Slashdot Mirror
Metallica May Follow In Footsteps of Radiohead, NIN
fireheadca writes "Metallica, once strongly opposed to file-sharing, has hinted at going 'free' in the style of NIN and Radiohead. Having heard success stories about releasing music online, Metallica has decided it wants a piece of the action. Radiohead, as a pioneer of online 'pay what you want' music, has shown the world it is possible to profit by releasing music online, but would not post those profits. NIN, on the other hand, has reported at least $1.6 million in revenue. In hindsight, many people remember Metallica as the band that helped shutdown Napster. I purchased the NIN album, after many years of free downloads of the NIN collection, to help support the band. Would you buy a Metallica online album despite their former views?"
No. They totally missed the point before, and it sounds like now they're just trying to latch on to an idea that helped others. The point of being a musician, or another kind of artist, is to share the art, not to make a profit. There's nothing wrong with expecting to make some money off of it, but that should not be the focus.
ttuttle is a rankmaniac
Lars is still an asshole.
.torrent friends.
I probably would download it off the net though, with the help of my
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
"Would you buy a Metallica online album despite their former views?" No. It wasn't like they were young foolish musicians saying things off the top of their heads. They had a chance to look at what was happening and make informed decisions and they turned to the dark side of the force. I say "fuck 'em" forever.
When Lars Ulrich was attacking file-sharing in the Napster days, Metallica had long lost its independent spirit and street cred. Albums like Load were glossy, commercial affairs little different than your cookie-cutter non-threatening metal bands of the era. If they went a fully independent route like Radiohead or NIN, they might be able to secure the same vibe of semi-undergroundness that they enjoyed in the 1980s. I wouldn't bet on it, though. Most of their fans from that time got older and left metal behind, and many of those who still enjoy the best of the genre will hold their mistakes against them.
Besides the fact that I really don't like Metallica as a band, I feel that this is kind of a hypocritical stance, given that they were so vehemently opposed to file-sharing for so many years, and only want to adopt it now that it has proven itself to be a successful model.
Maybe if they weren't as staunch about the issue, I wouldn't be as critical against them for pushing this.
Yes, because it's never too late to do the right thing.
If Microsoft GPL'd Microsoft Office, would you install it?
Only if they went back to their roots and made complex, musical songs rather than the drivel that they've come out with since the Black album (and I know that some consider the Black album the start of the drivel.)
If they apologize for calling their fans thieves, then yes. They got it wrong; everyone makes mistakes, and sometimes they're big ones. If they're willing to admit it, then I can forgive them; if not, then they're just out to make a quick buck.
I want the industry to get it right; I feel no need to be vindictive. But if they're just jumping on the next bandwagon, then they haven't actually changed at all.
If they learn to adapt to the world, then they deserve to survive. it takes a lot to admit that you were wrong and I'm not going to downplay that.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
Will their "Pay what you want" form allow for negative numbers?
Wow. Life must suck having your golden ears. You must be offended by everything.
Even if that was Paul McCartney & Wings...
Everyone makes mistakes. It's what separates humans from machines.
The important thing is how we deal with them.
Now, if Metallica are big enough to apologise for their previous actions, I see no reason why anyone should continue a boycott. (Of course, if you're boycotting their music because you don't like it that's something different - but hell, you know what I mean)
To err is human. If they've seen the error of their ways, then I would reconsider them. They would need to do more than say "I'm sorry" though... They'd need to actively work against the copyright regime they helped create. 1997 NET Act made copyright infringement without profit motive a criminal offense. That's a first and is due in no small part to Metallica. They helped create a whole new class of "criminal" and they have to atone for that mistake. If they only post their music, they can keep it... If they post the music, along with an open letter to Congress requesting the radical alteration and/or repeal of recent copyright legislation like the NET Act or the DMCA, then I would consider spending my money with them.
I was at The Farm in SF, way back in the day when Metallica said "copy our tapes and hand them out to your friends" and we did. Then they got a fat assed contract and said "stop copying our property and giving it away for free" We need MORE money. Lars and James were at the forefront of both. Now that the world has quit listening, they want to give it away again. Thanks, I'll pass.
Enjoy Every Sandwich
And besides, it's another way to kick the RIAA when they're down. They deserve it, Metallica does not.
Insightful and funny are really the same thing, except one has a punch line.
They want kudos for reversing their stand after they found out it is profitable?
I'll tell you what, if they donate the proceeds of their next album to the people who have been harassed by the RIAA, then we can talk. Till then, there's no basis for "forgiveness," they're just pursuing the almighty buck.
I bought Radiohead's album just to support the business model- I'm not particularly a fan. I don't think it's really a super viable model for a no-name band. But maybe some day.
In fact since iTunes Plus and amazon came out I've bought more than I ever did on CD specifically because I think that's how music should be sold (sans DRM).
They did what anyone who's successful would have done - tried to hold on to that success. If you had built up a hugely successful band or business you would also be very suspicious, or even deathly afraid of anything that might have been a threat to that and would do what you could to stop it. The anger and aggression that came from Metallica at the time, makes me think they were more afraid, than suspicious.
You may, in your infinite knowledge say that you would have given it away for free, being a true artist, but you try looking at the receipt after paying for even ONE professional guitar, never mind a whole studio, music videos and distribution system. If you still want to give it away for free then you're a better man than 99% of bands in the world (except Radiohead and bands so new or bad that they can't even give it away)
As it turned out they did the wrong thing, which is easy to see with the benefit of hindsight. Not everyone makes good business decisions. That doesn't make them bad people. What actions do they have to atone for? You're using really strong words to describe something that was an entirely human reaction and entirely legal.
And for all we know their contracts with their record company and other associates may have made it impossible for them to even consider at the time what Radiohead have considered. Who by the way had the advantage of almost 10 years to study the new distribution models. Pretty easy to make the right decision when you have that much time to think about it.
Metallica made a mistake which hurt their reputation. Good businessmen and good people will learn from their mistakes. If they haven't then you'll know by their results... which we'll find out eventually.
If you really really hate Metallica with the burning fiery passion that you imply in your post, then you're really doing the wrong thing by launching a crusade to tell everyone you know not to listen to their music. Just tell them ALL to download the free album from Metallica's site, bleed their resources and just never pay for it.
That's going to make it clear to them nobody wants to pay for their music - provided everyone you know has your long argument in mind when listening to Heavy Metal.
How about a little understanding, and forgiveness? Since you won't have to pay for anything, what's the point in getting angry over it?
"'popular, therefore people paid for it'"
/.ers are pissed and the issue is something that people learning about this album online will know about, likely the album will still do well... though it will be pirated more.
:)
I'm concerned that this will lead to an internet boycott.
The only thing that could have a major effect on this launch is a serious boycott based on Metallica's earlier views. Most
I hope this album is successful.
I think Metallica is played out and their music is old fashioned and mediocre.
But I hope whatever stupid way they choose to distribute it succeeds, just so that other misguided artists who feel that piracy is the end of music will STFU.