I'll definitely check it out. I like thrash new and old.

I guess some of the thrash that falls under the "revivalist" thing has a certain negative stigma attached to it; that it's all rehash and little else. Some of it is just really fun, straightforward metal, and generally written well enough and performed well enough to be able to carry a likeness to the older bands that they're drawing inspiration from. After all, I think it needs to be considered that it isn't exactly easy to copy the greats in such a way that you manage to sound like them, or deliver an equivalent or somewhere near equivalent level of musicianship and song writing, as unoriginal as it may be.

That's why we like the oldies in the first place, isn't it? Cuz they could deliver catchy riffs and whatnot. It's not as if these newbies can't do the same, they just tend to do it in less of their own way and pay homage to those who did it ages ago. "This is cool and all but I've already heard this" kind of stuff. And the oldies weren't necessarily carrying an unimpeachable level of performance either; the newbies can be just as energetic and strong performers as the oldies. Just not as originally creative, in most cases. In a prevailing number of cases, hence that negative stigma of the whole "revivalist" thing, trying to reinvigorate the genre without presenting anything all that new, even if bands do draw influence from a number of older outfits and bring them under the one sound. Just makes it more "eclectically" unoriginal, if that makes sense.

Thing is most bands don't manage this equivalent quality of sound or energy or cool riffs etc. It sounds like what your older bands were putting out in their prime, just nowhere near as exciting because it turns out to be "cookie-cutter stuff", as you say. Originality is a huge burden on thrash these days, and I'm just stating the obvious there. From your review it seems like this will be more "well performed but unoriginal possibly to the point that it makes it bland and somewhat tiresome" kind of stuff. Depends on how much of a thrash diehard you are I suppose. Thanks for the heads up.

Also, pardon the wall of text, your review just got me thinking about the "thrash revivalist thing" you're talking about.

Written by R'Vannith on 20.03.2014 at 06:00

Things

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Written by deadone on 20.03.2014 at 06:59

post

I can see what you mean by "faceless." For the most part I don't think these thrash revivalist bands set out to identically replicate the oldies, but nor do they seem to go out of their way to avoid it. Possibly this stems from a deficiency among the newbies in their song writing creativity, so their tunes end up sounding similar to what they imagine a good piece of thrash sounds like, without employing anything of their own which stands out significantly enough amongst the "hero worship" going on, so to speak.

Originality, of course, is always something of an issue to varied degrees across all genres, not just in the case of thrash. Though in this context, thrash "revivalist" stuff that is, it seems to be more pronounced and detrimental to the enjoyment of it all. But that's if you take value in that sort of thing, some thrash fans could probably care less about that, and take quality written thrash where they find it, which I'm certain isn't restricted to simply the "oldies."

Although I think it's this inability amongst new bands to present a new "face" which makes their music unmemorable, not so much an inability to write songs. So I can't agree that these bands are entirely incapable of writing good thrash (though I don't think you're suggesting that either, from what you're saying), otherwise what we are presented with would come off as a total mess and in reality would fail to actually sound similar to the music which people claim it so closely bears a resemblance. There has to be some level of quality to pull off a sound which can be compared to those of older acts.

Your premise is interesting, I can't really add anything to it or deny that it appears to be logical. Although I will say that the notion of a thrash "revivalist" thing suggests to me that your idea becomes less applicable today than it was some years back, perhaps. People, musicians being the main proponents obviously, are trying to revive the genre, and so the attraction for talented musicians (or musicians in learning) to play the genre may be more attractive/rewarding these days than perhaps it was before. It fluctuates, and changes based on what's happening in a scene by scene context. Generally speaking the 80's may have been a more beneficial time to be a thrash metal musician, when it was so highly favoured. As you say, now there are more subgenres, not necessarily competing but attracting the talent required to play them. So I guess less attention may be given to thrash, in comparison to other genres, based on what's more popular and what's not. But thrash still makes up a major part of metal, I don't think there's any denying that, regardless of personal perspective as to whether the "revivalist" part of it is all just rehashed stuff. I think many talented musicians are still keen to play thrash.

Perfect review! Good Thrash album but sounds like they're using the old formula time and time again. Still find kneel to the gun a great song. Not a bad album in anyway...just sounds like we heard it all before.

Written by deadone on 20.03.2014 at 06:59

And bare in mind some of the newbies now have up to 4 albums to their name, so they should've developed their own style and reasonable song writing ability.

This really surprised me. When I was writing the review, I realized that Suicidal Angels formed in 2001 and this is actually their fifth album, so I wasn't sure how justified I would be in referring to them as "newcomers" or part of this younger generation of thrash bands. 13 years is a long time, after all. But of course Toxic Holocaust formed in 1999, Municipal Waste formed in 2000, Gama Bomb in 2002, Warbringer, Evile, and Havok in 2004, Bonded by Blood and Lazarus A.D. in 2005, etc., and they all have three, four, five albums to their names. The fact that they have been around for so long already and put out so much material makes it all the more damning that they are still writing the same stuff. Some of those bands do have their own styles at this point (I'm just using them as examples for how old this movement is), but others have not.