Talk:...And Justice for All (album)/Archive 2

One as a balad?

"The album continues the trends set by the previous albums Ride the Lightning and Master of Puppets by having a fast paced, heavy song as the first track, the title track as the second track, a ballad as the fourth track, and a lengthy instrumental among the last tracks."

"One" is the fourth track on this cd, but I would hardly consider it a ballad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.136.178 (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's used for want of a better word. The pattern is definitely there in the Big 3, and worth a mention. Our only other option would be to call it a "slower paced track with singing over clean tone / acoustic guitar".--Jeff79 (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"One" is considered a ballad by some, and I have nothing against that thought, because the track is pretty reminiscent to "Fade to Black", "Welcome Home (Sanitarium)", and "The Day That Never Comes" in terms of song structure, and they were all ballads. Though a ballad has a much slower tempo than normal, and therefore, many believe that they're always slow, Metallica made their ballads more unique by adding a hyper-speed instrumental section following the last stanza in the lyrics. Therefore, these Metallica ballads go from much slower than normal, to just about as fast as Metallica's normal sound. Although, if you are one of those who doesn't think it's a ballad, just consider it as a downbeat track, which is what it's called in the Death Magnetic article. Jonah Ray Cobbs 23:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)JRC3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRC3 (talk • contribs)

Well in my opinion since this album is so progressive and advance. It can be both. It starts out ballad like, transitions into a hard and heavy part of the song, goes back to ballad and slow. Than ends really thrash like and heavy. --76.113.62.128 (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone keeps putting up wrong sales numbers!

The RIAA clearly has ...And Justice for All listed at 8x Multi-Platinum, but someone keeps changing it back to 5-something million. Where he/she got this number, I don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.128.156 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt Drake from Evile's comments

Should this stay or not? People have been edit warring over it for like a month... It should probally be discussed here firstRandySavageFTW (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's take a vote on it. 74.171.129.201 (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Goes.--Jeff79 (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• Goes. RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• Goes. 74.171.129.201 (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't violate Wikipedia in any sense, and adheres to rules. Reign in Blood uses the opinions of groups as regards the album, and that's an FA. It has been reinserted, and I have every intention of reverting whomever keeps taking it out. That's irrelevant of how many straw polls RandySavageFTW intentionally starts. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Release date?

I had thought this was released on Aug 25 1988 (incidentally, 20 years ago as of my typing this). The Dillinger Escape Plan have a song called 82588 off of Ire Works that is supposed to represent the release of AJFA. Metal-archives says Aug 25 2008 as well, though they are not exactly the most reliable source. See: MA Entry and an interview with Greg Puciato. Can anyone else confirm or deny this? Ibanez Guy (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Metallica's own website, the release date is in FACT August 25th, 2008. http://www.metallica.com/Media/Albums/albums.asp?album_id=5 DreamsofTacos (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I get several different dates for this, August 25th being my birthday, but I'm really confused because I get from many different locations several dates, August 25th, 26th, September 6th, and in one case October 13th. Even more confusing is that on Metallica's own website, in two different places they put the dates August 25th and September 6th, and there seems no way to verify it, does anyone have a 100% correct source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.171.5 (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert Christgau review - Remove?

Is it necessary to include this rating under professional reviews? I know that in the interest of neutrality a balanced range of opinions should be considered, but how does the view of a man who readily admits to being prejudiced against metal have any validity? If a source with a leaning towards metal gives a negative review, it should be included. If Robert Christgau were to give a positive review, it should be included, as it would be noteworthy. But if Kerrang! or Metal Hammer gave negative reviews to Justin Timberlake, would the wider world give their views any credibility? Pm504 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't really bother me personally. The more the merrier.--Jeff79 (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It'd be alright if he actually critiqued the album, but the the 'review' is 2 sentences long. Not very professional —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.117.73 (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Leave it. Christgau's reviews are always short. Portillo (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Although he does list Avril Lavigne's 'Sk8er Boi' as a "prime cut" *cough*--Jeff79 (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Drum Engineering

I suggest that we add something about the Drumwork challenges of this album. There are Drumwork engineering references in the liner notes of the CD jacket and I recall an interview where Lars Ulrich claimed that the technicality of the album (and the drumwork in particular) was one of the reasons that Metallica stopped playing many of the songs live. He also claimed that the challenges of this album prompted the band to try the simpler approach which is primarily credited to Bob Rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.128.2 (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Bonus tracks

I don't see why the bonus tracks should be excluded from the track listing. They were not part of the original track listing, but any legal reissue of the album that offered an alternate track listing deserves to be mentioned. If you look around, plenty of other articles for albums include a small section where those reissues are mentioned, so I see no reason why this should be any different.

--Rock Soldier (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article about an album released by Metallica in 1988 and the track listing must reflect that. This is absolutely not the place to detail what itunes or amazon offers if you buy their products. Yes it appears on other album articles because you keep going around adding it. This needs to be stamped out perhaps via discussion at Wikiproject Albums.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

See Other Stuff Exists Thedarxide (talk) 11:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

But are we expected to just ignore any re-releases of the album that altered the track listing over the years? Look at Iron Maiden's The Number of the Beast: it originally did not feature the track "Total Eclipse", but was later reissued with that track as one of its songs, and has since grown to have that as a recognized part of the album. Hardly any edition of the album can be found nowadays that excludes that track. Same case for the band's self-titled debut album, with the song "Sanctuary". Does that mean that its article should still go against this?

--Rock Soldier (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

itunes or amazon selling the album online does not constitute a re-release with a change in the album's track listing. It's accurate the way it is now.--Jeff79 (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If it was a legally released edition of the album with something different about the track listing, that should still be worth a mention. The place where it was sold should not make a difference as long as it was done legally with the rights of the band. So even if such tracks are exclusive to the online releases of the album, that should still count for something. After all, it seems that recent album singles that have been released as digital downloads via iTunes have still been counted as singles, so why should this be any different?

--Rock Soldier (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's uncomfortably close to advertising. I'm confused about why you think it will benefit people reading an encyclopedia entry about a 20+ year old album to lead them to believe that it has more than the nine tracks that everyone knows it to have. Being an employee of either itunes or amazon is the only possibe reason I can think of for someone to argue in favour of adding their bonus tracks. I defy you to find a published, reliable source that states that this album's track listing has changed to reflect itunes/amazon's online version.--Jeff79 (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The answer to this dilemma is a simple middle ground: If there are any bonus tracks that are included in re-releases of any physical medium (CDs or Vinyls) for the album, then it can be mentioned, such as with the article for Kill 'Em All regarding one label or another (I'm too tired to look right now as to who) including "Blitzkrieg" and "Am I Evil?" in their initial pressing of the album, whereas they were originally B-sides for "Creeping Death", or the Iron Maiden example or even for many other albums for which there are different track listings for different CD/Cassette/Vinyl releases. As for digital download gimmicks, that I strongly oppose, especially since iTunes does it for practically every album and you can never buy the bonus tracks without buying the whole album. In fact, I think they include "So What" and "Stone Cold Crazy" as bonus tracks if you download Metallica in its entirety, even though they were both B-sides for separate singles off the main album.

Is that an agreeable solution for this latest dispute? KirkCliff2 (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rock Soilder, if there are any bonus tracks, they should be mentioned. All of the good/featured articles list any bonus tracks that were released, even if they were downloadable. I don't care what Jeff79 says. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

obsolete

The Lead paragraph mentions figures for how many millions of copies it had sold as of June 8, 2003. That's from right after St. Awful hit shelves and some newer fans quickly purchased their old stuff, with the wiser ones returning the worst album of the previous decade to the stores and keeping Justice. Almost 7 years have gone by, and they've released or been a part of a lot more since then, so I think it'd be wise to find updated figures for the album, assuming it actually did surpass the 9 million or higher mark. KirkCliff2 (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

According to RIAA, certificates are awarded when a company in charge of production and distribution of that item can prove sales figures and a request is made for certification. Meaning, ...And Justice for All hasn't sold 9 million copies or the company hasn't requested a 9x certificate. In either case, the material is as current as it can be. Akerans (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Is "progressive metal" sourced (besides Allmusic)?

Is there any reliable source for "progressive metal"? I know people are using Allmusic as a source but Allmusic is not a reliable source, "the more genres, the better" is not a proper nor professional way to label music. So Allmusic should not be used as a source. So as I said earlier, is there a reliable source for the genre "progressive metal". And Allmusic doesn't even list "progressive metal" as one of ...And Justice for All's genres. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Um yeah thers a whole fuckign article about progressive metal dude..............--76.113.62.128 (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I know there is an article about it, but is there any reliable source for this album (...And Justice for All) being "progressive metal"? I am going to remove it from the genres for now. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, whether Allmusic is considered a reliable source or not is debatable here on Wikipedia. But I just re-added progressive metal by citing Allmusic, as well as another source, both of which refer to progressive metal for this album among the piles of text. Not to mention, album has also ranked in Digital Dream Door's top 100 progressive metal albums.[1] 97.83.75.129 (talk) 11:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, by all discussion at WP:RS Allmusic is not considered a reliable source for genres. Also not that Digital Dream Door website comeplete and totally fails WP:RS as it is just an amateur fansite run by 1 amateur fan who is not in any way a recognized expert on anything to do with music... or anything else for that matter. Mr Pyles (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the background section needed?

The 'Background' section to me seems a bit pointless - the lead section has all you need to know - that Cliff died and this is Jason's first proper studio album with Metallica. It's not directly relevant to the album. If anyone wants more information then the Cliff & Metallica articles cover it. The part about Mustaine, McGovney and the first 3 albums is even less relevant. Does anyone agree that it should be removed? Davedeslave (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it should be removed as it is pretty much only relevant to the bands early days - AJFA rather than a direct background on the writing/recording process. JRC3 (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Kind of agree here. I would say just remove the bit about Mustaine and the first 3 albums, but that encompasses about half of the 3-4 sentences there so, I suppose just get rid of it all and anything relevant can be merged into the lead or whereever.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.vh1.com/artists/interview/1473275/06252003/metallica.jhtmlHetfield
  • In ...And Justice for All (album) on 2011-05-20 21:27:08, 404 Not Found
  • In ...And Justice for All (album) on 2011-05-31 04:31:10, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/discography/index.jsp?pid=5199&aid=11548
  • In ...And Justice for All (album) on 2011-05-20 21:27:08, 404 Not Found
  • In ...And Justice for All (album) on 2011-05-31 04:31:13, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Link

The 2 links for Metal Storm are wrong! 1st - the article in wikipedia 'bout some company, 2nd - reference for other site (punknews)Dzimozz (talk) 4 July 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC).

Singles from ...And Justice for All

Singles from ...And Justice for All

1. Harvester of Sorrow (released on August 28, 1988)
2. Eye of the Beholder (released on October 30, 1988)
3. One (released on January 10, 1989)

The title-track is not a single. --SuperVirtual (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

All Hammet Solos in one week

I remember reading an article where it was mentioned that Kirk Hammet (who didn't play any guitars on the album, except for the solos!) had to record all the solos in one week because the release date had been fixed and they were running out of time. Within that week, he also had to fly out to play a festival. I think it is worth mentioning because the solos do indeed sound extreme "rushed" on that album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.227.131.128 (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Writing credits

"All lyrics written by James Hetfield, except "To Live Is to Die" by Paul Gerhardt and Cliff Burton" ... "8. 'To Live Is to Die' - Hetfield, Ulrich, Cliff Burton" - obviously copied faithfully from the little booklet inside the CD case, but inconsistent. I've added Gerhardt's name to the credit for that song ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)