Talk:Kill 'Em All/Archive 1

A couple of points worth mentioning
This article points out the fact that Megadeth fans were calling Metallica hypocrites for sending James to rehab and not Dave Mustaine. Putting the ludicrousness of this statement aside, it is worth mentioning that on the SKOM DVD, if you listen to the band's voice commentary, at the bit were Mustaine is griping about not being sent to AA or something, Hetfield (who as we know was not present for the meeting) says, "Dude, if we knew what AA was we would have been there, you know?" I think this is a worthwhile inclusion to the article, certainly in Metallica's defence.

Secondly, the article states that Cliff Burton is credited with coming up with the name 'Kill 'Em All' as a response to weak record distributors. However, I am fairly certain I once read it was actually Ulrich who came up with it. As the story went, Ulrich was famously drunk in some bar and was griping about not being able to call the album 'Metal Up Your Ass'. He began saying "F*ck 'em all" and realised what a great album title that statement would be. Eventually the band agreed upon 'Kill 'Em All' with the former deemed too offensive for the time. I can't confirm this story, so more research is needed into it, but I will try and dig out the book anyway. --LordLovatt 14:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it was Cliff that came up with the name "Kill 'Em All." An excerpt from the book Metallica: The Frayed Ends of Sanity by Chris Crocker:

The working title for Metallica's debut album was Metal Up Your Ass. Indelicate, but the band no doubt felt it got the point across. When the prospective album distributor's people heard the title, they promptly informed Jonny Z that he'd better start looking for a new distributor. But the band was adamant.

A compromise idea was floated that they go acronymic, calling the album M.U.Y.A., but the band wasn't having it. Ultimately, Jon Zazula trekked up to Rochester to tell the band that their music needed to be given a chance--and it didn't need a title that would close doors for them. After a few forget-it-that-one-sucks reactions to possible new album titles, Cliff Burton's exasperation at the record distributors could contain itself no longer. "Kill 'em all, man," he exclaimed. "Just kill 'em all." It was the only title that worked. 64.90.217.245 04:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

why are the last 2 tracks on the album deleted from the playlists "Am I evil" by Diamond Head and "Blitzkrieg" by Blitzkieg? It seems that metallica collected the money and said f-u to the bands that contributed to their fortune.

Are you totally deranged? Sladek 16:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dave Mustaine
Dave Mustaine made the original version of 'Four Horsemen' called Mechanix. In fact in 'No life til leather' a pre 'kill em all' album by Metallica, the song was called 'Mechanix', and the lyrics were the one's used by Mustaine in his debut Megadeth Album. Metallica edited Mechanix and produced 'Four Horsemen.'

So it is incorrect to state that 'When Dave Mustaine formed Megadeth, he recorded an alternate version of "The Four Horsemen" called "Mechanix", from Killing Is My Business. '

Cause it is exactly the opposite, the anomaly arises cause kill em all was the first to be released.

''I noticed that as well. Fixed now''.

Megadeth
So, the whole article kind of relies on the reader knowing that "Dave" is the Dave from Megadeth. Maybe instead of listing all kinds of crap details about the dispute, the article should have some info for people who aren't die hard fans of Metallica or Megadeth.

You mean there are people who aren't die-hard fans of Metallica or Megadeth? ;-) 58.178.48.140 09:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Done - added bit about who Dave is 82.69.4.121 10:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thrash Metal
I agree that this might be the first thrash metal album, but who is to say it is not up for debate? That part sounds unprofessional. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a review of the album in revolver magazine.

I just took a look at the various articles about Metallica. Unfortunately, I almost mistook Wikipedia for a Metallica fanclub. These articles aren't encyclopedic. I'm not the one to fix this; too much work and in the end it would end up in me deleting 70% of the content, while the Metallica fans will revert it back. I don't understand why they don't just join a fanclub instead of writing the stuff here. Nikos 03:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Nikos just because maybe you want the article to be some "only relevant/important facts" article doesn't mean everyone else does. This isn't a dictatorship and all the articles have perfect info, which although somethings are not cited, it gives a good insight or perspective into Metallica, the same goes for all Heavy Metal bands on Wikipedia. I only got into Metallica about this time last year and articles like this have greatly increased my knowledge of everything heavy metal, so much that i did two metal presentations for my English GCSE; a Metallica speech and Heavy Metal coursework about the stereotypes of heavy metal. Both got A*'s, I was only 1 of 2 people to get A* in a class of 25. And I couldn't have done it with out the help and contributions to articles like this from all the true metalheads and headbangers out there, this is a true encyclopedia, it provides knowledge and deeply explored and felt insight. And it would be really sad if it were not like a "fan club", but it were to end up a cold, heartless, summary of facts about the band, simply because someone felt that although something in an article was a well known fact, because it has never been cited in an an interview or anything, it must be deleted. Many may not have the attraction I was given by articles such as this. To those metalheads who put this excellent, in-depth and personally approached information together, I salute and thank you. To guys like Nikos here, unless you have something of relevance to say which will add to or sustain the quality of this article, say nothing at all.


 * I'm happy for you, getting an A and that, but heed your own words; if you have nothing to say, keep quiet. In contrast to you, I did have something to say, namely that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a fan magazine that lists every so little irrelevant detail about some artist or tries to put up a "defense" against critics; these things should not be elaborated upon, just mentioned. Grats again on your As and Bs and have a nice day. Nikos 18:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It currently says that it is considered to be one of the first thrash metal albums, but did anyone happen to notice it's souce? why... what's this? it cites another wikipedia page as a source! correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty certain that that's against Wikipedia's rules...Xanthic-Ztk (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The album title
If its title was "GOTTA Kill'Em All"... Egr, 6/7/2006

That's interesting that Metal up your ass is extremely offensive yet "kill em all" is not? There's something bizarre about that. The Guilty Undertaker 12:02 PM 31 July 2006

In modern Western society, people find curse words more offensive than violence. Pwr.max (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the book Bang Your Head: The Rise and Fall of Heavy Metal, the title Easter's Canceled: The Body's Been Found was also a suggested title for the album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.234.228 (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

POV Explanation
This 'article' reads rather like a review - it is easy to say that 'the album was a great influence on other bands,' but this is an encyclopedia and it needs citations.

Musikxpert 03:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Many of today's heavy metal bands very openly cite the early Metallica sound ("Kill 'Em All" most and "...And Justice For All" most notably) as having a huge influence in their sound. I cannot think of any other band specifically on spot besides Bullet For My Valentine but I know for a fact there are more. What I'm trying to say is that there are very many sources (bands that have been quoted) readily available. So much so, that crying so much for one is near pointless.


 * If it is so readily available it should be easy to source, right?--E tac 10:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Metallica - Kill Em All.jpg
Image:Metallica - Kill Em All.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Fair Use justification included - should keep our noses clean. Ajono 11 October 2008

Clarification on album's release date.
It says that the album was recorded in late spring and released in July. Since the documentary Megadeth behind the Music states that the album came out in Winter 1983, I think that might be more accurate since albums take time to be recorded, mixed, mastered, mass produced, marketed and released. Just a clarification/confirmation of the exact release date is all I ask.
 * Not sure why a documentary on Megadeth would be cause for a clarification of a widely known fact about a Metallica album. Obviously, given all the evidence to the contrary, the documentary's winter 1983 date is just plain wrong. Pillsbur (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirected pages
Can someone tell me why the pages for ALL the songs on this album have been redirected here? I can understand why that would be done for regular songs on the album, I won't argue with that; but for this one, even the songs that were released as singles are redirected here! Last I checked, a song that was released as a single gets its own page, right? --Rock Soldier 21:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This was the outcome of AfD discussions that had been opened after contested proposed deletions. You can find them referenced in the edit history of the respective redirects. I added just one more redirect for Metal Militia, because it was proposed for deletion as well and had no content, so just contesting it would probably have resulted in another AfD. Now that the others have been merged somewhat, I'll add a mini paragraph for it as well, so that we're at least homogeneous--Tikiwont 08:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I notice that there was in the songs section an entry for (Anesthesia) Pulling Teeth that somehow got lost and should at least partially be recreated. Secondly, there should now be anchors from the track listing to the songs.--Tikiwont 08:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that, I remember seeing all the songs that were simply songs on the album being tagged for deletion, but this is the only one where the pages for the singles are redirected to the album as well. On all the other albums, the regular song pages were redirected to the album, but the pages for the singles remained. So why are they redirected for this one? I don't know what WP:whatever it's under, but it seems that singles get their own pages, right?
 * --Rock Soldier 21:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A good point. Altogether seven songs were merged per AfD, including Seek & Destroy. I've merged Metal Militia per above and Am I Evil is still a separate artcile. Nevrtheless, the closing admin also merged the singles "Jump in the Fire" and "Whiplash", but I do indeed not see consensus for that. I think also the nominator deliberately did not list them for deletion. So I'll restore them and leave a note. --Tikiwont 09:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's a reasonable assumption. However, I'm happy to take them both to AFD though. I do think that this is a little silly on your behalf, because wide ranging consensus showed that they should have been merged. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking as the person who nominated the non-singles at AfD, my intent was to do something (deletion was my plan, but redirecting was what happened) about the album tracks alone. The singles I'm prepared to let slide for the moment, and someone else can pass an eagle eye over them in due course to see what the sourcing is like. Were I to have come upon the discussions as the closing admin, I would have interpreted the consensus as being that those particular songs should be dealt with, not the entire album. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now that we've merged and redirected all the pages, can someone tell me why now we're no longer allowed to even make links in the article to the part of it where the merged song articles were put?

--Rock Soldier (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * well i just think it would make more sense if we started to talk about Space Ghost. 108.12.104.101 (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Metallica thrash metal?
This is news to me. Is there a source for this description? Gatoclass 08:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding, right? --82.29.85.193 00:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You might have missed something, because Metallica is often stated as one of the four great thrashers of the 1980's along with Megadeth, Anthrax and Slayer (if I remember correct) Chrown (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify this exchange, this album resides in the 'Thrash Metal' genre - although Metallica's creative direction has led them to pastures new since. The band were 'genre-defining' during this period and this particular album had a clearly distinguishable formative effect on the emerging sub-type of Heavy Metal under discussion. During the passage of time since the album's release in 1983, Metallica's style has evolved and now seems somewhat at odds with this label. However, it is entirely correct that their part in the birth of Thrash Metal should be documented in this article, as the article relates to a period in the band's history when the descriptor was accurate and credit should be given for their contribution. Ajono 10:04, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Re: Metallica Thrash Metal?
This album is certainly a thrash metal album, although Metallica's later albums (The Black Album onwards) aren't thrash metal albums, no.

BTW This is an amazing album, the best album ever. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pez17 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Neckbrace Remix of Whiplash - Incorrect statement!
I just read in the article, under singles, that Ulrich has stated that the special Neckbrace remix of Whiplash featured on the single is the same as the original version from the album. Firstly I don't think he said that, but that i don't know. On the other hand i know that there actually is a quite clear difference between the Neckbrace Remix from the single and the standard one from the album. I can tell since I own the very original rare Megaforce Records release of the 12" Whiplash vinyl-single AND Kill 'Em All album (both CD and LP) and I can tell that there is quite obvious a difference. The drums sound a lot more lifeless, thin and "far away" on the Neckbrace remix than the album, where the drums thunder a bit more. Everything else sounds quite the same on both versions though. Wether Ulrich has stated that they were the exactly same version I can't tell, but I can say for sure that they not are the same. If anyone can find out if Ulrich has said that they were the same or not... Chrown (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm gonna go ahead and create an article for "Seek & Destroy"
If you object, please give me a few reasons not to create an article for this song. It's been used in various media and is of particular note in Metallica's early discography. It practically symbolizes the group's debut. If one song from Kill 'Em All deserves an article, it's "Seek & Destroy." Cale (talk) 04:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC) All the band's non-singles were voted to be re-directs. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I made a page for it a while ago. I put lots of time into a comprehensive page, but for some reason it was deleted because I, apparently, can't create a page for a Metallica song unless it's a single, which is pure bullshit in my opinion. Really, there are plenty of pages for their songs that aren't singles. I'm going to recreate the page and if it's deleted again, please give me a good reason other than that. If that is the only reason I'm giving, then explain to me why there is a page for "The Call of Ktulu", "To Live is to Die", and "The God That Failed". Whiffle Ball Tony (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Then explain to me "The Call of Ktulu". Whiffle Ball Tony (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good point. By the way, the two singles from Kill 'Em All that do have articles have very shitty ones. Hell, the section for "Seek & Destroy" within the Kill 'Em All article is far longer than both KEA single articles put together. I'd like to see Whiffle Ball Tony's "Seek & Destroy" article resurrected. Cale (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be very nice to get at least some more discussion on this topic. I don't see why anyone should have an issue with this article.Whiffle Ball Tony (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, now the Kill 'Em All article lists "Seek & Destroy" as a single circa 1984. I don't know why this came about so late, but if this is true, we have absolutely no reason not to allow it an article of its own. Looking at the Metallica template, you'll see that every single has its own article except "S&D." Many of them have very brief, poor articles and are much less notable songs ("Don't Tread on Me," Ain't My Bitch," "Better than You"). "S&D" already has more than enough notable information and credibility to into merit its own article. I'd like to see someone try to come up with a reason to suggest otherwise. Cale (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a single and fails criteria for notability. Its just an album track. Being a fan favourite doesn't = notability. Peter Fleet (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also see here for community consensus to re-direct. Peter Fleet (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It's listed as a single under the infobox. If it isn't a single, it should be removed from both the infobox list and Metallica template. Regardless of its status as a single, "Seek & Destroy" has a significance in popular culture. This has allowed hundreds of non-single songs to be given articles. Being an official single is just one of numerous notable traits that merit an article. Cale (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Four Horsemen
I see Kirk Hammet got a credit in this song in the article, does he get it in the album? If not it must be deleted, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.92.4.61 (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, Kirk Hammett contributed the "melodic guitar solo" from 3:48 to 4:34. (Possibly with the help of Cliff Burton on the harmonized parts from 4:10-4:34) He did not write the middle part; James Hetfield probably wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.118.208 (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

About the Blitzkrieg Cover Credits
One of the songs added as b-sides in the 1988 reissue is called "Blitzkrieg" originally created by Blitzkrieg itself and that is Jones/Sirotto/Smith not Hetfield/Hammet, just checking —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alternativeware (talk • contribs) 23:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Whiplash at the Dentist?
I'm fairly certain that the description of what the song "Whiplash" means, apparently it's about James' fear of the dentist, is complete crap. I don't see any citation so I think I'm just going to delete that. 153.104.114.116 (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Even its own article said that it was about headbanging.Jonah Ray Cobbs 21:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)JRC3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRC3 (talk • contribs)

McGovney and Mustaine
Who left the band first: Ron McGovney or Dave Mustaine? 19:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.219.216 (talk)
 * McGovney left in November / December 1982 and Mustaine was fired in April 1983. - Aphasia83 (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wirting Credits for Four Horsemen
Is it worth noting that on the Some kind of Monster EP the writing credit on Four Horsemen is only given to Mustaine/Ulrich, removing the credit to Hetfield that is given on Kill 'em All?Winterdenni (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No Remorse is not E1M1, most probably
There are several tracks which fit E1M1 hole better than No Remorse which came out 1982. Doom came out 1993 just the time when Behind the Crooked Cross by Slayer was popular. Also Behind the Crooked Cross sounds a lot like E1M1, it has the E1M1 alike harmony in the end of the riff which is missing from No Remorse for example. There are also songs like D.R.I's Hooked, King Diamond's The Family Ghost, Metallica's Master of Puppets and probably even Judas Priest's Painkiller which sound like E1M1 at several points.

What is not a fact. Please do not add into wikipedia. I wrote that part now to be "it's suspected to be among the others" that's how it should read unless you have hard evidence like an interview where Robert "Bobby" Prince confesses use of "No Remorse".

Too bad it doesn't exist as R. Prince is a lawyer and won't make that kind of simple mistake by admitting using some famous songs for heavy inspiration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.44.211.71 (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Phantom Lord lyrics
The article states, regarding Phantom Lord's lyrics:


 * ''The lyrics deal with a mythical battle between heavy metal beasts.

This doesn't seem true to me. The only "beast" described in the lyrics is the Phantom Lord, who apparently beats everyone into submission, as is obvious from the following fragments:


 * ''Your bodies waiting for his whips


 * ''Fall onto your knees, For the Phantom Lord


 * ''Now there's nothing you can do


 * ''The Phantom Lord has never failed


 * ''With his sword in hand, to control the land

Therefore a correction of this statement seems in order. 83.183.40.68 (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"(Anesthesia) Pulling Teeth"
Editors on Wikipedia keep typing the title as "(Anesthesia) - Pulling Teeth". On the back of my CD, there is no dash. Can someone please verify this? If mine is a misprint or something and there is a dash, please revert my edit on the article. --BLAguyMONKEY! (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I've gathered, all CD editions have it spelled with an unspaced em dash, thus "(Anesthesia)—Pulling Teeth"; the early vinyl editions use an unspaced hyphen, thus "(Anesthesia)-Pulling Teeth"; and Metallica's official website uses a spaced hyphen, thus "(Anesthesia) - Pulling Teeth". I think the article should include the latter, for accuracy purposes. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Singles from Kill'Em All
Singles from Kill 'Em All
 * 1) Whiplash (released on August 8, 1983)
 * 2) Jump in the Fire (released on January 20, 1984)

"Seek & Destroy" is not a single. --SuperVirtual (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Kicked Mustaine out for alcohol problems?
I heard/read they used to treat him like garbage. Destroying his equipment and such. So he quit. Also, to fire someone for alcohol problems, when you suffer from them ten times as bad yourself doesn't make any sense... The entire "St. Anger" album is a product of James' alcohol rehabilitation. So, I would like to see video footage with them discussing this, magazine articles or anything proving (unless they are lying about it) what is listed on the page right now true. Zebatov (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Mustaine or Hammett
My reference is from Metallica.com how can that be wrong ? Mlpearc ( open channel ) 21:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Serious question: are you legally blind, or something? The official source at metallica.com states Kirk Hammett as having played lead guitar. The vinyl back cover states Hammett. What is there to dispute? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I apologize, I was reading the writing credits and not the list of actual personal. Again my bad.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 21:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Chart section
Typically, the year in which an album charted is included in the chart table (see Template:Album_chart) and in cases where the album charted at different times, separate tables are created. In this case that would result in five separate tables with only 1 – 3 entries each. I have made a reasonable change to the standard method by including the years in one sort-able table for conciseness.

Since albums often enter the charts within a few weeks of release and reach their peak position within a few months, the reader could easily assume this was the case here if the years were omitted. At the very least, the reader would have no idea that these chart appearances occurred years, or even decades, after the album's release. If anyone has a valid reason for omitting the various years for each chart, please explain it here. Piriczki (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Piriczki, I'm not disputing whether to include the year the album entered the chart or not. I think Billboard 200 shouldn't hold two spots on the charts because once the album reaches new peak, the previous position isn't a peak anymore. There aren't two releases→it is one album–one release. It doesn't matter whether it was reissued or not—if the 2015 expanded edition reaches number one, that should be presented as the high point.--Retrohead (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Most album articles list separate chart information when an album re-enters the chart after a period of time, usually because it was re-issued. See Led Zeppelin (album), The Dark Side of the Moon (FA) and Abbey Road (GA) for examples. The original release of Kill 'Em All (Megaforce 069) entered the Billboard chart the week of April 5, 1986 and was on the chart for 10 weeks, peaking at #155. In 1988, the album was re-issued on Elektra Records with two additional tracks (Elektra 60766). The Elektra release entered the Billboard chart the week of February 13, 1988 and was on the chart for 8 weeks, peaking at #120. If there is only one entry to be listed, which one will it be?


 * {| class="wikitable"


 * 1986
 * US Billboard 200
 * align="center"|155
 * }
 * }


 * or


 * {| class="wikitable"


 * 1988
 * US Billboard 200
 * align="center"|120
 * }
 * }


 * As these were two distinct chart runs, co-mingling the data would be confusing if not inaccurate. What could possibly be the benefit in providing less than complete information to the reader? Piriczki (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Piriczki, wouldn't be better if you present this information at the prose (second paragraph at 'Critical reception') instead of duplicating the same chart? What if the album has several chart runs since it was released? It is more practical to insert them into the prose rather than listing several tables on their own.--Retrohead (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If position was improved add only higher position. Eurohunter (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Separating songs
Greg Fasolino, there is no policy on Wikipedia which forbids or recommends merging more tracks into a single paragraph. The choice of which tracks should be merged is simply aesthetic and I believe it does not confuse the reader (check Love It to Death or Sgt. Pepper's for that matter). I don't mind each song having a paragraph of its own if you plan to further expand them, but I do mind having a bunch of single sentence paragraphs without a good reason.--Retrohead (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a Wikipedia policy, it's simple rules of English writing. I don't mean to insult you, but what are your qualifications in that regard? I have a journalism degree and have been a professional writer and journalist for 30 years. I write, copy-edit and proofread for a living, including for several publications often cited in Wikipedia. The point is, if you're going to merge tracks, there needs to be some rationale behind it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a prose novel or your personal journal. It is supposed to strive for clarity, order and logic, not aesthetic whim. There is no reason to put those track comments in a random order other than your own personal interest. Separating them is not only more logical and orderly, but it's better writing, which is something we should be striving for here. If you're going to weigh it, I think it's clear that your personal whim should not outweigh clarity.
 * In the first example you cited, the author uses good writing to make a logical merge, with such constructions as ""I'm Eighteen" is sandwiched between two straight-ahead rockers" and ""Second Coming" continues on the theme of religion: "..." The mergings are not random, as yours were. You had no bridges or verbal constructions that warrant the random placing of some songs in those paragraphs. I am also not sure why you cited Sgt. Pepper's as on that page, each song is correctly given its own paragraph.Greg Fasolino (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll cite published books on Metallica then. Joel McIver's To Live Is To Die: The Life and Death of Metallica's Cliff Burton has several paragraps per song because the songs are largely covered, unlike his Justice For All - The Truth About Metallica which has a paragraph with a couple of songs in it. And the Sgt. Pepper's link was to show you that is not uncommon to separate tracks by vinyl sides. My conclusion would be that the paragraph sorting is up to the editors who should decide in what way the information is best presented to the reader.--Retrohead (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should we separate the songs in "Music and lyrics"?
Should the songs in the "Music and lyrics section be separated or merged? The previous discussion is above.--Retrohead (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a simplification. The actual issue is whether the songs should be merged randomly in paragraphs according to whim, without any necessary bridging or thematic discussion that would tie the merged songs together, as they were before, or, instead, either A) separated into their own paragraphs, or B) re-edited/rewritten to make a logical series of paragraphs with merged songs that makes some thematic sense instead of at the whim of just one writer.Greg Fasolino (talk) 05:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding option B, you mean something like "Opening song "Hit the Lights" is about this, and the following track "The Four Horsemen" is about that"? If that's the case, it reads way too verbose to me. I would like to see you exemplify how you plan to rewrite the prose.--Retrohead (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Verbose? That is exactly the way it was done in that example you cited (can't recall offhand if it was Beatles or Alice Cooper). Conciseness is better than verbosity, sure, but random whim is equally to be avoided. In any case, you are missing the point. The most concise and parsimonious solution is to keep the tracks separate. There's no reason not to do so other than you like the random way you organized it. You're the one who wants to merge them; it is then incumbent on you to find a way to do so that is not random (which is poor writing/editing, and something we should be fixing, not doubling down on). The one suggestion I would make: If a few of the have such small commentaries that giving them their own paragraph feels odd to you (though there's nothing wrong with it from a copy-editor's perspective), then save the short ones and put them together in one paragraph, separated by commas or semi-colons.Greg Fasolino (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Semi-colon can be applied. I want to ask again: How did you plan to write the sentences so they would make thematic sense? Can you show an example here on at the article?--Retrohead (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think are talking at cross-purposes, here. You're not understanding my repeated point. Why would I explain a plan to rewrite the sentences? I don't think they need rewriting; as I've said several times now, the simpler, more parsimonious and editorially sound solution is just to keep them separate, as in my edit. YOU are the one who wants to merge them, therefore you are the one who needs to figure out how to merge them in such a way that it's not random whim, and so it makes sense for the general reader and not just for yourself. It's not my place to do so. I was not in your head when you decided to randomly merge those songs, and neither is the reader. Since you want them merged, you are the one who has the burden of coming up with a feasible and rational manner of doing so that makes editorial sense. My solution was simpler and did not violate any rules of good writing. Your old version did. So I would say, either go with my solution and let them remain separate paragraphs, or reorganize them so that they make some tiny bit of sense. Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's my point. If you provide a link of a published work (newspaper, magazine, tabloid, encyclopedia, book, etc.) on whatever subject (music, sport, politics, science, etc.) that contains 10 one-sentence paragraphs in a single article, I'll drop my argument. In the meantime, I'll add semi-colons, as you suggested. And no need to be repetitive, I got your point—the one who initiates changes has the obligation to do them properly. Neither was my intention to tell you what to do, I simply thought you had an idea how to allegedly rewrite the sentences. You think they are well writen as they currently are, just need to be separated, which leads to my response in the second sentence.--Retrohead (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm going through the article now (as you can see below) and I'll give my feedback on how the way the songs are presented there. I just have to point out that there is no policy (nor should there be) on how to group songs—the grouping could be chronological, thematic, by genre, etc.  I've done it both ways (I'm the guy who wrote Love It to Death, and I'm please as punch that you guys both love it; I also did Sad Wings of Destiny, which gives the songs separate paragraphs).  It's an editorial decision, sometimes due to constraints (finding few sources that talk about a particular song makes it hard to give it a paragraph to itself).  If they're clumped together randomly or poorly with inadequate "bridges or verbal constructions", then we can work that out. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Feedback from Curly Turkey

 * Feel free to revert any of my copyedits. I'm not as familiar with this album as the I am with Lighting through the black album—I mean, I've listened to it all the way through a few times, but usually I only put it on for "Anesthesia". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with your edits, though I think Ulrich's and Hetfield's considerations to fire Mustaine during the bus trip should remain.


 * The band's described as "heavy metal" in the lead, while the album's "thrash metal" in the infobox. It's not really a contradiction, but given Metallica's one of the band's that defined thrash, I'd probably call them thrash in this context.
 * I'll open a discussion before I change it because that will probably trigger an edit war on this and the three following studio albums.
 * Are you sure? Are there really people out there who would object to calling Metallica a thrash band?  Like I said, "heavy metal" is definitely not incorrect, so I wouldn't start anything over it, but, c'mon ... Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, changed it. If anyone objects, I'll open a discussion then.
 * Update: Told you, it only lasted two hours before some fan from Iran reverted me.--Retrohead (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Piss-guzzling genre warrior. IPs don't have watchlists, so obviously it's someone with an account who doesn't have the balls to own up to their antics.  Some reprobate on the Metallica talk page actually claims the black album was "really" a hard rock album.  What, because of "Nothing Else Matters"?  Even the soft parts of "Unforgiven" are fully in a metal idiom.  I hate Load as much as anyone, but you can't just rewrite history like that. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * After establishing its lineup, Metallica started playing shows in local clubs. Metallica recorded a couple of demos, trying to get attention from club owners. The group's No Life 'til Leather demo (1982) caught the attention of Megaforce label head Jon Zazula, who signed them and provided a small budget for recording ...: I'd put this kind of stuff in a later paragraph in the lead—I'd stick to describing the album itself and its significance in the first paragraph of the lead
 * You mean first to explain the album's legacy and then how it was recorded? Easy fixable, though I intended the lead to be chronological.
 * Chronological vs thematic is an editorial decision, but I think the opening paragraph in most cases should limit itself to describing the album itself and its impact, even if that means a short opening paragraph. Imagine a reader simply clicking through from another article, wondering "What is Lill 'em All?"  The opening paragraph should be the answer to that. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems the majority of the FAs use the concept you proposed, so done.


 * the album sold 60,000 copies worldwide by the end of Metallica's European tour: I assume this means a tour that happened in 1983? It's not clear, as we just read about the 1988 re-issue
 * That's explained in 'Touring'—by February 1984, when the Seven Dates Of Hell ended.
 * Yes, but this is the lead. A reader shouldn't be expected to work out what the sentence was intended to mean by jumping several sections intot he body. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, added the tour name and the year in brackets, so that should provide some basic time orientation for the reader.


 *  for shipping three million copies in the United States.: that's probably too fine a detail for the lead
 * Ok, noted.


 * The band's first lineup: maybe "first stable lineup" or something? As they'd already recorded with McGovney and Grant by this point, right?
 * Grant was not a member at all. Ulrich and Hetfield went to his house, Grant recorded the leads in an hour and that was that.
 * I realize that, but readers may not subscribe to such a narrow definition of "lineup". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The gig was infamous because Mustaine had problems with the guitar distortion pedal and broke a string during a song.: I'm not sure "infamous" is the right word here—did lots of people talk about the show because of these things?
 * Perhaps you're right. Is "notorious" a better choice?
 * It's better than "infamous", but how well known was all this? If they just had a shitty gig, then I'd cut the sentence down to "Mustaine had problems with the guitar distortion pedal and broke a string during a song." Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My guess would be that people didn't talk much about it back in 1982 because Metallica was just some local band. But since this gig is mentioned in every Metallica biography, I assume that event is something fans know about.


 * Mustaine interacted with the fans at Metallica's earliest shows because Hetfield was shy.: I'm not sure this gets the intended point across—maybe something like "Hetfield was too shy to interact with fans, so Mustaine took it upon himself to do so."
 * I'll have this on mind, though I prefer something less wordy.


 * which appeared on the second pressing of Metal Massacre : does this mean, when Metal Massacre was re-released, the original recording of "Hit the Lights" was replaced with the newer recording?
 * The re-recorded version (with Mustaine) was placed on the compilation's second shippment. That counts as a re-release, I guess.


 * Although Zazula wanted Hammett to replicate Mustaine's solos, Hammett's guitar solos on the album were partially based on Mustaine's original solos, with the first four bars of most solos written by Mustaine before his departure.: I'm not sure I follow—did Hammett replicate Mustaine's solos or not?
 * No, he didn't, although he was asked.


 * The final cover featured the shadow of a hand letting go of a bloodied hammer. is it worth crediting the cover image?
 * I guess not, but I'm sure someone at the FAC (whenever that is) will ask for the description.


 * Burton was credited with coming up with the name Kill 'Em All—referring to timid record distributors, saying, "Those record company fuckers ... kill 'em all!"—as a response to the situation.: Is that the official story? The one I heard was that the band kept rejecting suggestions for titles, at which the producer (or whoever) got fed up and said something like "Okay, kill 'em all!" (meaning "kill all the title suggestions").  What do other sources say?
 * I've only heard the Burton version. McIver, Popoff, and Winwood only mention Burton as the guy who christened the album.
 * Okay, I guess I've misremembered—I can't find that version of the story anywhere. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm going to take a break here (just before "Music and lyrics"). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, you deserved it.--Retrohead (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm going to continue from "Reception" and do the "Music and lyrics" section last
 *  Kill 'Em All has received mostly positive reviews. AllMusic's Steve Huey called it: this comes off as if AllMusic's was a contemporary review. If you're going to start with it, then I'd introduce it with something along the lines of the albums enduring high regard or somesuch—otherwise keep it chronological.
 * May I add the album was seen as a milestone in retrospect and continue with Allmusic, or move Allmusic after Rolling Stone?
 * Well, it needs to be made clear which were reviews were contemporary and which were retrospective. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph (as far as I can tell) seems to mix contemporary and later reviews. It's be best to separate them out—it doesn't answer the question of how well received it was at the time of its release, aside from sales figures.
 * No, only Allmusic is misplaced. Starting with Billboard, all of the following reviews are contemporary.--Retrohead (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Billboard one, too? Even though it didn't chart?  Well, this should be made clear. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think now it reads better. Starting with "In a contemporary review", all of the reviews are contemporary.


 * The section should really begin with the album's release date, etc. Probably best to reverse the two paragraphs.
 * I'd split the second paragraph in half: the first for release and sales, and the second for "best of" rankings. Conceptually they are different: popular reception versus critical reception.
 * Yes, definitely they differ. Can I use a "bridge" sentence like "Kill 'Em All was placed on a few best of all time lists" or something similar to make correlation?
 * No, it's clear enough that the focus has shifted, so that's not necessary. It's just better in general to put different topics into different paragraphs, assuming they're long enough. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised there's nothing on the album's influence on other bands and on thrash and extreme metal in general.
 * Ok, I have material and I can elaborate on that.


 * I'd throw in a paragraph about the path the band took following this album—and about how they sold out and became a bunch of balladeers with Ride the Lightning, etc. And definitely something about how they were still more or less an underground band with this album, but then went on to be one of the biggest acts in the world.
 * But wouldn't that be repeating the same thing I plan to include on Ride the Lightning? I mean I can basically re-write the same stuff.
 * Well, I don't know what you're planning to write about Ride the Lightning, so I can't really answer. I'd like to see the album put in the context of the band's overall career—this is especially important with a first album. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The tour had flaws, such as a performance at the Cheers club in Babylon, New York, attended by some 50 people.: I'm not sure "poor attendance" can be classified as a "flaw".
 * Alright, corrected. I guess "flaw" refers to technical difficulties in 90% of the cases.
 * On a second thought, isn't "flop" a better solution?--Retrohead (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Flop" would indicate the tour as a whole was disastrously unsuccessful. What do sources say? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, keep it poorly attended. The tour was generally considered successful.--Retrohead (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * at the Stone gig in San Francisco: is this place called "Stone" or "the Stone"? Or is this the Keystone?
 * "The Stone" is in San Francisco, the Keystone is in Palo Alto. Capitalized "the".


 * Metallica embarked on its first European trek with Twisted Sister, supporting Venom on the Seven Dates Of Hell tour: who headlined?
 * Venom headlined, Metallica and Twisted Sister supported.
 * Wow—TS opened for Venom. How times changed. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll be back to look at the "Music and lyrics" section. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * These kinds of detail are really way out of scope for the lead. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, reverted myself.--Retrohead (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

U-Haul
- This appears to back up the recent edit you reverted. BollyJeff &#124;  talk  00:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So that's a document written by a professor? Then I believe it. Go ahead and change it.  danny music editor  Speak up! 00:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am assuming its from the same sourced book, which is not available for free, but not sure. The above cannot really be used as a source I don't think. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  02:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well...yeah...the fact that it's associated with East KYU looked promising, but the screen name surely doesn't.  danny music editor  Speak up! 02:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Deluxe Edition
On April 15, 2016, Metallica's independent label company, Blackened Recordings, released a deluxe remastered box set of Kill 'Em All, which contains 3 LP vinyls, 5 CDs, and one DVD featuring rare footage of a performance at the Metro in Chicago, Illinois on August 1983.

I added a link to Metallica's official website with further details on this topic: https://www.metallica.com/releases/reissues/release-4607.html

Orphaned references in Kill 'Em All
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Kill 'Em All's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "AllMusic": From Black metal:  From Metallica (album):  From The Unforgiven (song):  From Garage Inc.:  From The $5.98 E.P.: Garage Days Re-Revisited:  From Timeline of heavy metal and hard rock music: AllMusic From Master of Puppets:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)