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 way in HELL! They made their bed, now they can lie in it.
Not only wouldn't I participate in a 'pay what you like' scenario with Metallica because of their previous position, but their music just flat out sucks now.
-Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
I will never buy a Metallica album. I have never owned and never will own any Metallica song or album legally or illegally. The irony is that I've been in a few cover bands (in high school mostly) and can play "Enter Sandman" and all that crap. Like many artists, I'm not a big fan of their music. Unlike many artists, I do not agree with their views in regards to music distribution.
In 2002, Slashdot ran a story on what David Bowie saw in the future of music and the music industry. Now there's somebody who I both respect and love musically. His vision was no copyright, albums are free to download, very inexpensive to buy and the artists rake in mad cash through concerts and tours. Don't get me wrong, he used a tone that said it was going to be embraced by some artists and hated by others: "I don't even know why I would want to be on a label in a few years, because I don't think it's going to work by labels and by distribution systems in the same way. The absolute transformation of everything that we ever thought about music will take place within 10 years, and nothing is going to be able to stop it. I see absolutely no point in pretending that it's not going to happen. I'm fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years, and authorship and intellectual property is in for such a bashing."
"Music itself is going to become like running water or electricity. So it's like, just take advantage of these last few years because none of this is ever going to happen again. You'd better be prepared for doing a lot of touring because that's really the only unique situation that's going to be left. It's terribly exciting. But on the other hand it doesn't matter if you think it's exciting or not; it's what's going to happen." If Metallica wants me to listen to their music, they need to change their attitude toward music distribution. On top of that, they need to try to undo what they did. They need to apologize, speak out against the RIAA from now on, seek new channels of distribution, promote new bands other than themselves that use these channels and help out people who are being sued by the RIAA by providing legal fees so those people stand a chance. Asking a lot, I know, but Metallica did a lot to set us back in what Bowie was talking about as the inevitable end state.
Metallica will not atone for their actions and I will do everything in my power to dissuade those around me from listening to them. If I could say one thing to the band, it would be "You've always been on board the RIAA ship and now you'll ride that ship down to the bottom of the ocean with your career."
My work here is dung.
Would you buy a new Metallica album, despite St. Anger?
Why do I want to ruin the big record companies? In my view, it is one of the only ways to bring sanity back to the copyright picture. As long as these guys are around to pump money into congress, we little folks don't stand a chance. I fear we might have to do the same to Hollywood if they don't wise up.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Okay, many people are angry with Metallica because they were greedy and tried to resist P2P. Now there are rumours that they will change their ways, and people are still upset.
That's like winning a debate with someone and having them agree with you, then continuing to consider them your opponent. Forgive Metallica, and go buy some of their albums.
One is an artist, the other is a rock star.
Once your focus is on the money, you are a rock star. If you carefully craft a piece of art to have the greatest appeal to a target, you no longer get to tout the moniker artist and have anyone take you seriously.
I personally have no preconceptions that one is inherently better than the other, but there is a distinct difference that should be realized.
Actually, this stays right in line with their previous views. They were not anti-P2P. They said that if people want to have their music shared that way, they have every right to. But they also said they did not want their music traded for free, and that was their right as musicians. They went after Napster not because it was sharing music in general, but it was sharing Metallica songs that they didn't want shared. Now they have decided that they may want to put their songs out there for trading, which is their right. I'm not a Metallica fan so I wouldn't bother to download their stuff anyway, but they have completely within their rights to put this out there.
Simply put, they aren't hypocritical with this. They always said if other people want to do it, they had no issue with it. Now they are the "other people".
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Nope....
Remember in The Matrix when Neo took the Red Pill? I felt like that when I realized that really great musicians are everywhere. They are literally around the corner from me. The chart-toppers that the music companies decide to throw up on the pop charts are no better (though not necessarily worse) than independent musicians.
I've heard some poignant lyrics from both U2 and from this local singer who sings about the Everglades. Dylan rocks, but so does this local college kid who sings around the lake at BCC South Campus.
I'm not saying Mettalica is no good. Their music doesn't much appeal to me, but I have friends who really enjoy them.
It's so insanely cool to me that someone can pick up a guitar (or a lute or an oboe) and load some low-cost or free software on their laptops and create music that once took millions in equipment. And once their music is made, they can present it to the goddamned WORLD within a minute. All for free.
Now the idea of the music producer was that they would filter the chaff. Little Robert Johnson, just turned 7, may impress his parents with his rendition of Achy Breaky Heart, but the world may not be ready. So the music companies would search and search to find those truly talented artists and then present it to the world...
But in Exhibit A there's Milli Vanilli.
Exhibit B is the Backstreet Boys (haha, sorry, that was uncalled for.. I'm sure they're very talented musicians... )
KLL
So the music companies aren't doing such a stellar job, are they?
So when I tune in some independent internet radio station or fire up YouTube and hear some really interesting music -- all for free or small cost -- how can anyone wonder why I don't care for the chart toppers anymore?
Interestingly, Metallica is on Warner Brothers records, which means that last year they were one of the first acts to be available for free on imeem.com - all the more interesting when you realise imeem's links to the old napster.
More people drink Budweiser than Spaten. I suppose that means it's a better beer?
I bet N'Sync has hit #1, too.
Metallica jumped the shark around the era of the self-titled black album. There's little to no reason to listen to them now (Nostalgia, I guess.)
Of course, this is just personal preference. It's certainly OK for a band to grow and change. But let's face it, the majority of 'core Metallica fans dropped out at "Nothing Else Matters" and haven't looked back.
Personally, I think most Metallica was always boring, and I liked the self-title. But if I had been a "Kill 'em All" fan, I would have been mailing them bombs or something.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You're both kind of wrong.
I know a lot of working artists. They do try to take care of their careers, get paid, often even protect against people using their work without their authorization. They do not necessarily see their art at some grand act of communication to the whole world, and do not always feel a responsibility to make their work accessible to everyone. Many, in fact, create work that most would find incomprehensible.
In a similar vein, they do not create for a market. If a market likes what they are doing, fine. But instead of identifying a market need and then seeking to use their skills to fill it, they pursue what compels them, often dwelling on very minute conceptual, aesthetic, or formal goals, and then seek a market for the results. Commissions occur when a would-be buyer in that market recognizes the value of what that artist is working on, and funds a version for themselves.
This, generally, is contemporary art practice in both the visual arts and in what could be called "art music". It has some similarities to some open source projects, doesn't it? Does it include Metallica? I would say probably not, though maybe I'm wrong. I think a group that churns out a well-established style predictably for a well-entrenched market is producing a predictable product. But perhaps they really are pursuing an inner vision or struggling with some formal problem. I'm not very interested in them at this point, any way.
Metallica lost me with the Napster debacle. That said, PACs are a worse evil than what the RIAA/Metallica did. You don't fight napalm with napalm.
No way.
They were one of the first bands to bellyache about pirated music. Lars cried a river over the issue.
They fell from grace, and kept right on falling.
They can rot in hell for all I care. I'll never buy, download, or listen to another Metallica album again.
I don't think Metallica will be much help in this. The release for free and people will pay for it model is a fad, I think.
People pay becase NIN and Radiohead were the pioneers of this.
If everyone goes this way then people will take it for granted and they won't pay for it.
Some of them will, of course, but much fewer people than in the introductory phase of this business model.
Pepople pay now, because it makes them look cool, but will they do it in the long run?
from: http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/26/1251220&tid=141
... different people have different opinions; some people think that the record company is going to go away, and others think the retailer is going to go away, and some people think that both are going to go away. What you have to remember is, it's only bands who are fortunate enough to be at the level that we're at that have the option of maybe circumventing the record companies and the retailer.
7) Skip the Record Company
by cwhicks
How much money do you get from the sale of each CD, and how much goes to the record company? Would you be interested in a system that allows you to circumvent the record company, sell your music for half the price you do now, and get quadruple the cut that Metallica gets on each sale? The internet has the potential to offer such a system.
Lars: Of course, of course. That's something that we have been anticipating for years. For years! I mean, five years ago we had that conversation. Of course, at some point we will get to a place that's close to that. I look at it this way. I believe that there are four -- oh shit! (Lars takes care of something in the background) -- I believe that there are sort of like four links in the food chain here. You've got the artist, you've got the record company, you've got the retailer, and then you've got the consumer. And everybody within the industry has been talking for years about, that
The record companies are hurting bad, and their role is already diminished. It won't be long before they can't afford congress anymore (with any luck). All we need are their most successful artists to abandon ship, and hopefully that is what we are seeing here.
Hollywood is indeed a tougher nut to crack - part of my fear about having to crack them. Still, if TV almost killed them in the 50s, then the internet could certainly do it 50 years later - especially as connection speeds increase. Napster took off when people were downloading songs over a 56k modem and it took about 5 minutes. To get a decent quality movie in the same time, it would take a connection speed of about 25 Mbps.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I would just point out that they haven't said that. Instead they've done a sleight of hand -- "What? We never had a problem with downloading. Just some criminals. We got nothing wrong, so nothing to apologize for. Here, buy our album!"
Of course, they're really rewriting history when they try such stunts. Lars personally delivered a list of 300,000 "criminals" (fans) he wanted fined/booted. He was truly hostile. His label followed up with another 300,000. Some of the people here on /. may have been the ones who had to defend themselves against their crazy attacks.
I don't know if people will believe that Metallica is turning over a new leaf, but judging from the comments here, it looks like some will be happy to buy the new album. That disappoints me, as I feel Metallica may be manipulating the geek crowd to sell a few more copies. ("Hey, we're poster boys for the anti-RIAA now! Right? That's what is trendy now? OK! So buy our CD!") If they turned on their fans once, they can do it again.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
...And Justice For All, which I consider to be their best album.
...And Justice For All is too technical for Metallica. If you want to hear what Metallica would sound like if they were talented, listen to Dream Theater's recording of Master of Puppets.
This was also right around the time Metallica realized they couldn't play the very songs they'd written live.
Is that a real poncho? I mean, is that a Mexican poncho or is that a Sears poncho?
Let's make no joke of it people. Napster raped the music industry. Sure, you may make claim that 'popularising the mainstream' promoted certain bands and made some names, but ultimately the performers were being right royally (pun intended) screwed.
NIN and Radiohead found a way to turn the emerging trends in their favour. When Napster was anally violating the musicians, this was not possible. Congratulation to Radiohead and NIN for proving this new business model, but also praise the intentions of Metallica who were taking on the selfish desires of the majority, and those who fed the junkies their shameless passions.
Piracy is wrong. Honest, hard working people deserve monetary compensation. Anyone arguing otherwise are little more than foul-crying thieves who don't deserve the spit cast upon them by well intentioned consumers.
Metallica were quite within their rights to discredit Napster. It was a business model that had proven to diminish the rights of the artist and one that has been discarded by the current darlings of the current online music distributing model (NIN and Radiohead). Metallica were right then and are just as right now when they review the potential for online distributing withing the context of the current market. The context now is vastly different from the context of yesteryear.
And so it is that I am saddened to see so many Slashdot participants judging Metallica by criteria that no longer applies. Yes, P2P piracy is still a reality, but many of us have chosen to ignore piracy and embrace the goodwill gestures of ground-breaking artists like Trent Reznor and Radiohead. It is only fitting that artists like Metallica and company follow this emerging market and embrace this superior distribution media.
I for one will be continuing to support those artists that embrace this new medium and purchase material from any new artist willing to brave these turbulent seas. While I question the production quality of albums such as In Rainbows and Ghosts I-IV, I have come to enjoy the quality of these productions at a more than welcome price point. Should future artists embrace this model, including Metallica (whose latest albums I have come to dislike in contrast to earlier works), then I will support them likewise.
At best, I will be exposed to groundbreaking material (of which Ghosts and In Rainbows undoubtedly is) at perfectly reasonable costs. This is more than acceptable in my opinion.
"Some Kind of Monster" had the opposite effect on me. I was a fan for many years but I think the black album was the last one I bought and went to a concert for. Kurt Hammet and Lars Ulrich pretty much came across as the people I expected, which in the case of Lars, isn't a good thing. James Hetfeild came across as some sort of baby. Seriously, after seeing it a second time I was convinced this "Monster" they were referring too was some sort of male PMS.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Everything Britney Spears has hit the top 10. I'm sorry if you're troubled that someone thinks your fave band is crap, but tough, because your fave band is crap.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
They still basically are. If you buy a live recording off their site it is in mp3 or FLAC and has no DRM on it, they basically even say they are ok with you giving the live show stuff to friends.
On a side note: they have started playing stuff from ...And Justice For All live now, so hopefully they have come full circle as a band and are ready to put out another great album. I know everyone here is talking about the release dynamics instead of what this next album may be, but I have hope that it will be a great album. (Their Hole in the Sky cover at Ozzy's induction was good as well.) In the end none of this really matters as the rest of the Metal landscape has basically moved on and Metallica are currently historical relics. Anyways, hopefully their second album with Trujillo will be better than their first.
"but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
Napster wasn't some open source community thingy. It was a commercial company, they made loads of money from advertisements. Essentially they were selling music online, without asking the artists in question for permission.
Iirc, Metallica were pissed off after they heard some unfinished and unreleased studio demos of themselves on the radio, and after inquiring what was up with that, found out the radio station get the demos off Napster.
I never found their reaction to napster very unreasonable. Sharing music with your friends is one thing, but making a profit selling it without permission is just bootlegging.