Jump to content

Talk:Metallica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mistery account (talk | contribs) at 03:00, 6 February 2008 (→‎Hey: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleMetallica is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 25, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
November 23, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
December 11, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
December 19, 2007Good article nomineeListed
January 5, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
January 21, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 (Jul. 17, 2003 - Aug. 24, 2005)
Archive 2 (Aug. 24, 2005 - Mar. 22, 2006)
Archive 3 (Jan. 21, 2006 - Jul. 27, 2006)
Archive 4 (Jul. 28, 2006 - Nov. 23, 2007)

Grammy winning

Could someone add the fact that Metallica is a Grammy award-winning band to the first sentence? Something like this:

Metallica is a Grammy award-winning American heavy metal band formed in Los Angeles, California in 1981.

That seems to me like something that should be done around the board as far as musicians, showing right off the bat that this artist has won (an) award(s). 12.219.115.201 (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Crazy4metallica (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If their grammy award-winning status is added to the first paragraph, then that sentence also needs to include mention of their draconian stance on internet file sharing, and mention of the heavy criticism they continue to garner for this stance. 71.193.209.196 (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Anonymous, 12/19/2007[reply]

The Grammy Awards are mentioned in the third paragraph so no need to say it in the first. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.. change it to the first sentance. You look others bands' pages, they have it listed that they are a grammy award winning band if they did winan award. January 3, 2008 10:45 PM --random user

Thrash metal?

I have listened to many thrash metal bands i would never consider metallica thrash metal. Every time it is taken off it is added back again, and i need some support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcrissxcrossx (talkcontribs) 18:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, WTF!? No one has ever denied the fact that Metallica is thrash metal...Thats like saying Black Sabbath isn't metal. Yeah, on some albums Metallica has more of a melodic thrash sound, but they have always been thrash. On some albums they exhibit a groove metal sound and on some newer albums they even have a nu metal vibe, unfortunately. I'd definitely say they abandoned their roots, but there is no denying that metallica was thrash for most of their career till recently. They may not be as heavy as bands such as Destruction or earlier Slayer, but they're still thrash. Navnløs (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there was no reason for me to write that, because not only is it no even an argument (everyone knows what metallica is) but after looking at some of your contribs I gotta a pretty good feeling you don't know much about metal in the first place. Navnløs (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just about every book or webpage about thrash metal mentions Metallica as being a thrash band. It doesn't really matter if you don't think they're thrash, that's WP:POV. Many reliable sources say they are thrash. Funeral 23:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Navnløs (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metallica's last 3 studio albums, we can debate if they're thrash. But in the 1980s they were thrash, and that's when they did all their best known (within the music industry at least) music (The Elfoid (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
St. Anger is the closest to thrash since The Black album (which is thrash), but Load and Reload are not thrash. They are still heavy metal but not really thrash. Skeeker [Talk] 21:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ARGH, I agree with everyone. Although, St. Anger still has a nu metal vibe to it in my opinion. Navnløs (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOOOOOOOOOOOO! Please do not list them as new metal, PLEASE! Skeeker [Talk] 22:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, relax man. Even if I wanted to add nu metal as a genre, theres a lot of people who wouldn't allow me, because they're too protective of this page. Why do you care that much about that anyways, though? Navnløs (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nu metal is teh sucks, though...seriously. (sorry for this uncontributing comment) Navnløs (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was half joking, I hate the label nu metal and most bands in it. I actually hate most labels. Did you know somebody made up Porn metal and Porn rap? How dumb is that? Skeeker [Talk] 22:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, nu metal sucks. I don't really know how I feel about labels. As long as they are real and accurately apply to a band I'm fine with it I guess. Yeah porn-anything for a genre is dumb...most "porn metal" bands are usually just grindcore bands that talk about sex alot. It's a purely lyrical genre, and therefore, nonexistent. Navnløs (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well all and all, Metallica is, was and always will be thrash in some respect or another, they began their career being thrash and that has put the title of thrash on them. weather some people like it or not.--Metal to the Max! 10:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here the truth: Metallica created thrash with "Kill 'Em All". Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 02:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rumours ....

Remove those rumours about new album from the friend of Metallica members. It has no place in encyclopedia.

78.1.123.173 (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WAHHHHH WAAHHHHHHH WAAAAAAHHHHHHHH! Boo Hoo. have a sook. you will probably never even go back on this page anyway. --Metal to the Max! 10:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Metal, please see WP:CIVIL. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 19:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry haha, woooops. I wasnt making any personal attack buddy, but i mean come on, some people are here to contribute and this joker just makes his little refference and he's not even a member. --Metal to the Max! 11:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasnt making any personal attack buddy

this joker

Nice way to contradict yourself. Feel free to go cry to a mod since you have no proper comeback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.190.104 (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is that last bit really worth it??

I mean iall it is, is some guys opinion and quote on one particular song, who cares, is does not do much for Metallicas Bio now does it. If i just made a small artical about my opinion on Master of Puppets then its not really the way to go. just take this in consitteration.--Metal to the Max! 10:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metallica USED to be a heavy metal band. They are a blend of country, soft rock and metal now...hardly Heavy Metal.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.200.123 (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backstage rumours

There have been rumours that whilst the band were going through a fairly drug induced phase in their career they experimented in their sexuality and adhered to the more masculine groupies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.177.184 (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Tragedy strikes Metallica"

That sounds way too dramatic for Wikipedia, in my opinion. Should we change it to "Death of Cliff Burton"? Thoughts? Master of Puppets Care to share? 06:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Changing. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 19:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds better, as you said, Tragedy is a little much for wikipedia.--Metal to the Max! 09:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats pap, everyone knows JH is a homophobe.

GA Review

I'm placing this on GA Hold for seven days because the article needs more in-line citations. For example, these five sentences are unsourced. Where did this info come from?

Ulrich talked to his friend Ron Quintana, who was brainstorming names for a fanzine. Quintana had proposed the names "Metal Mania" and "Metallica". Convincing him to use "Metal Mania", Ulrich used Metallica for the name of his band. A second advertisement was placed in The Recycler for a position as lead guitarist. Dave Mustaine answered, and after seeing his expensive guitar equipment, Ulrich and Hetfield recruited him.

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure about this but I'm pretty sure I read that quote in Sound of the Beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal by Ian Christe. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The references are at the end of the paragraph,[1] i didn't want to have every sentence like this,[1] with the same reference being repeated.[1] M3tal H3ad (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That section is referenced; however, anyone feel like getting this 'Sound of the Beast' book to reference from it? I can take a trip to the library if need be. Master of Puppets Care to share? 01:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great if you could. M3tal H3ad (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll phone around. Master of Puppets Care to share? 02:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add some "fact" tags if there's anything else I need to source with the Christe book right now. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that that book is not all correct, although many people around wikipedia use it as a source. The sections about Metallica are fine, though. Ian Christe just get a few genres totally wrong. He gets the power metal genre totally fucked up, and he makes the speed metal genre pretty much the same thing as the thrash genre. Other than that the book seems mostly accurate, although he sometimes mentions a band in the wrong genre. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The parts about Metallica are the only relevant parts right now anyways. Anyway, as far as I know I'm the only active editor with the book. WesleyDodds (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is sourced.. M3tal H3ad (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My public library didn't have it, and it would take weeks to order, though I see that WesleyDodds has it under control... Master of Puppets Care to share? 07:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have the book as well, but I'll leave wesleydodds to it. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in the book, so the source used should stand. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

GA Pass. I think it satisfies the criteria at Wikipedia:What is a good article?. I enjoyed reading it and laughed at how often 'guitar technician John Marshall' would have to fill in - you should make a section just for him. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you're going to Semi-Protect

Make sure there's not a fucking mistake in the second paragraph. And I'd love to fix it, but I can't. "Metallica rose to fame with its 1991 Metallica album, and critics say the 1986 release Master of Puppets is one of the most influential and "heaviest" thrash metal albums. The ba..." They rose to fame with their 1981 album, self-titled Metallica. Please, for the love of God and Metallica, fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.0.200 (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm the only thing they had released in 1981 is demos. Metallica was released in 1991, thanks for your useful comment :) M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it was locked for good reason and good faith, and if that stops unregistered users from fixing mistakes (which in this instance, isn't the case) then that's an unfortunate side effect as errors are never taken into consideration when they're protected. Rehevkor (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What error are you talking about? M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, MOP was the album that made Metallica a worldwide band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.59.203 (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement Rythem Guitarist

During that show in Montreal when James got burned they got a replacement rythem guitarist. Why don't they mention him? Loydd Grant didn't do anything ad they mention him. Scorpio777 (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Scorpio666[reply]

You mean John Marshall... Him and the Montreal Incident are both mentioned in the Metallica 1990-1993 section. Funeral 00:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Lloyd Grant was never in Metallica, he should be removed from the band members.

Lead section

The lead section of this article is too long, does not immediately establish notability (although that is certainly not in question!), and duplicates much of the content in the history section. It should focus on why Metallica is such a popular and influential band and leave the history to later sections in the article. Get the TOC above the fold! Steve CarlsonTalk 01:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:LEAD states four paragraphs for an article this size is fine
  • Mentioning selling 90 million albums is not notable?
  • The lead summarizes the article so information will be duplicated.
  • and your version of the lead would be..? M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But why doesn't it have a single source? From WP:LEAD: "[The lead] should be carefully sourced as appropriate". Can't understand how this article has FA status with this kind of blunder. Grinder0-0 (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is sourced in the body. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly an excuse for not having a single source in its lead. "[-]there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads" - WP:LEAD. Grinder0-0 (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Grant

LOLLYD GRANT WAS NEVER IN METALLICA, HE PLAYED AS A TEMP ON THE METAL MASSACRE DEMO AND HIS SOLOS WERE LATER REMOVED AND REPLACED BY DAVE MUSTAINES, TAKE HIM OFF THE LIST!!!! He never recorded and album, never performed on stage just played two solos on a demo... he is not worth mentioning... Bob Rock is more of an ex-member of the band... he has written songs, recorded and produced with the band as well as playing live with them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.59.203 (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GOD, man. Calm down. Please? The liner notes for Garage Inc. list him as having been the lead guitarist for a time. Therefore, you have nothing. As for Bob Rock, he played because they didn't have a bassist at the time, and when they signed Rob Trujillo, Rob took over. Please, chill. ElimRawne (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with the shouter above: Grant was never a member of the band in the way James, Lars, Kirk, or any of the others were. The liner notes are simply wrong, or were written in such a way as to make things sound more interesting than they really were (see also the bit in those same notes about the existence of ban on cover songs in LA clubs in the 80s, a ban which Metallica was able to circumvent because their covers were so obscure. Neat story, except no such ban ever existed). Everything else you can find about this situation will strongly indicate that it's a wrong-headed idea to consider Grant a real member

. Pillsbur (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grant only played two guitar solos on a DEMO, he never recorded, toured or is considered a member by any valid source. The Garage Inc insert is describing when they started out, but Grant only worked with Metallica for ONE DAY. This in my view is not enough to make him a a member of the band, his solos were not even used and were replaced by Dave Mustaines. So his contribution to Metallica is ZERO. Why is he still on there? If Grant is on there then surely Marshall should be as he actaully worked with Metallica and played live with them! Maybe you could get real silly and post every person who has guested alongside them over the past 30 years as well. You wouldnt, thats why Grant should go. Hes a bass player by proffesion anyways.

Bob Rock on the other hand produced every album in the 1990s early 00s, toured and played live with the band and recorded an album with songs he is credited for writing,so has a solid case to be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.59.203 (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, remove Grant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.59.203 (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Grant was ever a member either, however does deserve a mention within the text. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple errors with Lloyd Grant's tenure in Metallica. For starters, he wasn't the original lead guitarist in Metallica. Dave Mustaine was the original lead guitarist (http://www.metallicaworld.co.uk/dave_mustaine.htm), and wasn't present for the recording "Hit the Lights" due to prior obligations with another band. So basically he SHOULD be removed form the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.59.203 (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stylistic origins

+ Queen, ref: Erlewine, Stephen Thomas; Prato, Greg, Metallica, All Music Guide

Hey

Congrats on bringing this article to FA-status. Medieval Man 03:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]