Talk:Metallica/Archive 2

message: Anonymous users keep vandalizing the description of the image of Metallica where they are all standing outside.
I have noticed this as well. Could we get this locked for only registered users to be able to edit Satanical Eve 15:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism of photo description

message: I'm getting tired of everyone tells me that Metallica is a heavy metal band.
Metallica was together with Slayer the founders of the Thrash Metal. No song on Kill Em´ All is any way close to being a heavy metal song(except Jump In The Fire). When did heavy metal start playing fast and engertic? Now they are trying to get back to the trash after playing some ordinary metal. Are there any songs that are related to heavy metal except Jump In The Fire?
Their best albums are Kill Em' All, Ride The Lightning, Master Of Puppets ...And Justice For All. These four albums are trash metal and nothing else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.101.117.61 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-03 14:00:47.
: You make some good points but give us an example of a heavy metal bad to contrast with. So if Metallica moves up to thrash then what moves up to fill the void for heavy metal - you aren't trying to move Winger up into the heavy metal category are YOU? --Supercoop 20:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to a similar debate on it:wiki, I have been blocked for a day from editing the Italian article about them, and since that I've understand much more about their music (by buying all of their studio albums). Metallica never played heavy metal (neither on 1980s albums and St.Anger), more exactly they featured only HARD ROCK influences on their 1990s works. -- Egr (talk), 10/19/2006
The first album Kill Em all was straight Speed/Thrash metal. The second Ride the Lightning started to depart from that of thrash/speed. It still had its roots in it but by tbe time Master Of Puppets was released you had a full fledge Heavy Metal album and not just a thrash/speed album Satanical Eve 16:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metallica is a Thrash Metal band 

message: It seems very unlikely Metallica has sold 200+ million albums worldwide; the number, which shouldn't include singles sales, is IN FACT closer to 150 million. 
Unfortunately, there is always someone changing the number to 200 million. Metallica haven't sold 200 million albums yet! That's for sure!
However now we have people saying that Metallica have sold less than 100 million records worldwide. This is simply untrue.
:Regarding album sales. The only viable citation(so far) is the one posted from a news article from the bands own webpage in 2003. The page claims Metallica sales as of that year are 85 million. To date St Anger adds in another 1.7m(U.S.) and the 'Metallica' album added another million. If you can find a proper source that can verify that the band somehow sold over 10 million albums worldwide in the last 3 years then it can replace the only valid sales source the page currently has.(4 tildes->) Anger22 19:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the totals are probably closer to yours, but, there is still no new citations for it so it can't be changed to say anything different than what the current cites say. Those refs are dated and new ones definitely need to be found. But "guessing" that they are higher goes against Wiki's verifiable rules. I browse the news periodically looking for a press release that indicates the global numbers but haven't found one yet. Something will pop up soon. Anger22 10:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree guessing is not what encyclopedias are about, but the site I mentioned states that, so that can be taken as a reference don't you think so? Akeeq 16:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Oh! I see, now this makes more sense to me, thanks for the clarification mate! :)Akeeq 22:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMPORTANT: Regarding album sales 

message: Can anyone explain to me why LA is noted as the bands location not San Francisco on the wiki Metallica Page? That is where the band is based, San Rafael SF, USA. That is where the Metallica 'HQ' is listed on album notes. Timbo78 08:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree. they are from SF/Bay Area, not LAPlatypusjones 13:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Band Location 

message: I wonder if there is a way of feeding in some interesting stuff from the liner notes of Garage Inc, quoting here a section written (just over a year before the Napster complaints) by Hetfield:
:I would stay over at [Lars Ulrichs] place for days at a time, making tapes of his records and sleeping on the carpet.
So here he was publicly admitting to committing a fairly large amount of copyright violations of mostly indie label bands that would likely never regularly sell more than a few thousand copies, and within a couple of years of that is complaining to Napster when they were selling millions of albums with each new release. Sfnhltb 20:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Performing, recording and selling music written by other people does not violate copyrights. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.126.209.1 (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Napster and Garage Inc liner notes 

message: Now that we have the band infobox, do we really need the Statistics section as well? I would suggest that it should be deleted. Aphasia83 00:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics? 

message: Why there is no DVD for 2 of One?
Why would there be? They have the videos on their site if you want to see them. That was released before the internet got popular and after it on regular MTV rotation. 
Dudewhiterussian 02:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But how about the people without internet? it will be great to have 2 of One and all of their videos on DVD. --MarioV 22:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing DVD 

message: Selling out is subjective, and therefore cannot be stated as anything more than the opinion of a percentage of the fanbase. As such, the first usage in the second paragraph, "...the band quickly sold out..." is an editor's opinion rather than a statement of the fans' viewpoints, i.e., "stylistic changes that fostered accusations of "selling out"." Therefore, I am removing it. Dudewhiterussian 09:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selling Out 

message: Although the collective consciousness has confusion with association to the term "Selling Out", and Newsteads example is quite correct within its own context, I propose this is not the term which accurately conveys the feeling of a fan from before the Black, or AJFA album.
Metallica lost their spirit.
Every Metallica album is a Metallica album, Whether you like it or not. I recall speaking with someone back in 1990 who saw Metallica on the RTL tour at the Channel in Boston. He claimed many believed Metallica a changed band after RTL. I believe, as the this wikipedia entry claims, that Master of Puppets was the finest work released. It is suspected Cliff Burton impacted the musical quality of the band more than history has recorded. Saying they sold out is not a very good method of conveying your feelings about what happened post black album. The black album was good. Just not the flavor Metallica fans from pre-1991 knew or could relate to --like myself. They lost the spirit they adopted for that time, and moved on to adopt the band as a business rather than an extension of their personality. From a success perspective, they are geniuses. From an artistic perspective, they exchanged their spirit for stability. Much like how most of Americans have exchanged liberty for security, or the illusion thereof. Think about these things before responding.
I think “sell out” is a very appropriate term. Metallica’s appeal was that they didn't conform; that they didn't do what all the other bands were doing to sell albums. They didn't make videos and write songs for the radio. When I was 15-16 back in 1986-87 I loved this about them, because mainstream people hated Metallica. Then, they made the video to “One”, and it was, as Lars said, very unique and different. And that, for me, was the beginning of the end. Then every preppie was jumping on the Metallica bandwagon and wearing their shirts and coming to the shows and they didn't know squat about what the underground scene was all about. They were just a bunch of wannabe’s. 
Then the black album had five or six radio hits. By accident? Nope. On purpose. They used keyboards on “the Unforgiven” and then orchestra on ‘nothing else matters’. Then chicks started getting into the music as if they were a band that wrote love songs or something. 
Lets face it; money changes people. The worst thing that ever happened to them is that they got rich off of the business machine that metallica is. That impacted their lives in ways that changed the music. I remember being at one of their shows and James told the crowd the name of every song and the album it was off of. Why would you need to do this? Because James  knew that there were people in the audience that would hate most of the songs, but may like one, and the band wanted those people to run out and buy the album even if it only had one song that they liked. 
So, metallica did sell out. They sold their music, their principals and their souls for the almighty dollar. maybe someone can find a way to slip this into the article. Keltik31 23:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A band selling out is not a fact. It is an opinion. so what if they used keyboards on The Unforgiven? It's a great song anyway, like most of their catalog. There are people who like bands because others like them, and then there are the rest, the people that stop liking some bands because other people like them... You can say that part of the fan base was disappointed, or called them sell outs with appropriate references, but you can't "slip this into the article" as a fact.--Serte * Talk * Contribs 23:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sell Out is the Wrong Term 

message: The statement regarding the band not playing songs from ...And Justice For All due to their length is bullshit. They have played the title track several times, and every time they play One they stretch it out to over 10 minutes. The average length for an encore version of One, in fact, is around 12 minutes. Therefore, I'm getting rid of this statement.
Dudewhiterussian 02:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Because of the complexity and length of the songs, in fact, the band would later (in the mid-90's) cease to play most of them live." That implies that the band is somehow at odds with the songs' complexity. I am not sure that this is the best way to put it, though I agree that the band has made comments regarding the sudden changes on the "Justice" album. --Bora Nesic 04:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unable to find a source at the moment, but if I remember correctly, they were at odds with the complexity... they commented on how they got tired of playing those songs because some of them have around 30 riffs.4.225.94.10 19:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justice Song Length 

message: I will try to remove the POVness of most of Burritobrother's 00:04-00:07 Dec 26 edits.  However, the part of the intro regarding St. Anger I am reverting to its old form.  Burritobrother's version of this, in my opinion, is incorrect: St. Anger was lauded by many professional critics , and 3 million albums sold is not commercial failure.  --Allen 05:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burritobrother's edits 

message: The title of the album does not reference mainstream artists or the mass media- it refers to the record distributors at the time who would not accept Metallica's proposed title, which was Metal Up Your Ass.  I'm removing the incorrect information from the Trivia section, and adding some punctuation to the Name Usage section.4.131.50.24 21:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kill 'Em All title 

message: Much of the tone of this still reads like a fanzine writing by an adoring teenager. I think the whole article needs reqriting as it is very unencyclopedic.
----
I STRONGLY agree!  I'm not reading the article from a fan's point of view, so as an objective party, it truly does read as detailed above, and therefore makes the reader question the validity of most of the content.  I get this feeling especially from sections "The reasons Metallica took Sean Fanning and his creation Napster to court" - how can the author of this article know this for a fact, especially as no references are sited; and from the section "The biggest mistake Metallica made" - this of course is NOT an objective statement and gives the impression that the author(s) of the page feel that they are authoroized to speak on Metallica's behalf.
--Alex 00:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fanzine