.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to BestialOnslaught.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="BestialOnslaught:424186"]Anthony - Well your band could respond to my Myspace message about playing a show with EA and age restrictions will suddenly lose meaning! Haha... Scott - I do agree that VENOM was certainly much more based on a traditional Blues Rock formula then the bands that followed, but for me, there's certainly a feeling present that represents "Extreme Metal" as a whole to me in all their classic material that does seperate it significantly from the rest of the NWOBHM and the Hard Rock/HM/Punk bands they took influence from. Certainly the bands that followed moved further away from the traditional Rock/Metal formula than VENOM did, but I certainly think of it as an evolutionary process rather than anything where distinct lines can be drawn. While on a technical level, VENOM is in most ways closer to, say, JUDAS PRIEST than KRISIUN, I think in essence, they are much closer to the latter... But that's certainly subjective. While you may be old as hell and have been listening to some of this stuff almost a decade or so longer than I, that doesn't mean the classifications you and your pals were using were the same worldwide ;) I agree that in general, most of the bands we're talking about were generally referred to as Thrash or Speed Metal, but the impression I get is that terms like those two, BM, DM, Power Metal, etc. really were used more as descriptors, rather than strict classifiers... Which is why there are flyers/ads/reviews/etc. that refer to bands like VENOM, BATHORY, SLAYER, VOIVOD, POSSESSED and so on as all sorts of different things. I think people WERE throwing around terms like Black Metal and Death Metal quite a bit, at least by the mid-80's, but without nearly so much concern for sticking to a set of technical rules for what each subgenre consists of. I prefer that approach to the way the styles have become so segmented, thoughthat was probably an inevitable process. What I can definitely agree on is that I wouldn't throw on any VENOM as a basic example for Death Metal... And the albums you listed are certainly more representative of the genre as a whole. But if this WAS a Death Metal 101 class and Dr. Onslaught was the prof., you can be sure the required listening would include a couple Lant/Dunn/Bray compositions![/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.004 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][