Talk:Master of Puppets

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.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Master of Puppets article.
Article policies
Heavy metal Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, an attempt to improve articles related to heavy metal music. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details on the projects.
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 article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.


I removed this from the article
It is considered by many to be the greatest heavy metal album of all time.

C'mon, people say that about every album and it's entirely an opinion. While you might say what I just said was an opinion I say that there is no best and worst album ever.

But itis a fact that it is considered by many to be the greatest heavy metal album of all time. It is a fact that many people hold this opinion.24.144.137.244 18:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's much doubt that MOP is a very important album, and "greatest" was probably not the best choice. Still, I think it's necessary that at least some recognition of the album's place in the metal canon be presented to readers. I reworded the initial claim slightly to tone down the celebratory rhetoric while still presenting an important bit of context. -- Pillsbur 08:36, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

You could make the case for "greatest thrash metal album of all time"; the only other contenders (so far as polls &c. go) are Reign in Blood and Rust in Peace. -- Jim Regan 22:00, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
I think in this case, "landmark" works fine. While one could make a case for MOP as the "greatest thrash metal album of all time," I don't think Wikipedia is the right place for that kind of pronouncement. Pillsbur 02:13, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but when it's prefaced by "It's considered by many to be..." it should be alright. -- Jim Regan 02:15, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Maybe references to critical opinions of Puppets could show the importance of Puppets in the metal canon. For example, I think I remember one or two issues of "Guitar World" which put Puppets on "Best Album Ever" type lists. Can't remember the issues off the top of my head. There are probably similar articles in other magazines, books on Metallica, etc.

Actually, the website allmusic.com does comment, in reference to MOP, that "some critics have called Master of Puppets the best heavy metal album ever recorded; if it isn't, it certainly comes close."

Well, critics have argued over MoP for a few decades now; while the majority agree that it is certainly Metallica's best album, we can't agree on whether it is the best metal album of the '80s. Now, MoP was a defining moment in Metallica's career, and it was truly damn near-perfect. It also greatly helped bring thrash and heavy metal into mainstream sources

Good call by the editor. I strongly disagree that Master of Puppets earns the title of "greatest heavy metal album of all time". Just because critics say it doesn't mean it's true. Their opinions are just as subjective as anybody elses. Hey, I'm a critic (I edit lists on digitaldreamdoor, my name is Kevin), and I disagree that Master of Puppets earns that title. Black Sabbath's Paranoid is the best cantidate for that title, and I'd even say Iron Maiden's The Number of the Beast is a greater album than Master of Puppets. But it's subjective anyways. Malmsteen Maiden 23:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I found the analysis of songs such as 'Master of Puppets' in this article very interesting, but what the fuck is it going on about when it says that the complex nature of the song itself is infact a metaphor about drug addiction?! It seems to suggest that the complexity of the song was to show that this sort of song writing would not be possible if someone was under the control of drug addiction. That sounds like somebody reading into the track a little bit too much in my opinion....


^ lmao Malmsteen Maiden 00:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] NPOV dispute

The whole Historical Significance section is full of weasel terms, NPOV violations and general nonsense. Some examples:

Master of Puppets occupies the central position in the recorded output of Metallica's career, and is also regarded as one of the most important albums in the history of the metal genre.

Master of Puppets is a pretty important album but the best of all time? Thats about as subjective as you can get. And who considers it to be the most important album of all time? As the paragraph reads, it's just a weasel term.

In terms of both musical technique and industry marketing, Master of Puppets provided many metal fans with a clear alternative to the commercially visible (and increasingly pop-oriented) sounds of groups like Poison, Mötley Crüe, and Quiet Riot. Not only was the music on Master of Puppets complex, virtuosic, and very heavy, but Metallica also emphasized a decidedly "normal" visual presentation of themselves, sporting a costume of ripped jeans, t-shirts, and unteased long hair that contrasted the spectacular androgyny of Poison, et al. It was in this construction of the "real" that Metallica found success: real music played by real musicians who looked like real people.

There were more metal bands in the world then just Metallica and hair bands. --Arm 11:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I tried to NPOV it a bit; there were some words in there that were leaning like a limbo dancer. There is still a bit of POV, though. --M o P 23:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

But of all the "popular" heavy metal Metallica was still the one band that looked the most like real people instead of trying to get all dressed up for a concert. You can't exactly qualify the other metal bands of that time in the US or elsewhere to be really popular. Of course bands like Kreator, Sepultura, Anthrax and Testament looked quite normal but most people outside of the mainstream have never heard of them. Even death metal bands don't necessarily have stage costumes.

Though it does show bias in some aspects, Master of Puppets is deffinently considered one of the greatest albums by many and one of Metallica's best albums. I'm not saying that this is my opinion, but it is definently the opinion of many. 67.165.213.127 04:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Matt G.

I agree with Matt G., if you say 'many consider it to be' this or that, then it sounds ok. and MANY do think so. it's certainly one of the most influential.--205.211.50.10 20:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to clean up this 'historical significance' a little; a lot of it, particularly most of the second paragraph, is more like a review than the historical basis we're aiming for. Musikxpert 07:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed disambig

For over a year there's been a big red link at the top saying "Master of Puppets" is also a novel by Fredric Brown. Try searching for "Master of Puppets" and "Fredric Brown" on Google -- 19 unique hits and as far as I can tell the only one that actually refers to the book (if it exists) is the myspace link at the top. This book is nowhere to be found on Amazon. Forgive my boldness (especially on a page I've never viewed before just a second ago) but this appears to either be a hoax or a mistake, so the disambig notice has been removed. GT 23:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Alleged Mustaine

I removed the asterisks in the track listing as Hammett's 2006 comments and the past twenty years seem to disprove Mustaine's allegations. Wangoed 21:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone has readded this mess:

Megadeth guitarist Dave Mustaine has claimed over the years in interviews to have written riffs ultimately used by Hetfield and Ulrich in "Leper Messiah", "Welcome Home (Sanitarium)" and "Master of Puppets". While such claims have not been confirmed, neither Hetfield nor Ulrich have ever publicly addressed the issue. However, in the January 2006 edition of Guitar World featuring Kirk Hammett, the lead guitarist stated that Mustaine hadn't worked on either Master of Puppets or Leper Messiah.

Most definitely does NOT belong in this article. Perhaps there should be a "Metallica Controversies" page?

I added the first two sentences in the above "mess" years ago in response to what was there previously, which was just silly Megadeth-fanboy mythology. The third sentence in the mess could stay or go, as well as the first two sentences. But please, for the love of all things, do not start a "controversy" page. "Controversy" is one of the worst, most overused things about musician-related pages in Wikipedia. Usually they're about little spats among band members or about the fact that some fans like some albums and others are disappointed by them, and that disagreement (which happens with every album by every recording artist) suddenly becomes "controversy." Oooooh. Please. Stop. No controversy page. Please. Begging of you here...  ;-) Pillsbur 16:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the bit about Mustaine should go in the main (Metallica) article, because he's said the same thing about Dyers Eve (I think.) Wangoed 17:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about that. If it's valid information it can stay. It is very Master of Puppets-specific. Master of Puppets is the topic of this article.--Jeff79 09:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Both master of puppets and ...and jsutice for all were written by dave mustaine i should know i did a whole school report on him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakkman (talk • contribs) 01:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commercially visible

Commercially visible means being more present within commercial markets. Poison and Quiet Riot, for example, were all over MTV and the popular metal magazines of the time, much more so than Metallica. In using the phrase "commercially visible" I want to keep the idea front and center that Metallica was as much a commercial product as any other metal band at the time, just not as "visible." (The fact that Metallica was participating the marketplace at all since 1983 (we all purchased the albums) means they're a "commercial" band.) Neither were they an "underground" band at this point in their career -- the tour with Ozzy Osbourne pretty much ended that. The difference between Metallica and its glam counterparts though, is in the visibility. Plenty of people knew about Metallica in the mid-80s, but that's not the same as being commercially visible. -- Pillsbur 16:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations

Should I mention how some people unfairly accuse this album of killing metal, as I have seen happen on various forums and conversations via Windows Live Messenger? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.100.132.118 (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

    • IM conversations and forums are not most definately NOT valid Wikipedai sources.


  • Never... EVER! ...have I heard someone speak badly of Master Of Puppets, its a musical masterpiece for Christs sake--Dimedude 20:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
You should visit each person who accused this album of killing metal, and remind them what Metal is. Mathiastck (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Master of Puppets is one of the least metal albums that still is metal that ive ever heard. Most of it is completely sterile and unconvincing.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=547

just use 'Edit' , 'Find,' and search for the username 'UltraBoris' and read his review. Then tell me that there isnt the slightest chance that Master of Puppets killed metal.


[edit] Release date?

It said February 21, 1986, someone changed it to February 28th, so I went to Metallica.com to see which one was right, and they have March 3, 1986 as the date. Anybody know for sure which date is correct? --Bongwarrior 06:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would go with 3 March as this is on their official website. Also, add the reference, so no one can change it without citing something else. --WillMak050389 12:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm just hoping for some additional confirmation, someone with a Metallica encyclopedia or something. Metallica.com is the only place I've seen so far that gives the March 3rd date; I'd hate to change it all unless I'm positive it's correct. Perhaps there were different release dates for Europe/UK and the United States, and that's where the confusion is coming from. --Bongwarrior 19:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sales

Is the overall sales success of the album mentioned anywhere in this article? If so I missed it. Can't we find out how many millions of copies have sold world-wide, and if it's gold, platinum, double platinum or whatever? I think such information about the Master of Puppets album should be in the Master of Puppets article.--Jeff79 09:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Metallica - Master of Puppets.jpg

Image:Metallica - Master of Puppets.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 Wikipedia: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 22:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anniversary Redundancy

"To celebrate the 20th anniversary of its release, Metallica played the album in its entirety on their Escape from the Studio '06 tour and at the Download '06 festival on 10 June"

This sentence is redundant in itself (the Download '06 was actually part of that tour, not a separate gig as suggested by the "and"), but I'm not sure how to sort it out, primarily because I don't know if they played the full album on every show of that tour, or only on some. It was played in its entirety for the first time ever on the first gig of the tour on June 3rd, the Rock am Ring festival in Germany, and that gig was in fact also broadcast live and uninterrupted by MTV (in Germany, and no doubt other countries as well). If anyone has a better understanding where else they played it in full subsequently, it would be great if this could be clarified and reformulated appropriately. 91.33.209.173 22:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

  • They played the album in its enterity on almost all dates of the Escape from the Studio '06 tour, except for the last concert in Seoul. You can find the setlists for the entire tour here: http://www.metlists.com/Setlists2006.htm#jun3 - Aphasia83 22:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've adjusted the text accordingly. Feel free to finetune if necessary. Also thanks for the link, I wasn't aware of that site yet. Very cool assembly of data, even has some of the ticket scans that I sent to encycmet.com a life or two ago... ;p lol 91.33.209.173 23:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orion

Why was the article for Orion deleted, that is one of the most notable songs from the band it is aside from anesthesia (pulling teeth) his masterpiece, if not it is his masterpiece. Skeeker [Talk] 00:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to know why as well. It is without a single doubt the most famous metal instrumental of all time, not to mention singularly regarded as Cliff Burton's masterpiece. Who I might note, is now a dead man. Pretty disrespectful. It seems other articles have been deleted as well. (Damage, Inc.). Why? GrimmC 20:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why anyone would remove content about songs. That's crazy. But maybe they did it because they thought the content should be moved to sections of the album. Which I can understand. But moving is different to deleting. I don't understand deleting them.--Jeff79 23:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

How about an answer on this one guys??? GrimmC 02:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If you care so much recreate it. You can probably find the old article with a good "internet archive" type site. Mathiastck (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability isn't always established because fans claim it to be well-known as an instrumental or because it's great - it may very well be notable in that respect. But there likely wasn't enough sources to assert this. I couldn't tell you as I am not an administrator, so I cannot view deleted pages. For more information regarding its deletion, please see its deletion discussion. Valtoras (talk) 07:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia?

I'd love to see a Trivia of section mentioning Pastor of Muppets, the font, and Pasture of Muppets. Mathiastck (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately we cannot do that. Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines, and information regarding such information should be integrated into the article. Valtoras (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Areas needing improvement

OK, folks, after proof-reading the article personally, I've deduced what needs improvement, and what we can add to it to make it more comprehensible:

  • A "Recording" section that gives information on the recording of the album
  • Copyedit/overhaul of the "Reception" section/integration of "Historical Significance" section and "Reception" section, as two paragraphs of information is not needed to explain the influence and acclaim the album has received.
  • Additional citations for verification

Alright, now let's try to focus on improving and maintaining this article. If you have any questions or disagreements with my or any other editors actions, or wish to propose a major change to the article, please discuss them here first - edit warring will solve nothing]]. While discussing changes, let's keep discussions civil and productive. Thank you. Valtoras (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dream Theater cover

Just a quick question: When did Dream Theater perform their rendition of the album?
~~NaN 15:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PMRC

This is in the PMRC article:

  • As an early parody of the PMRC "explicit lyrics" warning labels, many prints of Metallica's 1986 release of their album Master Of Puppets sported a sticker on the front in the shape of a stop-sign saying:

"THE ONLY TRACK YOU PROBABLY WON'T WANT TO PLAY IS "DAMAGE, INC." DUE TO THE MULTIPLE USE OF THE INFAMOUS "F" WORD. OTHERWISE, THERE AREN'T ANY "SHITS," "FUCKS," "PISSES," "CUNTS," "MOTHERFUCKERS," OR "COCKSUCKERS" ANYWHERE ON THIS RECORD"

Worth including in this article?--Jeff79 (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)