New Chuck Billy interview

I gotta say that Chuck looks good for his age (aside from being a bit overweight). I’m pretty sure he’s in his 60’s now, like Dave Mustaine. 

This interview explains a lot and helps me get why Chuck is by far my favorite thrash vocalist. I'd never heard the stories of all the training he did before Testament. It makes a lot of sense and it shows. He's always been amazing using his voice and transitioning between styles. It's impressive, having college level experience definitely made a big difference.

Frozen Fire wrote:This interview explains a lot and helps me get why Chuck is by far my favorite thrash vocalist. I'd never heard the stories of all the training he did before Testament. It makes a lot of sense and it shows. He's always been amazing using his voice and transitioning between styles. It's impressive, having college level experience definitely made a big difference.

Yep!

And he brings a lot of his melodic 70’s hard rock influences into his vocals. 

Unsurprisingly, his main inspiration for metal has always been James Hetfield’s early style.

It’s rare that the vocalist is a draw for a thrash band, but Chuck is an exception.

Chuck is a better singer, but I prefer Zetro's writing for the band.

Pethead wrote:It’s rare that the vocalist is a draw for a thrash band, but Chuck is an exception.

Eric AK is a draw for Flotsam! 

No doubt about it. 

In fact… if he wasn’t the singer, I might not even listen to them.

I’d say the vocalist is one of the main factors that makes or breaks a band regardless of genre. It takes some REALLY good songwriting to make up for bad vocals, and good vocals can save otherwise uninteresting music

Generally speaking, though, thrash vocalists are at best “serviceable.” Those who rise above that standard tend to stand out. Or if they’re exceptionally bad, they stand out. Thrash is more about the riffs than the vocals.

You can obviously cite exceptions involving great singers, but my point stands.

For example, Slayer is easily the third biggest thrash band of all time after Metallica and Megadeth. Araya has a good shouting voice, but no one is gonna say "Wow, what a singer." They'd notice if he were terrible like Roger Martinez, or awesome like Chuck Billy, but otherwise it's not a big selling point for the music.

Whaddya mean Tom's not the best singer in the world?!?

Pethead wrote:For example, Slayer is easily the third biggest thrash band of all time after Metallica and Megadeth. Araya has a good shouting voice, but no one is gonna say "Wow, what a singer." They'd notice if he were terrible like Roger Martinez, or awesome like Chuck Billy, but otherwise it's not a big selling point for the music.

I thought his best vocals ever were on the World Painted Blood album.

Pethead wrote:Generally speaking, though, thrash vocalists are at best “serviceable.” Those who rise above that standard tend to stand out. Or if they’re exceptionally bad, they stand out. Thrash is more about the riffs than the vocals.

You can obviously cite exceptions involving great singers, but my point stands.

Vocals do play a big part in thrash, but it's more about adding more aggression or delivering melodies depending on the style of thrash, and delivering the lyrics. Less about the actual sound of the voice.

Right. It doesn't call for a powerhouse vocalist the way prog typically does. And when a band has such a vocalist it makes an impression. 

For the record, I think Araya's vocals fit Slayer really well. But he ain't Dio.

That's one thing that stands out about Tourniquet. Guy and Luke both were really good vocalists.

Yep, and Gary had a great shout.

Maybe it’s just me then, because for the most part I can’t get into thrash for which I don’t like the vocals. Believer is a good example, due primarily to the guy’s voice the only Believer songs I like are the ones with only the operatic female vocals. Also Ultimatum albums other than Into the Pit are ruined for me because of that incredibly bizarre (in a bad way) voice he does

seth wrote:Maybe it’s just me then, because for the most part I can’t get into thrash for which I don’t like the vocals. Believer is a good example, due primarily to the guy’s voice the only Believer songs I like are the ones with only the operatic female vocals. Also Ultimatum albums other than Into the Pit are ruined for me because of that incredibly bizarre (in a bad way) voice he does

You probably represent a large portion of metal fans, but not necessarily thrashheads.

That being said, I think even most thrashheads have their limits on how bad the vocals can be. But again, the standard is "serviceable."

Pethead wrote:

seth wrote:Maybe it’s just me then, because for the most part I can’t get into thrash for which I don’t like the vocals. Believer is a good example, due primarily to the guy’s voice the only Believer songs I like are the ones with only the operatic female vocals. Also Ultimatum albums other than Into the Pit are ruined for me because of that incredibly bizarre (in a bad way) voice he does

You probably represent a large portion of metal fans, but not necessarily thrashheads.

That being said, I think even most thrashheads have their limits on how bad the vocals can be. But again, the standard is "serviceable."

Such as that one band... Ripped Meat or something...

I understand if you don't like thrash metal.  If you like mediocre riffs that could be created by AI, there is always Euro power metal.

For me, riffs are more like the icing than the cake. The cake is songwriting quality and/or melody

seth wrote:For me, riffs are more like the icing than the cake. The cake is songwriting quality and/or melody

That does explain your love for grindcore.

It's subjective, I like Souza, he fits the music but he's not a good singer but I can't stand Roger and I'm not into Scott's vocals.

seth wrote:For me, riffs are more like the icing than the cake. The cake is songwriting quality and/or melody

Sounds like a Journey/AOR fan more than a Black Sabbath/metal fan.

Every genre has to have songwriting quality.  Quality riffs are part of that.

Temple of Blood wrote:

seth wrote:For me, riffs are more like the icing than the cake. The cake is songwriting quality and/or melody

Sounds like a Journey/AOR fan more than a Black Sabbath/metal fan.

Every genre has to have songwriting quality.  Quality riffs are part of that.

I’m not denying riffs have an effect on quality. Just that for me they’re the icing, not the cake. Good riffs can’t save a song with bad/boring vocals or boring song structuring for me

Pethead wrote:Generally speaking, though, thrash vocalists are at best “serviceable.” Those who rise above that standard tend to stand out. Or if they’re exceptionally bad, they stand out. Thrash is more about the riffs than the vocals.

I agree.

StevenCressler wrote:

Pethead wrote:Generally speaking, though, thrash vocalists are at best “serviceable.” Those who rise above that standard tend to stand out. Or if they’re exceptionally bad, they stand out. Thrash is more about the riffs than the vocals.

You can obviously cite exceptions involving great singers, but my point stands.

Vocals do play a big part in thrash, but it's more about adding more aggression or delivering melodies depending on the style of thrash, and delivering the lyrics. Less about the actual sound of the voice.

I'll add attitude/personality. Personally I've always loved Blitz from Overkill for the attitude he brings to his delivery. It's perfect for their sound and lyrical content. Mustaine used to be that way, really up through Countdown. They are both historically divisive vocalists and those many would call serviceable or (in)tolerable but with Blitz his personality makes him valuable, irreplaceable.

General addendum, cards on the table, Overkill was always my favorite thrash band.