Talk:Metallica's ninth studio album

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

Article requirements:
YesY A relatively complete infobox
NoN Cover art in the infobox
YesY A lead section giving an overview of the album
YesY At least one section of informative prose other than lead
NoN A track listing (for "start" class), containing track lengths & composers (for "B" class)
NoN A list of personnel (specific band members (for "start" class), guest musicians and technical (for "B" class)
YesY Categorisation at least by artist and year

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Metallica's ninth studio album article.
Article policies
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 20/9/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[edit] Proposed deletion

I deleted the proposed deletion for the following reasons:

  • Future albums are not considered "crystal balling"
  • Metallica has stated on their official site they are recording their next album
  • Rick Rubin has said he is producing it
  • Metallica has played the two new songs on tour, and they are rumored to be on the album
I understand your concerns, but this is a clear-cut case of an expected and future album that will be released. Anthony Hit me up... 01:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] TIME!!!!!!!

it says "the fall of 2008" . Its the fall of 2008 and no news!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.160.17 (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is spring, at least in the north hemisphere. -- Kl4m T C 22:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thrash Metal?

Why is the genre of Metallica's new album listed as thrash metal? If so, those new songs they've debuted are quite literally the softest thrash songs ever. I even remember Lars claiming that St. Anger would sound like Obituary, and that was obviously not the case. If someone could post some verifiable proof that this album will be thrash, please do, though most sensible metalheads will assume not and leave this band in the dust.

[edit] Bob Rock/...And Justice For All

I don't know who keeps changing the sentence about this being the first album since . . . And Justice For All to not be produced by Bob Rock, but it is inaccurate. Justice was produced by Fleming Rasmussen, and there is absolutely no mention of Rock anywhere in the liner notes.

The first album that Rock produced was the Black Album in 1991.

That's the point. The last album not produced by Rock was And Justice, therefore making this one the first album NOT produced by Rock since Justice. The grammar is correct. Anthony Hit me up... 16:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And whoever edited this page wrote the wrong date for ...And Justice for All. It was released in 1988 not in my year, which is 1989. Alex 22:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Enough of this. I just reworded that whole thing so that there is no dispute. J-Dog 19:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Tenth

This is metallica tenth stuido album!

Is it...? Name 'em. Or I will. 1-Kill Em All, 2-Lightning, 3-Puppets, 4-Justice, 5-Black Album, 6-Load, 7-ReLoad, 8-St Anger, then 9-the new one. That's it; those are the only studio albums. Live albums and cover albums do not count as studio albums. If you disagree, go read what defines a studio album. Let's not have an editing war over this either. It's number nine, period. J-Dog 21:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Then why does is say "St. Anger is the ninth studio album by American thrash metal band Metallica" on the St.Anger page? Edit this page or the St. Anger one. 213.114.217.188 09:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Garage inc is probably included in the count

Garage Inc. is covers/compilation, shouldn't be included. Adamravenscroft 16:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

They may be covers, but its still a studio album. 143.92.1.33 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at what DEFINES a studio album, and you'll see that covers do NOT count, because they are NOT original new material. I quote: A studio album is a collection of previously unreleased, studio-recorded tracks by a recording artist. It usually does not contain live recordings or remixes, and if it does, those tracks do not make up a majority of the album and are often called "bonus tracks".-studio album 68.37.167.19 01:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe Garage Inc. falls under this definition of a studio album. The included "Garage Days Revisited" disc could/should be considered a "bonus" disc, but disc 1 only contains tracks that were recorded in a studio and which had never been released previously. I think the "previously unreleased" portion of the definition is meant to exclude "best of" albums, for instance (where the exact same recordings had been released previously). While the lyrics and basic melodies of the songs on Garage Inc. had been released previously by other bands, the tracks on Garage Inc. are original, never-before-released, studio recordings. Super_C 21:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What about S&M? Maybe the St. Anger page counted it. I don't know. This is the ninth studio album, though. Powerslave (talk-contribs) 22:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, S&M would be excluded according to the definition of "studio album" cited by 68.37.167.19 above (because it's live). But, in my opinion, Garage Inc. should be considered a studio album (my reasons are in my last post, above), which would make the new, upcoming album studio album #10. Super_C 22:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Metallica call it their ninth original here and St. Anger the 8th studio here. Adamravenscroft 09:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there you go; can't argue with that. Thanks Adamravenscroft! Super_C 15:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Amen!--OgreCorps 20:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Eesh, in the recent interview with krone.at, Hammett refers to the album as their eleventh studio album. How could that be?? R-Tiztik 17:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As quoted on the article itself: "Kirk Hammett: Yeah, it’s our eleventh studio album, but it feels like our sixth." This page is one big contradiction.

Kirk is obviusly counting Garage Days and Garage Inc so its
1.Kill em all 2.Ride 3.Master 4. Garage Days 5. Justice 6.Black 7. Load 8. Reload 9.Garage Inc 10.St Anger 11.New Album. so by saying it feels like their sixth... he means its a worthy sequel to Justice!!? Fuck Yeah I'll have a bit of that, if its anything like the power four tallica albums... Hoooollllleeeee fuuuck! Music could be coaxed back to the way it shoulda stayed! Thrash!! 80s!!!! Metallica!!!!!
I believe they can do it like I really do.--Dimedude 16:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Even the two "New Songs" were a bit of an ease on the uncertainties of this album; especially "The New Song". "The Other New Song" was good too, but it didn't have nearly as much of an impression as the former, personally. It's a shame that these songs won't appear on the album in their entireties. Maybe they were recorded in their entirety as demos and will be iTunes bonus tracks or something, now that the band has licensed their music for sale on iTunes. R-Tiztik 17:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] obvious

as obvius as it is as soon as possible please get a title and pictureI am Paranoid 20:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

there is no way u can count either garage days/garage inc or S&M as studio albums its their 9th end of discussion!– —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.80.72 (talk) 14:40, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewel Case - Blank Album Art Graphic

The blank jewel case indicating that we don't have album art, yet, looks awfully dated. Perhaps I have a bias against jewel cases, but I'm thinking a minimalist square with the same text might work better.

I dunno, it's not that bad. It's really just a placeholder, and not about dating and such. R-Tiztik 20:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes galore

I was here two days or so ago and there were three quotes. Now we have quite a few, and instead of one unsourced, we've got several. I'm looking around to see what I can find on some of these quotes, and if anyone could help it would be much appreciated. I think that currently it looks as if we've got some made up quotes from the band about the new album. That may just be my take, but yeah. -Motleh 02:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks very messy to say the least, and the part about the two songs being cut was removed... hmmm

I read them all, and they seem legit based on what I've heard from Metallica over the past few years. I think it looks good! -Winter123 06:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it looked very messy. I've gone through the page and reformatted quotes to a more neutral Wikipedia approach, and added a category for the sound of the album from what has been revealed so far. I think it looks much better this way too. R-Tiztik 07:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation

I deleted the bit about possibly using leftover tracks from this album as a 10th album (a la Reload) because it was pure speculation, backed up by nothing, and oh, just, no. Wangoed 08:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I also deleted the "Not Dead" speculation, because it is just that. Wangoed 18:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Release

It says on Kerrang!s site that the new album will be released April 2007. ([1])

It says it's tentatively due for April, that doesn't mean it's coming out in April for certain. Funeral 22:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category

should the category Albums produced by Rick Rubin be added to the page, or should that be left until its actually been produced? Balthazar (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly certain that Rubin will be producer. If he wasn't, surely something would've been mentioned by now, so I think it's all systems go to add the category. —Vanishdoom (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
In that case then, consider it added Balthazar (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tour section

Why is there so much detail on tours in this article? I don't see how this is relevant to the album itself and should be mentioned on the Metallica page if necessary, not not here. Rehevkor (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Release dates

I noticed that the opening sentence of the article had been altered to show that the album "will" be released in September.

Until we have something *concrete* the article should keep referring to the third fiscal quarter. As soon as we have a verifiable date, we can change it - but until then, let's keep to what we do know now. Onesecondglance (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

well, now it's sourced, it is. it wasn't before. Onesecondglance (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2008

(UTC)

We know that Metallica's ninth studio album will be released in Fall 2008- the only thing that is not clear is the release date. Despite what Lars Ulrich says about September. I don't believe him. I heard the same thing said about March 6, 2007 and the date passed with no Guns N' Roses album. Amazon.com has a notice where you can sign up to be notified when the album is going to be released. I don't believe that the release date is September and none of the magazines have a release date. There was no mention of Metallica's new album in Billboard magazine's summer preview- which included September. My guess is that the album is TBA.

JASON HUTTON

[edit] "The Missing Link" part that needs a source

Here's a source but I'm not sure if it's reliable.. is it?http://metxxxpage.com/blog/2007/07/11/kirk-hammett-interview-on-the-new-metallica-record/

RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Link it to the video and the blog, it's first hand and second hand evidence Thedarxide (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

?

RandySavageFTW (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A little vague on the sound

"The snippets heard so far suggest the album is heavy and fast." Heavy and fast in comparison to what? Their load and Reaload stuff? St. Anger? Is it thrash heavy and fast? Can I remove that line? JackorKnave (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This Articla is FUCKING HUGE

I know how much of a big deal this album is, especially considering their statement of going back to their roots, but is it really neccessary to chronicle absolutely every incident interview in regards to the album? I'm not questioning relevancy, but there seems to a bit too much info here for an album that isn't out yet. If I was a casual reader, I couldn't see myself reading everything on the article.JackorKnave (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The casual reader statement applies to almost every article on Wikipedia... What's wrong with details? If you don't want many details, there's a much shorter version on the Metallica article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.25.187 (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
What's an "articla?" Or are you trying to be cute? This is Wikipedia, not the Metallica fan club. The more detail, the better. That's the way that it works. J-Dog (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
i would have thought that "articla" was a typo, and nothing more. but yes, i think the length of the article is fine as is, no need to trim - this can be done when it's finally released.Onesecondglance (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

To NdPhil121: Thank you for pointing out my typo and your masterful assumption of my attempt to be.. cute?. Anyway, I've fixed it. Also, I would almost assume this IS the Metallica fanclub from the insane amount of quotes from the band, and even people who have little to do with the band. I've seen other future album pages and they are dwarfed by comparison (the new Wintersun album, for example. There are plenty of lengthy updates by the band, which could be frequently quoted), but all the neccassary info on the page is summed up). I'm not saying remove the information, but I allways thought quotes on wikipedia tend to rejected in favour of summaries with sources. Isn't there some legal stuff as well, in regards to quotes? Not sure about that one though. To Onesecondglace: Sorry, I assumed it would be trimmed down, but I still don't see why most of this information are just quotes. Forget it anyway, you probably know wikipedia better than me anyway.JackorKnave (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Album Title

Why are you still calling this page "Metallica's ninth studio album"? It is confirmed that the album will be called "Vulturus". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.83.249 (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so where's the source? That's right. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

When in New York on Wednesday I went by a store that had a huge banner advert in the window for the album, and it had a title. But I can't for the life of me remember what it was. Canterbury Tail talk 12:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Did you spray paint "[citation needed]" on it? :P Rehevkor (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
K? I'm not claiming to know the title, just that there was a huge banner for it and I didn't pay it too much head as I was in a hurry. Canterbury Tail talk 20:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I've amended my comment to highlight it's original tongue in cheek format. Rehevkor (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The "Mission Metallica" official fanclub site is slowly revealing what may be letters in the album title (as of 12 June 2008, they are D, E, I and C). Sources for the "teaser" images (which are being posted on the front page of Mission Metallica): [2] and [3]69.255.249.205 (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First Studio Album with Robert Trujillo?

Greetings all! Very first wiki post, so be please be gentle.

The line reading: "The record will be the band's first studio album to feature current bassist Robert Trujillo and also the first to be produced by Rick Rubin."

bothers me a bit because, if I'm not mistaken, St. Anger, featured Robert Trujillo, and would be the first studio album to feature Robert. This new album, would be the second with Robert. My sources for this claim are the liner notes for St. Anger, and by watching the studio rehearsal bonus DVD included with St. Anger (Robert is playing bass, not Jason Newstead). I would like to propose that the line be corrected to reflect this believed error. Being a first-time poster, I am not sure if I should have actually made the change or if I should "propose" it for an editor to make.

I have read through the "talk page guidelines" and it says I should sign with 4 tildes? I will try ending with that, but if it doesn't work to satisfaction, then I must have done something wrong (sorry in advance).

Computrsage (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit by the village idiot that posted this.

Please disregard this entire post and delete it (I don't know how to). I read through the liner notes of St. Anger and, indeed, it was Bob Rock that played bass on the album, which, would make the "new" album the first one featuring Robert Trujillo. This is really embarassing, I should have known better. Sorry for any trouble caused.

Computrsage (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Listening party?

just rechecked the link for the supposed first listen (quietus.com) and it's dead?

unless we can find a new source we're going to have to delete that section, as it's unsourced comment. Onesecondglance (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've made some research and I found that Metallica's management told quietus.com and other website who covered the listening party to take down anything related to the new album. This can be confirmed here : http://www.comcast.net/music/blindedbythehype/1462/metallicaalbumpreviewcoverup/
also, if you go to quietus.com again, there are brief mentions of the listening party (vague mentions, however, so that metallica's management won't get mad). this can be confirmed here : http://www.thequietus.com/2008/06/metallica-from-rocks-back-pages/
in other words, the Media Impressions section may be correct based on what quietus.com had on its website prior to metallica's management telling the website to remove the news. Dautolover (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Blabbermouth talks about the listening party as well : http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/BlabberMouth.Net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=98355 Dautolover (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)