I'm not really into either of these genres but out of the two I'd go with Thrash there are some Blackened Thrash bands that i listen to.

Aye, I'm one of them. There are some boring with a capital B thrash bands out there.

Both genres can get slogged down by a massive load of uncreativity, unfortunately something that can be said for a lot of metal, but when a band that plays either hits home it's great.

Overall what contains more bands that I enjoy though? I'd say doom.

Thrash made me love metal and while I don't find that many new bands of note these days it's still got my heart.

Actually kinda my sentiments. Nicely worded.

Thanks.

From blackened doom to funeral doom to sludge metal to drone metal to stoner to whatever Om is... doom can go in a million different directions, and each of those directions has something interesting and groundbreaking.

Thrash, while enjoyable, doesn't do that. Thrash is thrash. Sure, it can work in a little black metal, a little death metal, or maybe hardcore punk... but the lines get blurry. At what point is thrash metal no longer thrash metal? Usually when it gets hardcore breakdowns, or screechy vocals and tremolo picking, or death metal vocals. It's narrow.

Here are some examples of doom doing different things very well.

I guess for me, music doesn't have to be creative to be enjoyable. As long as there's energy and a certain amount of excitement in the performance, as in the music sounds like it comes from the heart, I think it has merit. I'd take an amateurish self-released thrash album with heart over a big experimental but boring album any day.

For example, Airdash sounds a lot like Anthrax with an 80's Testament production sound, but the way they play makes it not matter at all. Plus, I see nothing to be upset about seeing as I love Anthrax and Testament. I still absolutely love this album. It's energetic and exciting, more so then many experimental metal albums I've heard:

Sure but I don't think the point being made is that a band needs to be experimental or super creative to be good. Rather, if a band has a lack of originality at their core then what's causing them be enjoyable at any level below the surface? There's only so far you can go with a fun, fast song and an energetic performance. Especially when there's a hundred thousand more bands right in the line behind you with the exact same energy and have the exact "from the heart" sound as you do, and to top it off their songwriting is brutally similar to your own. What makes that thrash band, or the hundred thousand others, truly stand out at that point? I'm sorry but I can't help hearing the massive amounts of similarities and cliches in thousands of different bands, similarities and cliches that are infuriating when they get repeated ad nauseum. It's irritating just like it is with the thousands of same-sounding indie rock bands.

And this isn't to say the same doesn't go for doom metal. I'm not a fan of the scores of doom metal bands that thing stretching out four down-tuned chords over the course of 20 minutes counts as any sort of substantial music effort. There are bands that think they're going to be the next Electric Wizard or Skepticism and are infuriatingly boring as a result because they don't do anything to change the already-laid formula. This goes as well for the thousands of thrash bands who try to mimic Metallica or Slayer, and the thousands of indie rock bands trying to be Modest Mouse or Weezer, and so forth. Musical uncreativity is obnoxious no matter what genre you're apart of, it just depends on which genres have the least bands that do it.

That aside, I do think thrash peaked earlier than doom, even though it started over a decade later. Furthermore, I think doom has had more success in blending itself with other metal genres than thrash, blends that, as Blaro said, are still forging ahead creatively today. Though if we're really getting down to the numbers, my amount of listening toward new metal in general has dwindled significantly in the past year or two.

That all depends on what you mean by lack of originality. I can think of several thrash bands I enjoy that display clear influences from bigger name bands, such as the aforementioned Airdash, yet do it in a way that still makes them sound like themselves and not exactly like the band/s they are clearly influenced by.

On the other hand, Trivium on their album The Crusade almost always sounds exactly like Metallica. Pretty much everything about it sounds like a watered down Metallica, even the long instrumental. That makes the album sound bland, not fun to listen to, and makes the listener rather go listen to Metallica. So I would say that some sense of individual personality is required, which I find in at least the majority of old school thrash bands, but not to the extent where they have to do something different to be enjoyable.

I guess I think then that personality, energy, and excitement does make an artist stand out, and if something lacks those, then they don't stand out. I just happen to think that the majority of thrash bands I've listened to have had those and stood out to me.

Basically agree with all of this, except I find it much easier to find indie rock bands that have their own sound than thrash bands. I've checked out hundreds of thrash bands when I was more interested years ago and I lost interest because the vast majority sound the same. Give me 15 minutes and I'll find a bunch of fairly distinct indie rock bands that I don't even know in advance.

Yeah that's def true. Indie rock has taken in a lot of influences over the years like post-punk, dream pop, etc. so I think it's generally pretty fluid and allows for some great diverse bands. It's hard for me to say there's a thick line between say Modest Mouse and The Organ, two drastically-different sounding indie bands.