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.
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. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

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 1 NPOV dispute 2 Removed disambig 3 Alleged Mustaine 4 Commercially visible 5 Accusations 6 Release date?

[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)

[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).

[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)