Well, we're at it again! I was arguing with a pal on Facebook earlier about this. Which album do you guys feel was more influential (not which album is better) to the development of thrash, death, and black metal as we know it?

I rest my case.

No way was Bathory more influential than Venom on the development of thrash. Slayer, Megadeth et al were into Venom in a big way. As for black metal? Arguable, but Venom were a much bigger influence on the imagery and non-musical elements.

I was under the impression that without Venom, there would be no Bathory?

Without Sabbath there's nothing, this argument is lame.


Anyway, I think WTH is not Venom's most influential album. To Mega Therion wins, but if the battle would be against Black Metal, then Celtic Frost (an all time favourite of mine) has no chance. Venom wins.

It's relevant here, if someone is trying to say Bathory is more significant than Venom.

Why would you pick to compare Welcome to Hell and To Mega Therion? I know Morbid Tales wasn't released in full until later but the music that comprised those two first EP's was stellar and incredibly influential. I would say Venom as a whole was probably more influential on the metal aesthetic, making thrash virtually a genre of extreme metal, but Celtic Frost had a bigger impact on pushing the boundaries of thrash into the genres we consider extreme today like death and black metal.

I think I agree with IanThrash on this one, you're picking the wrong albums. Many people find that the first three albums from both bands (hell, even Bathory) were the most influential and extreme albums of their time. To compare bands would be fair, but it doesn't make sense to compare bands on an album by album basis.

I often hear more CF/ HellHammer influence in bands than Venom, but maybe I'm listening to the wrong bands. My guess would be that Venom was more influential to thrash and early black metal, while CF influence included death metal, doom metal and black metal as well. It's hard to measure something as influence of two bands that are about on the same level of notoriety.

Something like this. It's hard to say which was more influential because they both influenced different bands. Welcome to Hell (though more so Black Metal) was definitely influential to early-thrash/black/death, but To Mega Therion shows a lot more influence in black and death once they'd established themselves more strongly. Silly argument really.

I always understood that Morbid Tales had been a full length LP ever since it was released in the USA, and it was only us Europeans who originally had it as an EP (as Dethroned Emperor and Morbid Tales had been removed from the track listing)? Is that not correct?

No, you're right about that, I just assumed that it happened later. The second EP wasn't recorded for a whole year afterwards, so I'm assuming the American release came out shortly after that. Idk I might be wrong.

Perhaps you could start the discussion by offering your own thoughts on two things:
-Why are you picking these two albums?
-Which do you think is more influential, or if you haven't made up your mind, offer some thoughts on why each one is influential.

Comparing these two albums is a poor and arbitrary choice. I don't think you're really getting the bigger picture of the evolution of metal and how you can't really quantify it. You chose only one Venom album, their first, while their second was also very influential. By the time Celtic Frost released TMT, Venom had four albums out, and the CF legacy included two CF EPs plus a Hellhammer EP and the demos. Still, it is generally recognized that the first two Venom albums were by far the most significant of theirs, and those had been released before Hellhammer had recorded a demo. Rather than comparing these albums from '81 and '85, I would frame the situation as all of this being on the timeline of more extreme metal of those days.

The impact on the development of thrash, death, and black metal, in this case, can be separated. Venom's first two LPs came out before thrash metal was really formed, and it was indeed influential on thrash, as well as significant in the scene, as Metallica opened for Venom on a tour - whose music provided a setting for people to hear the newer band, Metallica. Venom's success seemed to peak around 85-87, and they sort of faded off towards the end of the decade with a change in direction. They were one of the more extreme speed metal bands that ushered in the era of thrash.

Similarly, Celtic Frost came into a later era, where they were one of the most extreme thrash bands, as well as one of the most notable extreme bands of their time. Their works from 84-87 had a stretch of a few years where they were really innovate and pushed extreme metal in the directions that others wanted to see it. You can sort of trace the works that would meld together in the music that was pushing boundaries back then:
81-82 Venom were playing extreme speed metal
83-84 Slayer were playing darker, more extreme thrash than their peers
84-85 HH/CF were mixing the more extreme elements of those two, the dark/fast thrash of Slayer and the rough, black-ish edge of sloppy and distorted Venom
86-87 CF continues being one of the most extreme as well as influential, while more extreme bands release albums - Slaughter, Possessed, Death, Vulcano, Sarcofago, Sepultura, and of course Bathory's biggest step forwards in '87. Mayhem's "Deathcrush" also came this year, which seems like an unholy crossbreed of Celtic Frost and the buzzing of Venom's "Black Metal" and a hint of old Bathory, where UTSOTBM would really change their music.
88 Cold Lake. I'll stop there since I believe my point has been made.

am i the only one who doesnt think the classic hellhammer/celtic frost material sounds like thrash at all?
Im picking up some speed metal elements and punk but actual thrash riffs i dont really see anywhere.
For me classic celtic frost can best be labled as proto death/black.

That's usually what it is labeled. There is a lot of overlap between thrash and extreme metal riffs though. Back then thrash wasn't defined by a kind of bouncy or fast riffing like it is in new-wave thrash, it was just a term that meant heavier than typical metal. Nobody would have picked up on the NWOBHM and black and death metal fringes on Slayers first two albums either.

Well stuff like say Stone is quite different from a lot of thrash that might be called "pure" but its still obviously thrash. The most thrashy parts of celtic frost are just speed metal riffs played at a lower bpm.

faster, not heavier. doom is heavier. thrash is just faster.

I believe the importance of both "At War With Satan" and "Possessed" is not being taken in consideration.

These albums are extreme, thrashy, aggressive and also EPIC, ATMOSPHERIC and PROGRESSIVE! All before Celtic Frost thought of doing the same (Ok possessed is from 85, same year as TMT).

In any case, as far as I am concerned, Venom invented not only the extremity with their first two albums, but also developed how thrash/black could be also epic and progressive with those two majestic and atmospheric dark albums. Just check the opening and the development of the track "Possessed" and you will see what I mean. Or all the dark twists and turns of "At war".

The tribal drumming of MANITU, combined with the profane, "worshippers of Cthulhu singing" chant of the chorus, MAAAAANITU!, that's absolutely unholy black metal. Venom took things to a new level with "At war".

It is the guide book to make extreme music a dark, brutal JOURNEY. Nobody had done something like that before!

Venom is the beginning of everything so I think that the answer is quite obvious. Moreover, CF´s style is different and the album was released latter. Both albums are highly influencial but Venon was the first step in the evolution of the extreme metal.

I guess you mean all the music Venom released in this period and not just At War with Satan and Possessed? Since 'Manitu' and a lot of the other great songs from this period were just released as singles and didn't turn up on the original albums. I think Possessed really blows outside of a couple of tracks, anyway. There's plenty of numbers on there that don't really go anywhere on that album and, if I'm not mistaken, it was largely considered a let down in its day.

+1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTr7_mhD9ew

Satanic Rites version of "Triumph of Death". Listen to the part where it gets fast around 2:00 and tell me you don't hear any thrash in those riffs.

Regarding Bathory's debut being more important/influential: you mean the album that's straight-up Venom worship? C'mon at least make a case for The Return or Under the Sign of the Black Mark!

@Heilman: if you're going to discuss or even consider music history, make sure to get your facts and dates straight, and don't rely on compilations, remasters or otherwise historically inaccurate versions of past releases. Basically, what ANA said, plus the fact that neither 'At War With Satan' nor 'Possessed' brought anything new to metal evolution's table, at all.


Not really, no. That's mostly the famous tootoo-too-tootoo-too-tootoo-too... riff that every metal band has used at least once (most notably, in this particular context, Venom, who built the entire "Welcome to Hell" title track around it two years prior), and then some punk-y and doom-y variations. Venom's 'Black Metal' album (released a year and half earlier) is considerably closer to thrash than this, as are various songs by Holocaust, Diamond Head and others. It'd be proto-thrash to an extent, had it been released before actual thrash albums (which isn't the case, since that demo came out months after both 'Kill 'Em All' and 'Show no Mercy'). To my ears, and I think I agree with tomcat on this point, that early HellHammer material is primarily a very particular mixture of speed, doom and punk, with a production job and, above all, an atmosphere that would later find itself in black metal (including on Bathory's debut the following year). It isn't, however, related to thrash in any significant way.


You mean in the same way that Venom's debut was straight-up Motörhead worship? Because the biggest leap in style and aesthetics is definitely from Venom's 'Black Metal' to Bathory's debut, not from the latter to 'The Return' or even to UtSotBM. Quorthon worshipped Venom, yes, but he took away all the goofy, tongue-in-cheek vibes, much of the residual bluesy leanings, and replaced them with a dead serious, creepy-as-fuck atmosphere, while also stumbling upon the quintessential black metal vocal style, and further enforcing the equalizer-is-a-four-letter-word approach to production that would become a crucial trait of early black metal's identity. So, yes, the endeavor started out as Venom worship, but the result is so much more than that.

Who the fuck are you even responding to with this post? I never said anything about that riff influencing thrash bands, or Hellhammer being closer to thrash than Venom, or anything you seem to be trying to talk about here. All I said was that riff is clearly thrashy, and it is; if Diamond Head, Venom, and Holocaust used similar riffs too, so what? Where do you think early thrash bands got their riff patterns from in the first place? The difference between the Hellhammer riff and any similar Diamond Head/Holocaust riff is that it's faster and more aggressive - which is exactly the same difference between really early thrash and heavy metal.

that riff is pure rockin heavy metal to me.

Wow, dude, relax. I wasn't attacking you, there. I wasn't attacking anyone, really, just stating my 2 cents on the "Hellhammer contains thrash; yay or nay?" point being raised. It's a nay from me, for the reasons I cited, which include some historical context, as this was sort of the recurring theme of this thread (despite an OP asking the wrong question, as was already pointed out).

That riff is thrashy to an extent, sure, but not primarily. While comparing that riff's thrashiness to that of proto-thrash NWoBHM bands who used similar riffs earlier on, my point was precisely that even they were closer to thrash than HH/CF, even though HH/CF came out not only after said proto-thrash bands, but also after the first string of proper thrash releases, so they were clearly going in another direction entirely, that's what I meant.

As for the riff patterns and core differences between early thrash and regular heavy metal, I don't think it was just faster and more aggressive but similar riffs. The extra staccatos all over the place and loads of palm-muted one-note filling between power chords come from a few specific types of riff only, traced back to NWoBHM to Motörhead to punk and all the way back to stuff like "Paranoid", "Communication Breakdown" or "I Wanna be Your Dog". At their core, songs like "Ace of Spades", "Death or Glory" or "Killers" are closer to thrash than any HellHammer or Celtic Frost material I've heard.

Well Legend, you could try and be polite and not lower the level of the debate by being gratuitously and unnecessarily arrogant and aggressive towards me and distorting/lying about what I said. I'd appreciate some basic respect, you know?

Concerning what you said: I didn't mention any compilations or any data that is wrong. At war is from 1983 and Possessed is from 1985 and these facts are correct. Manitou is a single from 1984. All the history I pointed out is factually correct.

And regarding the subject at hand: "neither 'At War With Satan' nor 'Possessed' brought anything new to metal evolution's table, at all."

Well, that's your opinion. My opinion is that they brought the elements I have talked about and you can re-read them if you didn't understand them, since you didn't present any reasons on why nothing "new" was made by these records and I, on the other hand, presented their qualities. But if you don't like them, suit yourself and don't listen to them!

If that Hellhammer riff isn't thrash, then everything on South of heaven also isn't thrash. Again, thrash isn't a super refined riffing style, it just means heavy fast riffs, loads of distortion, a step more inaccessible than heavy metal. Granted, most of Hellhammers material wasn't that fast, but Tom was notorious for... not being that good at around that time anyways.

Acrobat, I certainly mean all of Venom's post Black Metal (the album) production yes! With the first two albums they coined speed and aggression, but with the singles and At War/Possessed they entered dark atmosphere (the beggining of Possessed, the title track), progressiviness and majestic, epic riffs (At War) and more. For sure they created a lot more than just thrash and speed! A visionary band for sure!

Ah, so it's officially Overreaction Day? I didn't get the memo. My bad, I guess...


Self-important drama queen, much? I've been perfectly polite to you, and shown more than basic respect. Even calling my post arrogant or aggressive is pushing it quite a bit. Annoyed, yes, marginally, but that's to be expected in the face of ridiculous, unsubstantiated claims with factual inaccuracies on top. And I perfectly understood your post the first time around, thank you very much, you presumptuous douche.

AWWS was released in April 1984, for starters, hardly 1983, and to find it as revolutionary and groundbreaking as to throw a bunch of wildly flattering adjectives at it in all-caps like you did, you must be missing out on a whole lot of more historically relevant material from this era. You also clearly referred to "Manitou" as an AWWS track, which strongly suggested you might own a later compilation featuring it as a bonus track.

If you're curious as to my precise opinion on this, here's a link. The historical irrelevancy of 'Possessed' should be self-explanatory. Now, I've provided you with information you might need. Take it or leave it, that's entirely your choice.


Not in the least. What are you smoking? Thrash may very well be the more precisely defined of all metal genres, as well as the one genre whose definition relies almost exclusively on its über specific riffing style. There are slow thrash songs, with slow thrash riffs, and thrash albums with not too abrasive a sound, either, and even thrash bands with very clean vocals. You either use thrash riffs predominantly, and you play thrash, or you don't, and you don't play thrash. By your definition, anything and everything from 'Gates to Purgatory' to 'Walls of Jericho' to 'Painkiller' to all of death and black would count as "thrash". Are you friends with the guy who posted that outrageous "top 100 thrash albums" list-thread a few months back? Maybe you should.

guys, chillax... put some Bathory on.

LM (Lame Maker I would say), you obviously are a person with problems, no sense of manners and decency. Not to mention no real knowledge of rock/metal history. I intend to waste no more time talking with someone who doesn't know how to behave in a civilized manner and knows nothing about music.

That settled, for my final communication with you: I didn't say Manitou is from AWWS, which is, by the way, irrelevant since it was released around the same time. And "Oh my god! The album is from 4 months, 3 days and 3 hours AFTER THE END of 1985! You are wrong in everything you said". Stop pointing out irrelevant facts to make you look good because you have nothing else at hand and have to make something up in order to "point pseudo-mistakes at others" to fill your ego up. It makes you look like what you are: desperate.

If you don't like the albums you could have politely disagreed and presented your reasons for why you think people should think like you and not like they did, and why everyone should have your taste. And not entered the discussion in the arrogant, ignorant, insecure and truculent way you did.

And yes, those albums are awesome, revolutionary and plenty of people acknowledge it, maybe not losers with more hours of board posting than vultures have of flying like you do, but musicians and proper rock historians, for instance. Goodbye.

In the context we're talking about here, it is. If painkiller were released by some arbitrary band in 82, I think it would get labeled thrash. At least when I was getting into thrash (before I knew what extreme metal or thrash even was), it was the dark atmosphere and heavy riffs that made thrash metal sound the way it did, not specifically speedy bouncy riffs. I was searching for bands that sounded similar to Slayer and Iron Maiden. I was recommended bands like Celtic Frost and Dark Angel, two bands with completely different sounds, styles, and riffing, but all still thrash.

Yes, it could be labeled "proto-death/black metal", but that doesn't make it not thrash. When bands like Mayhem started developing black metal, they took the most extreme elements that they liked from the most extreme thrash bands to make something darker.

Alright, Civil, I've made you. Boy, third account in what, six months? And still after my balls? Awesome life, you must have, indeed.




Dude, really, you seem to be confused as to what thrash actually is as a music genre. That some people don't know and will mislabel bands, even more so back in the days when the genre was still in its formative years, doesn't make the genre itself a vaguely defined umbrella term. It just means that some bands or albums were mislabeled back in the day, and that some people still mislabel them now, three decades after the fact.