of the best thrash metal albums ever also but metal in the metal and rock genre" might be true for most people, but that doesn't change the fact that this statement reeks of weasel words. This article should seriously be cleaned up.

Also under the list of thrash metal bands it lists "Other crucial thrash metal bands include:" as if its up to whoever created this page which bands are wroth noting and which aren't. I've added noteable bands only to see them removed. If you want to have a list it should be all inclusive or perhaps it should describe what makes a band "crucial".

What makes a band "crucial" in general, is the amount of influence on latter bands, pioneering the genre, general popularity, and album sales. While these are some of the factors, it is a combination and sort of hard to quantify. As a matter of fact the afforementioned albums, Reign In Blood and Master Of Puppets, are indeed universally acclaimed landmark albums in the genre of thrash metal. Saying that they are not is like saying that Elvis should not be associated with Rock 'n Roll! Not to mention the fact that they cannot really be considered "a decent rock record" at all, they are not really rock albums at all! Subphreeky

Big Four Has Five

The big four of thrash section- there are five bands here. Choose one to remove someone who would know which is least notable please... Tom walker 23:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It's fixed now as one user had just added Pantera, which is incorrect. Prolog 23:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lars Ulrich best drummer?

The reference doesn't say anything about "due to their ability with the double bass as well as adequately keeping time". but mentions "Drummers are ranked for their influence, innovation, originality, and technical ability". Ulrich probably ranks highly on thee first three and not as much on the last point. Anyway, Ulrich isn't particularly known for his time keeping skills or his double bass skills. Besides that Hoglan is mentioned with Death, which isn't thrash anyway and Menza isn't included in the article's list but in the ref. Furthermore "DigitalDreamDoor.com is a non-commercial, personal website" doesn't seem to make it a reliable source.

Funnily enough none of the drummers are actually mentions on 100 Most Skilled Drummers Spearhead 10:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, I won't argue Lars Ulrich's drumming ability. I do think that the way it is worded in the article mentions that they are the best drummers in rock music, not over as in your link mentioned above. Yet, I think your point about the website being cited being a personal website is a vaild one. I move that the sentence be removed all together since it is one person's opinon rather then the opinon of experts in the field. Per WP:RS I would like to see the comment lifted off of the article. --Pinkkeith 17:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not necessarily disagree with the statement that "Many thrash drummers are revered as some of the best drummers in rock music, due to their ability with the double bass as well as adequately keeping time." - actually this would hold for all extreme metal genres. Finding some proper references might actually do the trick here - the examples are POV here. Also the grammar is awkward. Spearhead 17:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Citing sources

I am going through the sources and standardizing them with template:cite web where needed. I would like to see everyone use this template since it is the current wiki standard. Any objections? --Pinkkeith 17:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Clean up

I attempted to clean up the grammar and confusing sentence structures in parts of this article. The constant edit wars have renderred the article nonsensical in parts. The article could still use a lot of work. The only piece of information that I removed was a short phrase that was probably planted by the Lars fanclub. It seems fitting that the article is actually written in a thrash metal style (rapid fire words, barely distinguishable, excessive hammering on a keyboard and an overall feel that is very likely to induce head banging)

list of thrash metal bands

This list list of thrash metal bands is largely redundant with the list provided in this article, although somewhat differently organised. Either one is unneeded. Most of the important bands are already mentioned in the article text, so I propose to remove the Notable artists section completely. Additionally the list of thrash metal bands should be cleaned up and re-organised. Spearhead 16:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I did some work on the list of thrash metal bands. These are the things that I would like to have a second opinion on.

1. "blackplaige (US/Arizona". I don't know about this band. I searched it on google [[1]] and found this: http://www.joinmyband.co.uk/jmb/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2610

2. Craven does not have an article on Wikipedia.

3. Criminal does not have an article. The link provided redirects to Crime.

4. Defiance does not have an article. The link provided links to the disambiguation page , which mentions a metal band of the same name.

5. Prestige does not have an article. No link is provided on the list page.

I think blackplaige is a local band or something like that. The google search returned only 4 results. As for the rest of the bands, I don't have any knowledge about them. Weltanschaunng 06:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

difference between kill em all and ride the lightning

fight fire with fire

is there a song that sounds remotely like this on kill em all?

Crossover Thrash

Does anyone know why the article was deleted and the page redirected to this article? Inhumer 22:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

dude someone totally messed with it. crossover thrash was deleted and redirected here, where the word "crossover" appears a grand total of 3 times, with no real explanation of crossover thrash, except a link to "crossover thrash" under "fusion genres" which of course just redirects to this page. wtf?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.39.211.133 (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

I totally agree that it needs a page. I mean, it's far more relevant than some of the other sub-genres/fusion genres that have pages (deathrash, blackened thrash, Brazilian thrash). Adamravenscroft 10:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Could someone who knows alot about the genre rewrite it possibly? Inhumer 17:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Crossover Thrash is back--Dsalazar23491 16:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thrash Today

Trivium (The crusade), Megadeth (United Abominations), Slayer (christ illusion). Thrash is on a comeback. hell, even metallica may go back to thrash.

if slayer winning a grammy doesn't indicate that, than what does? this NEEDS mentioning.24.139.30.154 04:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Except, you know, Trivium isn't Thrash. Inhumer 17:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether they are or not, it's modelled heavily on thrash and it's inarguably a prominent example of the genre's influence on current metal and the increase in popularity of the styles of the genre. Adamravenscroft 21:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Combat KIMB.jpg

Image:Combat KIMB.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Images

OK, so I changed the images a little bit, the previous images failed to illustrate any points made by the article - Killing is My Business was in the early section, despite being released in 1985, 2 years after the origin of thrash (this was Kill 'Em All once, I expect it was fanboys...); Slayer and Megadeth had two covers, while Anthrax, another one of the big four had none; and finally South of Heaven and Rust in Peace weren't placed next to the eras they represented. So, I have replaced the images, as per this reasoning:

• Kill 'Em All - it's the first thrash LP, so one of the most important images to illustrate the origin section.
• Reign in Blood - considered one of the greatest by most critics and fans, so deserving of a place illustrating thrash's pinnacle in '86, as well as one of the big four.
• Master of Puppets - as above, also, I believe that being the biggest band by far, Metallica are worthy of two covers, in addition to them being very important.
• Among the Living - representing Anthrax, one of thrash's big four previously unmentioned, often regarded their best release.
• Extreme Aggression - not being too familiar with Kreator, I didn't change it... I guess it shows the evolution of thrash towards the late '80s and the development of sub-genres.
• Rust in Peace - symbolising the final thrash of the early '90s before its decline, as well as another of the big four (as well as trying to show what are considered the best albums of the big four... it's pretty even between this and Peace Sells, but I guess the mid-'80s section is too crowded.

There could be more images representing more bands and descriptions of the relevance of all of these covers in the captions and maybe the final section needs some images of modern thrash albums (Megadeth, Exodus, Overkill etc.) Apart from this, I think we have it alright for now. Please do not change the covers, discuss it here first so that we can reach a conclusion of what is suitable for the article. Adamravenscroft 15:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Metallica - Kill Em All.jpg

Image:Metallica - Kill Em All.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I gonna put www.thrashmageddon.com as an external link, I really adore there.

Modern Thrash

This is ridiculous. This article goes on and on about thrash during the 80s, thins out in the 90s, and mentions hardly anything on the 21st century. Yes, internet and VH1 have contributed to exposure, but they have done so in all other genres. There are plenty of new thrash bands out there. Don't be so stingy when applying the subgenre to a band, otherwise we'll have so many subgenres that they won't even be of any use. This might not be 80s thrash, but its STILL THRASH! Arkyopterix 21:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with this to some extent. United Abominations sold something like 100,000 copies in its first week on the market, Slayer made the top ten with CI (I believe), and Metallica has an upcoming album that is likened to their early sound. Thrash is making at least a sub comeback, and does deserve a mention beyond what is currently there. -Motleh 05:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin's live version of Immigrant song is 10X faster and harder compared to Queen's Stone Cold Crazy

Led Zeppelin's live version of Immigrant song is 10X faster and harder compared to Queen's Stone Cold Crazy. Now with that being said, this WILL remain in the article, no questions asked. Zephead999 01:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it won't. You don't just go on your opinion and do things like that. You should provide reliable sources, or at least discuss it with us in order to see if the change is appropriate. Being assertive gets nothing done here but a block from editing certain articles. -Motleh 05:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

We want a reliable resource? Listen to the ******* live album, "How The West Was Won". The guitar solo on heartbreaker is lightning fast, that's a fact, not an opinion by the way. And then listen to Immigrant song on that album is well, it's way heaveir then anything Queen has done. Which by the way is not an opinion. Because if you think that IS an opinino then why don't we take the term "heavy metal" off every band on this website? Because I know plenty of people who will say Metallica, MegaDeth, etc. etc. etc. is not thrash metal, heavy metal, whatever. Now with that being said the things I added to the Thrash metal article WILL remain. Zephead999 07:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down. Maybe the solo is fast, it doesn't make it thrash metal, you could as easily say that jimi hendrix was the influence for thrash metal, and thrash metal is not defined by its solos (nor is any other genre, except neoclassical maybe). You say that that Immigrant Song is heavier than anything Queen have done, that doesn't make it your opinion? I find it very hard to believe too that you can, just by examining 30 year old songs and interpret them so simply, can find the root of the thrash metal genre, neither can you deny that Queen was an influence of thrash metal because of this "discovery". So, unless you can find a realiable source (Please see WP:V) to what is now original thought, then I don't think this is appropriate in this article. And, no one can guarantee that your edits will stay in the article, if what you have written is useful and follows Wikipedias rules, maybe it will stay. Grinder0-0 15:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine, well at least take out how it was "unusually fast and heavy". Again Led Zeppelin's played immigrant song 10X heavier and at least 3 or 4X faster than Stone Cold Crazy. Zephead999 21:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Who says that certain Zep songs weren't unusually fast and heavy for their time as well? You're not proving anything by providing such arguments and being so pushy, if anything you'll just get in trouble or get the article protected. Please provide a reliable source (and verifiable, as Grinder0-0 said) that confirms or denies your argument. -Motleh 21:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Look buddy let's get back on topic, if you think Queen's song is thrashy then for sure, no questions asked Immigrant's song is thrashy as well. U don't have any source for Queen's so why should I have a source for Zep's song? Look buddy I'm not going to record a snippet of the song and send it to through e-mail. Install limewire and download it, that should be a quick way of doing so. Now excuse me, I have to re-add that info on the article. Zephead999 00:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have heard Immigrant Song, but as my personal opinion is irrelevant to the article and is neither a fact, it is also irrelevant in this discussion, and unless you can source your statement it is useless. The Queen statement is original thought now, as it is unsourced, I think it should be removed (as well as the rest of the unsourced "influences"). The only ones I've read about in magazines is Accept (song: Breaker), Judas Priest, Celtic Frost, Venom (maybe more). Also, the whole point of this discussion is that we come to a agreement of what is best for the article, so please try solving your disputes before you make any further edits regarding this subject. Grinder0-0 14:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Got rid of Queen's Stone Cold Crazy

I'm sorry but Queen's Stone Cold crazy was not unusually heavy and fast for their time, Led Zeppelin played WAY faster material thant hey have at that time, and ever will. Zephead999 01:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See above. -Motleh 05:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See above Zephead999 07:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of extrapolation

I am sorry to see my additions keep being deleted, and I apologise if they do not meet Wikipedia requirement, If the additions could be edited by someone more experienced into something acceptable I would much appreciate it, but please don't delete the whole thing.

I have used the Sekhmet image not for self promotion but because it is the only image I/we can use without possibly breaking copyright. If someone would volunteer a better image I would be very appreciative!

South of Heaven-Death Metal-ish?

How the hell is South of Heaven more of a death metal-ish album than something like Reign in Blood? That should be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Metal 1993 (talk • contribs) 20:55, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

?

"Slayer released the slower, more melodic South of Heaven the same year, as did Anthrax with State of Euphoria, Megadeth with So Far, So Good...So What!, Overkill with Under the Influence and The Years of Decay (1989), Annihilator with Alice in Hell (1989), Forbidden with Forbidden Evil, Nuclear Assault with Survive and Handle With Care (1989), DRI with 4 of a Kind and Thrash Zone (1989), Exodus with Pleasures of the Flesh (1987) and Fabulous Disaster (1989), Coroner with Punishment for Decadence and No More Color (1989), Sodom with Persecution Mania (1987) and Agent Orange (1989), Destruction with Release from Agony, and Kreator with Terrible Certainty (1987) and Extreme Aggression (1989), all pushing the aforementioned bands to new commercial heights ."

This is all wrong. None of these albums pushed the bands to 'commercial' heights. South of Heaven was a slow Slayer album but wasn't commercial. None of those other albums are commercial at all, even though some of these bands got more commercial later on. Doppelganger 00:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Speed metal removed

I altered the article to remove speed metal as a separate genre and as an origin of thrash. This is spotty revisionist history and just isn't true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.20.224 (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

All your edits have been reverted because they are incorrect. The speed metal scene pre-dates thrash by several years. Motorhead, and their contemporaries were releasing speed metal albums 4-5 years before Metallica, Anthrax, Exodus, Slayer and Megadeth emerged. The thrash movement would not have started without the influence of the earlier speed metal bands. 156.34.213.120 (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Motorhead started as a rock band that grew faster and harder, and do not even meet the standards of so called speed metal. Motorhead have always claimed they were rock n roll. Furthermore, if we had to include Motorhead with any metal genre, NWOBHM would most fit the bill. You cannot substantiate the existence of a speed metal genre or scene and thus the page is being put back as I set it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.20.224 (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

D.R.I. should be among the top thrash bands

If everyone is in agreement, DRI should be included among the top of thrash band list of the late 80's. Any thrash metal fan living during that time knew of DRI, and had at least Thrashzone in their collection. Ok to add a small paragraph about them? Nathraq (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)