Talk:Metallica (album)

To-do list
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)

Actually, I looked this over, and the article looks like it's in really nice shape. I made a few obvious tweaks, and I've received recommendations to nominate it. It's been recently copyedited, so I trust that did some really well-done work. I'm going to take a chance and see if this qualifies for GA. Here we go! DannyMusicEditor (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

There is some conflicting info on which singles where released from the album. In the infobox on the right there are five singles listed. In the bodytext under "Promotion", six singles are listed. The one that's missing in the infobox is "Don't Tread On Me". Which list is the right one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.225.103.245 (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is atrocious. Citing an online petition that not even 2,000 fans signed to hate on Bob Rock because they were no longer making pretentious prog and nine minute songs? Very poorly written, it could use a rewrite by someone who has a broader vocabulary and grasp on writing for an audience. Due to the “controversies between bob and the band” made me cringe, controversial is typically used in a sociological or media sense not personal, bette words are antagonisms, tension, and difficulties. Shhsbavavaa (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

"Sad but True" audio sample
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), updated 21:08
 * 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)

Nice catch. But I'm still wondering if we need this many samples... DannyMusicEditor (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Things I (the nominator) have found so far
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)

Less harsh?
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)

I think this counts as groove metal.
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

genre changes
genre changes (diff) Consensus is needed for this change. Mlpearc Phone ( open channel ) 18:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

...And Justice for All
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.  danny music editor  Speak up! 18:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

So you're rejecting a Rolling Stone article?
I've seen it all now. I'm with the warrior on this one. Whether it's a "Did you know?" article where the band doesn't explicitly say that this is the case is irrelevant. Perhaps it shouldn't be exactly how it was requested to be, but it should be reported that Kirk didn't play according to Roling Stone, because they're always reliable. Would highly suggest taking the protection down a notch too.  danny music editor  Speak up! 19:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * , yes, I will reject a Rolling Stone article if (as is completely relevant) it makes an assumption simply based on an interview where a band member doesn't explicitly say what the magazine says it does, and doesn't say or source anything else – I will happily continue to argue this, as nothing else has been presented and, as far as I'm concerned, it's not reliable in this instance. The words "It was reported" do not belong anywhere in the article (or any article, for that matter, as it violates WP:RUMOUR), regardless of how reliable the magazine might be. I've linked to a discussion that the editor began with me at my talk page. To the editor him/herself,, you have been asked more than once to discuss here, but you have instead continued to revert, resulting in this overzealous (level of) protection; I know it takes two to tango, but I'm also not the only editor to have asked you.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This is what is being used to source the edit in question, as it appears in the Rolling Stone article:


 * '...[James] Hetfield then recorded the song's acoustic intro and bluesy guitar solo himself, making it one of the few Metallica tracks that Kirk Hammett doesn't play on. "I had to relearn that whole intro part to play by myself onstage," Hammett recalled in 2012, "which was a little bit intimidating for me at that point, [because] we never had a song that started that way."'


 * If the magazine knows something that the rest of us don't – which we clearly don't, as nothing else has been sourced to this point and we can't just make assumptions or go by what we may or may not already know – then it should at least say where it's getting its information from, because if the magazine is saying what it's saying only going by the interview alone, then that's not enough. I don't believe that this is the case, but the magazine doesn't say where else it's getting its information from, either (specifically, that Hammett didn't record anything for the song, if this is true), and therefore it can't be considered reliable just because of how respected it might be or how reliable it might have been in the past. Hammett barely says anything more on the subject during the full interview being sourced to go into any further depth, so it's not like the magazine left anything out.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I have no problem accepting the article. RS is not an academic journal citing all its information all the time; that's just not how they work. That we don't (yet?) have another source saying this is beside the point: RS is an RS. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Track listing
Why is the track listing in vinyl format and not CD? I'm just curious. CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Nice. It looks better this way. CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Source for some personnel?
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)

Since nobody responded, I'm going to delete the unsourced material from the personnel section. Jocafus (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Old name
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)

“Slower, heavier, and more refined” is fanboying. We need more objectivity and perception not fawning....
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)

Not Heavy Metal
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)