Talk:Metallica (album)

message: I'd love to see this article become GA, but I don't know what still needs improved. A lot could've been fixed since the nearly 4-year-old GA review, but there's no list as to how its progress is coming. What needs done? DannyMusicEditor (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: To-do list

message: I don't think a 2-minute sample is minimal use of the work as described in non-free use policy. If the song is 5:24 (324 secs), and this is 2:00 (120 secs), that's about 37% of the whole song, compared to the 5% (30/329) from Enter Sandman and 7% from The Unforgiven (30/386). Either we need a smaller audio sample, or we should remove it altogether and put the caption's information in. And do we really need this many audio samples anyway? While they're formatted correctly, I'm not sure they're all completely necessary. In fact, I've removed the audio sample of Sad but True for now because I'm afraid it may not sit well with the GA nomination. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: DannyMusicEditor, the length of :File:Metallica - Sad But True.ogg is 30 seconds, not 2 minutes. Some IP vandal changed the duration two years ago.--Retrohead (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sad but True" audio sample 

message: I notice the accessdates are improper in the certification section. (#98-116, at the time this was posted) I will fix these during the review. So far this is the only obvious thing I see missing, so I won't sweat it at the moment. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things I (the nominator) have found so far 

message: I would not say that this album is any less harsh than their previous albums.
It is slower, and heavier, like groove metal. It also still contains many thrash metal elements.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iron Wizard13 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less harsh? 

message: Many of the songs on here sound like groove metal, mainly Sad But True, but others as well. Personally groove metal should be added to the genres. TheEarthboundFan2001 (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have reliable sources to support your opinion ?  Please see previous discussions on this topic Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 00:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a good source: https://metalstuff.net/2016/12/14/groove-metal/. Go to the Metallica paragraph with the Sad But True sample. Yungstirjoey666 (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this counts as groove metal. 

message: genre changes (diff) Consensus is needed for this change.  Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 18:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{U|BenStein69}} genre changes 

message: I disagree with this inclusion and rational and am looking for consensus.  If it's the "groups background" then it needs to be at Metallica or ...And Justice for All  I've started the discussion for you  Mlpearc (open channel) 19:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the GA review, the reviewer suggests adding detail about this album's predecessor and its accompanying tour (which is what I was doing). Furthermore, explaining the album's background is vital for the reader to understand why Metallica opted to write simpler songs, and how that affected the album's sales. I also meant to write that the album was released in a six week span with albums by Nirvana, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Pearl Jam, and Guns N' Roses, but that would be sufficient because we would have been writing about rock's background in the early 90s, right?--Retrohead (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree the background is important but it should be addressed here not on a article about a completely different album.  Mlpearc (open channel) 19:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is already addressed there. Also, why would FAs such as Love It to Death be talking about "the group's first two albums, Pretties for You (1969) and Easy Action (1970)" in the background when it can be included in Alice Cooper?--Retrohead (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's talk about this article and not what's going on somewhere else. Obviously we need others to chime in, I wait for further input from others.  Mlpearc (open channel) 19:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me. I'm just saying it's a common practice for albums to feature information about the artist's background. The reader won't bother going around Metallica's discography to figure out how this album is related to its predecessors and followups.--Retrohead (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Who mentioned Metallica's discography ? I suggested here and you said it is covered there, or here in the article about the information you want to post.  Mlpearc (open channel) 20:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Another thing, how the timing when the album was recorded and mixed, and its commercial performance is not related to this article? Why did you deleted that?--Retrohead (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit late, but seeing as I was the nominator (the noob I was), I agree with Retrohead. Things covered in a band's bio can be on their albums too. dannymusiceditor  Speak up!  18:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: ...And Justice for All

message: Why is the track listing in vinyl format and not CD? I'm just curious. CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly don't know – it's only a recent change. I've gone and changed it back. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 00:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. It looks better this way. CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Track listing 

message: On the album's liner notes (at least on the 1991, Elektra Records, which is the cited one) and on Metallica's official webpage, George Marino, Peter Mensch, Don Brautigam, Ross Halfin, Rick Likong and Rob Ellis aren't mentioned. If they are included because of some third-party sources, shouldn't these be cited, as per WP:PERSONNEL? Jocafus (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for some personnel? 

message: Wasn’t the album originally called “the black album”? Why isn't that here? (unless I'm wrong.) 2600:1002:B009:651E:F517:70AB:B888:560E (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old name 

message: A better sentence would be something to the effect of wanting to change direction from the progressive influenced thrash of justice to shorter and simpler songs.  I don’t think they got “heavier” or more “refined”, those are subjective valuations, what is a fact is they were shorter, more traditional pop structure, and simpler, as well as more melodic singing and a change of lyric subject matter to be more personalized instead of the proselytizing of “master of puppets” and “justice for all” blah blah blah. 2600:1012:B127:6F06:F522:92CA:41D4:E43B (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Slower, heavier, and more refined” is fanboying. We need more objectivity and perception not fawning.... 

message: Metallica's black album was the first in there 90s transition to hard Rock. The whole album is far too clean in both instrumentals and vocals to be considered heavy metal in any kind. a key difference the genres is how distorted the guitars and vocals get. Metallica black does show a couple hints of nearly reaching heavy metal such as the god that failed but as a whole the album is most certainly not Heavy Metal in any way and much more closely fits in with the Hard Rock genre with James Hetfield's singing being far too melodic to ever be considered anything heavier.(talk) 21:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Heavy Metal