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?"

Comments

Would you buy a Metallica online album...?

[ThinkingInBinary]

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.

Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...?

[dreamchaser]

I couldn't agree more. Too little, too late, I say. A bit like how MS decided the Internet wasn't going to be anything major and focused on proprietary MSN which never really became a market leader. Metallica not only picked the wrong model, they behaved atrociously to their fans on top of it.

Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...?

[erroneus]

I have to disagree with you there. It is precisely because they want to make better profits that this "turn" should be endorsed and supported.

Metallica was acting as the RIAA's puppet, brainwashed into thinking this is how they should 'protect their own profits.' But now that they have seen that perhaps the RIAA has been protecting its own profits and the expense of the groups' earning potential, it is one less nail in the coffin of musical art.

Let's not forget that Metallica supported "the dark side" but instead use it as evidence of the real dark side's failing business model. If Metallica can turn, they can all turn. Before long, there may be several bands with names like "The artists formerly known as..."

If Metallica fails in trying to get free, it will serve as a sign that other artists and bands should not stray from the comfortable dark place they exist in now.

Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...?

[darkcatalyst]

Their "big name" is so tarnished that it would be more harm than boon if they were to hop on the bandwagon. Not to mention that their music has been on the decline since Master of Puppets. I think Alex Skolnick said it best about St. Anger:

"There is no unity or cohesiveness to the songs. Some of them are downright funny, as if 'Saturday Night Live' was doing a skit making fun of them. This album represents what they are now: a sloppy mess. And the heart of the matter is that this is not a good METALLICA album. I speak only as a fan. Sure, it's noisy and angry but something is seriously missing. It seems to represents a decline in the standards of this modern day and age, when we are bombarded with so much information we forget what true quality is."

Ouch.

Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...?

[Captain Splendid]

Dude, you can't possibly be making the "it's popular therefore it's good argument"?!?

GP has it right. After ...And Justice For All (1988), it was all a downhill slide from there.

Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...?

[Vellmont]

Dude, you can't possibly be making the "it's popular therefore it's good argument"?!?

No, he's trying to make the "it's popular, therefore people paid for it".

Whether it's "good" or not is irrelevant. This discussion is about money, not artistic value.

Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...?

[cliffski]

said by someone who presumably has a day job that pays the bills. Why is it ok for some people to have high paid jobs in IT, or sales or law, and enjoy listening to music thats free, whereas the people who actually make the music are forbidden from earning the money generated by their work?
is this some way you are dreaming up to 'punish' people whose talent happens to be making music rather than configuring routers? I don't see why people split society in two halves., the 'creative' types who are forced to work for free (or low wages) to entertain the rest of society, who apparently can happily enjoy all the fruits of capitalism and be rich as hell.

Take a look at the UKs sunday times rich list (1,000 richest people in the UK). hardly any of them are musicians, yet the internet mentality is to treat the musicians who make money as evil capitalist scum, but the guy who is a multi billionaire from making milk cartons gets buy with just a slap on the back and a thumbs up.

I'd buy metallicas album if I wanted to own it. Whether they are penniless or billionaires doesn't affect my enjoyment of it.

Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...?

[rob1980]

Why isn't this modded Flaimbait?

Got something against opinions that don't match yours?

Hell no

[Tibor the Hun]

Lars is still an asshole.

I probably would download it off the net though, with the help of my .torrent friends.

Hell yes!

[Planesdragon]

"Would you buy a Metallica online album despite their former views?" Yes, because I am a fan and will buy the new album regardless.

Yes, because it's never too late to do the right thing.

If Microsoft GPL'd Microsoft Office, would you install it?

Re:Hell yes!

[thetoadwarrior]

If Microsoft GPL'd Microsoft Office, would you install it? No because my reason for using Open Office isn't just because I'm a tight wad.

If they apologize.

[MacDork]

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.

Re:If they apologize.

[Original Replica]

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.

Open letters to Congress don't mean nearly as much as professional lobbying, I would much rather see a Metallica team up with other musicians (perhaps Radiohead and NIN) to form a "Fans are not Criminals" political action committee and have a PAC contribution option with every download.

Re:If they apologize.

[Jafafa Hots]

To err is human. If they've seen the error of their ways... I think its more likely that they saw the green.

I was at The Farm in SF

[fishyfool]

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.