For sure Death, Black (and Grindcore as well) are considered Extreme Metal, but Thrash? For me personally, I’d say only Death/Thrash or extreme Thrash whatever should be under that umbrella. Stuff like Demolition Hammer, Protector, Sepultura and the like. The point of Extreme Metal is kinda supposed to be something that sounds VERY harsh to the casual music fan, no? The vocals of Death/Thrash and tempos are pretty damn harsh so yeah.

But stuff like Metallica, Testament, even Bonded by Blood era Exodus could probably be digested adequately by most casual music fans.

What do you all think? Definitely have seen differing opinions on this.

Thrash resides firmly on the border between traditional and extreme. For example, Metallica, Megadeth, Anthrax, Heathen, Suicidal Tendencies, etc. are pretty hard to classify as "extreme" by most standards. The fact that most of those bands found some, or a lot, of commercial success speaks to that. From my experience, most casual or non-metalheads can hang with bands like that just fine. On the flip-side, it's hard to then also say that Slayer, early Kreator, Sodom, Demolition Hammer, or Warbringer aren't extreme. Non-metal fans would have a much harder time with those groups than they would the former.

I guess in the 80's thrash could've been considered extreme metal by some people, but at this point I wouldn't ever consider it as such. Like, yeah- shit that leans on the death metal side of things but is still thrash is extreme metal, but Metallica and Megadeth aren't extreme metal bands. That said, I can sort of see Slayer being considered extreme metal because they did rein in (pun intended) a lot of the main ingredients that extreme metal necessitates.

No, at least not from a modern-day perspective. When thrash becomes extreme it steps over into other genres (black metal, death metal, -core variants etc). Reign in Blood to me represents the most extreme variant of thrash metal while still staying comfortably within the genre definition.

I agree with this. As a genre that lead to the birth of two genres that we recognize as extreme metal, thrash metal could be described as a transition genre of sorts for the way it paved the way for death and black metal. All the bands listed in the more extreme side of thrash metal by thrashinbatman, as well as Morbid Saint, Dark Angel, Vio-lence or Destruction, were all definitely extreme metal. When we think about the debates surrounding the birth of black metal and death metal, we typically have a hard time agreeing on what bands were still thrash metal, and what bands were definitely black or death metal. Even those who place the birth of both black and death metal earlier rather than later would have to agree that the last thrash metal bands that were not death/thrash or black/thrash were more on the extreme side of metal.

The boring answer to the question of OP would be "it depends on the band", but as the more extreme elements are typically far less discreet and definitely more noticeable than the more traditionnal elements (I'm talking about more agressive guitars, screamed, shrieked of harsh vocals of all kind, blastbeats, etc.), I would tend to place thrash metal on the more extreme side of metal. Even if I wouldn't put Megadeth on the extreme side of thrash, I'd say that hard-hitting, pummeling and exhausting tracks like Holy Wars were (and still are to an extent) rather extreme, althoug they obviously come off as rather soft compared to brutal death metal or bestial black metal as we know them today.

Sodom? Venom? Sure. Most other bands? Definitely not.

I thought that thrash metal was too successful to be considered extreme metal. It had mainstream success. AJFA is 8x platinum, MoP+RtL are 6x platinum, Peace Sells, So Far So Good and Rust in Peace all went platinum, Slayer, Anthrax and Suicidal Tendencies each had more than one gold release, etc. I don't think a single death, grind or black album has ever been certified in the United States. Not even Cannibal Corpse, Death or Morbid Angel were able to do that.

Defeated Sanity's new album made the billboard charts at #89. Success and popularity have nothing to do with being 'extreme'

It's 2020. Nobody's buying pop music CDs, but fans of niche subgenres like metal are still dutifully buying albums, so that doesn't really have anything to do with it. DS isn't on there due to being super popular, they're on there because there's no pop music pushing all the niche music down and off the charts anymore.

I also consider it a border genre, where the default band isn't, but the ones that mix in death, black and other elements can be considered so. Some of Slayer's work seems to be right at that line. I'm not sure I'm on board calling them extreme, but anything beyond them I would say probably is. And it's another tricky issue where the vocal style has a lot to do with it. Anything with too clear of a vocal melody as the predominant style tends to put the band on the non-extreme side, but having a harsh vocalist can push them over the line. Other elements like blast beats, use of chromaticism and non-diatonic scales and the like, if used enough, also tend to edge towards a band being extreme.

Do you have a link to that? I'm skeptical.

https://www.billboard.com/charts/billboard-200
https://www.billboard.com/charts/billbo ... 2020-08-08
https://www.billboard.com/charts/billbo ... 2020-08-01

Nowhere to be seen.

While that's true, there's still a difference between "making the Billboard charts" and "having multiple RIAA certified records and headlining arenas". It's a bit hard to say thrash is inherently an extreme genre of music when it's on average one of the most successful genres of metal, far and above the commercial performance of other extreme genres.

That gets complicated. Sometimes people are drawn to extremity (the standard adage of not being able to look away from a train wreck) due to novelty. In another art form, some of the Saw films I'd argue are pretty extreme, but yet were also fairly popular and mainstream.

To elaborate on this metaphor some more, although Saw as a franchise is popular and also definitely extreme, not a single Saw movie was the top horror movie the year it came out and none of them make the top 10 grossing horror films, either adjusted for inflation or not. While by the standards of extreme horror they're incredibly successful, by the standards of horror and especially cinema it's success is relatively modest. To make a more direct metaphor, Saw is something like Cannibal Corpse, immensely successful far beyond the average for the type of art it is, but small beans compared to Jaws' Metallica or The Exorcist's Megadeth.

At this point I'm not even entirely sure what my point is, because I don't disagree with you or EoH; extremity and commercial success aren't inherently related. But given thrash's commercial success compared to other extreme metal, it's hard to argue it's firmly in the "extreme" category.

My comment was in direct response to the post above, saying thrash was too mainstream to he considered extreme. By where defeated sanity is definitely extreme metal, and charting billboard.

Also, it's too fucking hard to post pictures from my phone, the post is on Willowtip's Facebook.

I don't get how "extreme" horror movies have anything to do with "extreme" metal music. While the themes and lyrics might be more violent, gorey, dark, occult and generally evil in the more extreme subgenres of metal, it's not really a criterion. Most of the lyrical themes of Panopticon are related to politics, coal mining, nature, history and spirituality, it's still black metal and definitely extreme metal. Extreme in metal doesn't have anything to do with extreme violence or gore in horror movies. When mixing this with album sells and popularity, this comparison got even way more off track.

Of course popular thrash metal was popular. Saying thrash metal is not extreme because Metallica and Megadeth went platinum is irrelevant, first because a ton of more extreme thrash metal bands didn't go platinum, and also because the amount of albums you sell doesn't have anything to do with how extreme you are or not. I don't know about billboards and charts, but if I remember correctly, metal was in it's peak commercial popularity during the 80's, and after that, basically no metal record really ever was as commercially succesful as albums released by Metallica, Maiden, Sabbath or Megadeth. The musical landscape was changing, and it still is to this day. Popularity in the 2020's doesn't mean the same as popularity in the 80's, just as much as albums sells didn't mean the same than as it means now.

Yes.

OK, I see the post. They were #89 on the current albums chart, not the Billboard 200. That chart essentially removes all the catalogue albums in favour of only having newer releases on it. Again, I don't see how it really disputes what I said though. Charting #89 on the current charts for 1 week is a far cry from selling 8 million copies. Sure, it's unfair to compare Defeated Sanity to Metallica though, since Defeated Sanity definitely aren't the most popular death metal band.

I'm just trying to say that popularity has nothing to do with whether or not something is considered extreme. Maybe I'm doing a shitty job of that, guess I am. I dont consider thrash to not be extreme metal because it's popular or has well selling bands in it, I don't consider it to be extreme because by and large thrash as a genre doesn't exhibit characteristics of extreme metal, in my opinion. If a grindcore band suddenly went platinum tomorrow I would still consider it to be extreme music.

I got that's what you meant, but I have to strongly disagree. Quite a lot of thrash metal bands have pretty extreme elements. Again, tell me how Morbid Saint, Kreator or Demolition Hammer aren't extreme? They have blastbeats, lots of distortion, fast riffing and harsh vocals.

Seeing how people have a hard time drawing a line between thrash and death metal, noticeably with all threse death/thrash bands like Sepultura, Sadus, Possessed, Pestilence and the likes, or between thrash and black metal with all the 1st wave black metal bands that are on the fence between the two genre, it's fair to say that thrash metal definitely has very "extreme" elements and that goes as far back as the middle of the 80's with bands like Kreator releasing albums like Pleasure to Kill in 1986, the same year Metallica released Master of Puppets.

A good point. As for me, Venom settled the sound and the image of extreme metal and it was a one of the main influences on thrash, while thrash itself split in two forms, a one was more mainstream oriented (Metallica, Megadeth, Anthrax, etc), the other one was harsher amd more underground (Slayer, Kreator, Sodom, etc). And the last one influenced black and death metal, which are genuinely extreme. The likes of Hellhammer, Celtic Frost, Bathory, early Mayhem, Possessed, early Death, early black and death metal in general were firmly rooted in thrash metal and sounded extreme obviously.

Back in the 80s, it was extreme, the farthest you could take metal for awhile. In the 90s, it was more "mainstream" but still pretty extreme for the masses, death metal was still known by very few. By the 2000s, death metal was at least known to most and bands like Nile and Dying Fetus made thrash seem tame. By the 10s.... nothing was really considered "extreme" anymore. It's all been done to death. There are a million bands that play a million miles an hour, scream about the most "underground" shit ever or in general can fit any description of extreme you want. Nothing is shocking or "extreme" anymore imo. Totally depends what time period you are asking about as to exactly how extreme we are talking here.

For me no, because I consider everything before the 80s "almost metal", the 80s broadly "metal", and the 90s the decade of extreme metal (where the best dmetal, black and grindcore is). So 80s stuff like anything from power, to thrash and speed, trad, prog... was just "metal", with extreme metal being very much in the minority (Venom, Possessed...).

Most mainstream people would listen to typical 80s and call it "heavy" but wouldn't think "wtf is going on here".

Because thrash still is metal, it'll sometimes carry elements of extreme metal like Slayer's riffing and atmosphere was very dark, same with Sepultura. But the regular thrashers are your typical long haired, hole in jeans, beer chugging guitar shredders. They're rebellious, decry society's faults, etc. Extreme metal bands will have really dark, often occult imagery and lyrics, violent album covers, and music that is barely if not at all intelligible on any level to the commoner.

Interesting! Definitely can see where you are coming from with this, though I would throw more Thrash bands than most into the Extreme category. Anything more intense than Slayer basically; they are the cut-off line I think. So all the German bands, Brazilian bands (I’d consider Sepultura in there, although Arise in particular is cutting it very close) and stuff like Exhorder and Morbid Saint.

Hell, even Slayer itself is pushing it HARD with Hell Awaits and Reign in Blood in particular. Hell Awaits especially STILL sounds like literal hell.

Sadus, Dark Angel, and Morbid Saint sure are extreme.

More extreme than death metal bands like Death IMHO, although I hardly intend that as a statement against Death.

For the purpose of the discussion I agreed to use the broad category of extreme metal, although I have a firm disliking of it. It is not an actual genre, and I typically avoid using the term because what it actually means is too open for interpretation and usually leads to disagreements based solely on how we define the term. See, I don't normally use the category extreme metal, but when I do it's in this opposition between traditionnal (more accessible) metal and the most extreme, abrasive, pounding forms of metal. So the only way this really makes sense as a category to me is in reference to a specific time frame, which is basically around the time thrash started to sound like Kreator or Sodom and with the inception of death, black and grindcore. So, to me, extreme metal isn't a categorization that varies over the time, it's not a reference to how the community perceives it at various times, it's more static and encapsulates a transition from trad metal towards the less accessible, more extreme genres of metal at a specific time.

But again, I don't really like the category "extreme metal" as I find it hard to include in extreme metal anything that isn't related to thrash, death, black and grindcore, although doom, drone and stoner now have pretty intense and less accessible forms of their own genre that could fit into your definition of extreme.

I don't consider thrash metal without slash to be extreme metal. And with thrash metal with slash it's not the thrash metal that's considered exteme metal.

I read somewhere that Death's fourth album, Human, has sold about 650,000-700,000 worldwide. I'm not sure how many of those were in the States alone, though.

Isn't "extreme metal" just a name? Just like black metal isn't really black, extreme metal isn't really extreme. It's just fast rock music with screamy vocals. But for the sake of classification I have no problems with categorizing some forms of heavy metal as extreme.
In my view, death and black, and their off-shoots, are "extreme metal".

Completely agree with you! All depends on who you ask really. I am old enough to be fortunate to witness a birth of Thrash first hand...and its demise for that matter. And in early 80s there were no more extreme subs than Thrash. Still to these days some of it ( Slayer's first 5 albums for example) sound more extreme than most of melo-Death and Prog Metal of today...or most of Atmospheric BM for that matter. It's really a generational perception. Who knows, maybe 20 years from now Freezing Moon by Mayhem will be considered a children lullaby, haha

Yeah, this. But the issue is that "extreme metal" isn't a subgenre, it's just kind of a word with a vague definition that we hardly even agree on, while black metal is a genre with elements that are defined.

To me "extrem metal" refers to the genres born in the second half of the 80's and in the early 90's, so the most agressive forms of thrash metal, black, death and grindcore. However, some people define extreme metal as stuff that is too intense, too "extreme" for broader audiences. So we always end up having these weird discussions where people fight over if Opeth is extreme metal or not. And I mean... I kind of understand why... Extreme metal isn't a defined thing like black metal or death metal are.

I mean the obvious answer is that it straddles the line - Metallica is clearly not even at their heaviest, but Sepultura's Arise is imo (and a masterstroke in straddling that line).
Similarly, Pleasure to Kill is a definite "yes", but Agent Orange isn't in my book.
Then the line is further blurred with albums like Eternal Nightmare or Reign in Blood - not exactly casual listening, but I still wouldn't call them extreme.
That's probably half of the key to the genre's longevity, in that it has such wide appeal.

It's really dependent on the 'type' of thrash being played. Thrash can be more abrasive and chaotic than some death metal if it wants to be. Pleasure to Kill is certainly what I'd consider extreme metal, maybe the lower end if you take brutal death metal and grindcore into account.

Depending on if you view Hellhammer as just thrash metal or early black metal, they certainly have a few songs that qualify. Blood Insanity, Crucifixion, Bloody Pussies and Hammerhead all have extremely harsh vocals, some outright black metal shrieks, and guitars that sound like metal baseball bats being cut with a belt sander.

In general, though, I'd say extreme thrash is the exception, not the rule. So I don't consider it in full to be extreme metal, only the outliers.

its as extreme as it gets to me.

Absolutely.

Thrash is definitely extreme. Even the most commercial of thrash like Master of Puppets or something is basically noise to the average person who doesn't listen to metal.

Yeah but then all metal is extreme metal. Not sure you really thought that through.

Yep. Slayer? Extreme. Megadeth? Not extreme. This one was a no-brainer.

80's Iron Maiden? 70's Judas Priest? Black Sabbath? Are you telling me these examples are just as heavy as Master of Puppets? I guarantee the average music listener would find them more musical and less extreme than MoP.

You can't guarantee that.