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
No way in HELL! They made their bed, now they can lie in it.
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.
Metallica played on Harps by hot chicks, Harptallica. They pay for it but it shows what good can come from machups and free culture.
No calls now, I'm
No. Metallica sucks.
Hard Hat Area: Sig Construction Zone
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.
*sarcasm* ;-)
Yes, because it's never too late to do the right thing.
If Microsoft GPL'd Microsoft Office, would you install it?
I'll set up a site allowing Metallica to pay me what they feel necessary to listen to their music.
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.)
no. never. there is no way to forgive what they did, the greedy bastards. they're only changing their minds now because they want more money.
i might download their album if they paid me. and for an extra fee i'll even listen to 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.
Not merely because of their past actions, but because their music is awful now. Their older music was great, but in the words of Tenacious D, "no more rockin' for you". If Lars Ulrich was handing out copies on the street, Creative Commons licensed, I wouldn't bother expending the calories to carry it.
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.
But's that's because I think their music sucks. I didn't buy the NIN or Radiohead albums either for the same reason. I download very little music in large part because of the sonic limitations of MP3s being annoying. Digital audio is not yet a mature technology.
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.
Would you buy a new Metallica album, despite St. Anger?
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
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.
In the documentary "some kind of monster", Lars was explaining that he wasn't against the whole file-sharing thing per se. What the lawsuit was about, was that someone leaked their album (or a song, don't remember) out of the recording studio before it came out AND distributed it through file-sharing. But suddenly, the story grew over their heads, and it became this big Metallica Vs. Napster thing, when it was really about Napster (or ppl through the Napster p2p network) distributing a song that they didn't release yet.
When Metallica promoted copying cassettes to get there album out. (Garage Days)
People only remember the Napster incident.
I suspect that the band will do what there finance advisers tell them to do.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
I've got a penny laying around here someplace. Given that most credit card companies charge merchants money for each credit card transaction (~$0.50 or so), Metallica would be paying for me to download their CD. That sounds about right.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
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 you buy a new Metallica album that is being offered like previous Radiohead and NIN albums?"
That begs the question of whether I even like Metallica or if I would have bought their album in other circumstances. They might try this experiment and find that it was a dismal failure; I'm sure that they would point to the experience as proof of their earlier (poor) opinions of the internet's effect on music production.
The thing about Metallica is that their music changed substantially right about the time that the internet was coming into its own as a distribution medium. Part of their low sales of albums since the black album or Load could be related to internet downloads, but I think it has much more to do with Metallica alienating their original fanbase.
When I was a kid, Metallica was practically its own genre. I though of music as metal, country, Metallica, Pantera, punk, etc. There were a few bands that stood out as archetypes. Now that metallica is 'competing' with a larger field of music, they will find that they don't have the same rabid fanbase that they once enjoyed. When you are competing for airtime with nickelback and staind, your music is no longer special. You are a commodity like reruns of old dharma and greg episodes and your listeners will treat you with about as much respect.
So will I buy the new Metallica album over the internets a la radiohead? No, but the reason has little to do with the internet and everything to do with Metallica's music. Music? Remember? 'Music' as in 'sounds', not as in 'financial investment'.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
They haven't had an album in awhile. James' drinking must be really bad or maybe they've realised their music has gotten increasingly worse after Justice.
If they do a Radiohead model, at best, I'll pay nothing but download it multiple times to eat up their bandwidth and not listen to it.
I hope selling out was worth ruining their reputation.
Will their "Pay what you want" form allow for negative numbers?
Jumping from one bandwagon to the other... with their fans caught in the spokes
Greed. They wanted to maximize their profit ratio, and while I don't have anything against smart business, their attitude has soured me against ever buying anything from them again. Basically, their attitude toward their fans has been one of greed and smells, badly, of hypocrisy. Lars. . .I hope you end your days penniless, giving rim jobs to syphilitic sumo wrestlers to earn their dinner scraps.
They are "unforgiven" :-))
The Napster affair proved that they were motivated by greed first. They could have waited the whole P2P phenomenon to come into some perspective as we now know that P2P is not killing the music business, but they chose to be militantly against it and that makes them suckers. Now that the free distribution + donations/tours model looks like its working, they want back in. No go for me, attitude is important in music. Besides, Metallica hasn't put out anything worth listening for me since 1998 Garage Inc. (and I'm cutting them some slack there already including the 1996 Load album)
https://dalgamotor.wordpress.com/ - Elektronik beyinlere ozgurluk asisi (Turkish)
They were musically irrelevant then, they're irrelevant now. A business decision shouldn't affect that.
Napster BAD!
ok you had to see the video. I still yell "fire bad, FIRE BAAD!" from time to time.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Metallica is a T-Rex. No-one listens to Metallica anymore and that is why they want to go 'free'.
They think that if they go 'free' people will start listening to them again.
The day Lars testified before congress in his expensive suit and tie, two things could happen:
- Hell would freeze.
... or....
- Metallica was over as a band that meant something
They are so looser sell-outs.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Why not? After that crapfest, St. Anger, this is really the only way they can get people to buy anything new.
It's only a matter of time till Camp Chaos weighs in ...And I for one can't wait to see Suckphallica's latest "album" go to hard copy and see it's release at Hot Topic. Maybe then Notalenta's "die hard" new fans can pay 15 bucks for such greats as "The Unforgiven 3". I'm sure Mallratica's new fans are as die hard as to put them on the top of the Billboard chart's with no radio or video airtime.
They changed and the true fans stuck with them. They sued and we jumped ship. Now they can go down with it...This is gonna be great. Anyone hotdogs or s'mores for the campfire?
They need to prove to everyone that this isn't just them trying to grab money in a different way because it seems to be working for others. The best way for them to prove that would be for them to put their money where Lars' mouth is and put their whole catalog online for "pay what you want" download. Then I can pay them nothing to download HQ mp3s for all of their good old albums that I bought years and years ago, and some of my hate for their general assholishness during the Napster days will be partially diminished.
Well for all we know that is a possibilitiy, but it is more likely that they will only initially release new stuff to test the waters.
If it works out for them, I can not see why they would not release their entire catalog online (save for any contractual obligations to their label(s)).
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
It seems like they're just trying to cash in because their current model of distribution isn't working for them.
My comments here are my own; I do not speak for my employer.
because they, ummm, haven't written a *good guitar riff since around ... And Justice for All, or maybe even Master of Puppets. *and* they killed Napster *and* they're one of the richest rock bands in history and they're still greedy about music downloads. No. I don't like them any more.
*good guitar riff, see Down - Down II - Ghosts Along the Mississippi
Haven't listened to Metallica since 1987. And very happy with that. Who wants to listen to a bunch of luddite has beens when there's a huge wealth of amazing music out there that's now available completely for free?
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)
That band is dead to me. I won't even listen to them on the radio. I was never that big a fan of them but their actions during the whole Napster thing turned me off on them for good. They are greedy and obviously sold out not long after they started out in the business.
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.
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?
If they don't make what they consider to be enough money, nothing prevents them from changing their mind, or what's left of it. Metallica made their position clear. I'm going to hold them to it. Sure, everyone makes mistakes. I can even forgive them. But just because they admit, tacitly or otherwise, that they made a mistake and have finally decided to enter the 21st century doesn't mean I'm going to put myself in the way of another Metallica temper tantrum.
I wouldn't buy any of their albums, online or not. I like many styles of music, but I find Metallica's music to be incredibly boring. Loudness is not a substitute for talent.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Napster bad!
Dekker Dreyer
At time of Napster, I use to listen online music and if I like, I use to buy it.
Then came (RIAA+Metallica) x Napster............
After that, I didn't even downloaded Metallica anymore.......I don't want to have anything to do with them, much less buy their music.
Some people doesn't realize, that elevators don't need operators........
However I wouldn't buy their album because their music sucks.
Yea, I'll download a Metallica album if they make it free. Will I pay for it? Not on your life. Hope they do put it up online and don't make a dime. Bastards...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster_Bad!
(Wikipedia links to the original website at Camp Chaos - then click on "old cartoons" at the right. A lot of the videos are also on YouTube.)
hells no Some things are not forgotten or forgiven. Who cares if they decided they want money now...thats what motivated them before. What matters is the effort artists make to share ideas...this is like when people talk about "eyeballs" and "clicks". The point is that you can use this complex interface to distribute and confer on ideas as never before. That includes all forms of art with music being very key. I am from the hip hop nation and my response to Metallica is "whatever".
I have always liked Metallica's music. Haven't bought any since they slammed us and attacked Napster. They haven't changed. They are unprincipled. They see money being made by others who had the guts and foresight blaze the new online business model. While Metallica was calling us names. They can do whatever they want - I'll never buy Metallica - and I really miss them. jamej
Generally, when there are multiple posts with a similar sentiment, it's a bit silly to mod the first one redundant...
http://www.beatallica.com/
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
Yeah, ever since they sued me in their Napster dragnet I have zero tolerance for these f**k-sticks. If ever a band deserved to die and rot in hell, they're pretty high on that list. I will not be purchasing anything from them. I may even promote illegal copying (not that I'd want their music...) just to keep the money out of their hands.
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.
I hate when people link to youtube videos of old flash animations. That's only marginally more annoying that people who upload music to youtube by multiplexing a music file with an image.
thanks
No calls now, I'm
Removing the record label is ultimately good for both artist and listener - cutting out the middle man, as it were. Record labels in general take most of the revenue from music sales and use it to sue the artist's fans.
That said, unless Metallica quits producing the musically bland crap that has characterized their more recent albums, the price and method of distribution is irrelevant. Crap is crap, whether downloaded for free or bought at a brick-and-mortar store for fifteen bucks. I only hope that Metallica returns to its former glory.
No, not because Napster, not because their philosophy, not because any political reason. Simply, because they suck and haven't put out a good album in the last 20 years.
The perfect sig is a lot like silence, only louder
Fat old men who USED to rock now beg attention. I sold my Metallica CD's to a used media store when they decided to represent the man and I used my Metallica concert T-shirt for a cleaning rag. If you give them the attention they are due, they will not even pull a gold record and will hopefully disappear with the rest of the dinosaurs and free up studio time for bands that still have the Rock and Roll that god gave them.
You know, I fall in with the opinions of how they haven't made a good album since the self-titled one and how the anti-napster thing was a boneheaded move.
But honestly, if they make some music more true to their roots, or at least songs that rock harder than Kenny Loggins' "Danger Zone", then I think I can listen to it.
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
Will it suck as hard as St. Anger?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it! --Longbottle
Did anyone here actually read the article?
It seems like a lot of people here are assuming that Metallica plans to give away their album for free. I can't find anything in the article or the interview that states this. I see the term "free players" being used by the band, but it's not clear what that means. It could simply mean that they plan to remain independent after their record deal expires.
I agree that they will probably follow in the footsteps of NIN and Radiohead by putting their music online, but this is not the same as giving away their album for free. Neither of those bands just gave away their albums for free. They both expected to be paid for it. Radiohead just asked you to pay what you felt the album was worth; NIN gave a free sample, but sold the complete package for $5.
Well, the short answer is no. Primarily because they're really not that good anymore. If they offered their pre-load content online in a non-restricted format at a decent bitrate (256+kbps) and with decent extras (pdfs of booklets, album art on the tracks, etc), I might consider it.
Although they have become deuches in the last decade+, I still feel that their earlier work is spectacular. The attitude they had at the beginning towards napster and later with their whole superiority complex has had minimal impact on how I feel about their music. The fact is that they really haven't put out any decent material since the black album.
I did purchase the NIN album (both the digital MP3 tracks and the physical CD; although I was forced to get the digital tracks through an alternative method since their site couldn't handle the load and they never allowed me to download the album) and I paid 8 pounds sterling for In Rainbows out of support for their cause, not because I'm a big radiohead fan.
Metallica jumping on this trend is nothing more than a poser move for a [now] poser band trying to squeeze an extra dollar for themselves. (they're a poser band due to the fact that they're in it for the money, not for the music... I wish they'd just retire already)
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
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.
Oh yeah, I remember a band with the same name putting out some good stuff, in the 80's. Then an album called 'Load' came out... and I really didn't bother paying attention any more.
I guess they want some free publicity, since nobody wants to buy the crap they put out since then. I have to admit, after getting in bed with the RIAA I really don't feel inclined to help them in the slightest, even if they do manage to make some nice sounds again - which remains to be seen.
There is a lot of good music, new and old to listen to besides them.
If you'd read Lars' treatise years ago, his main point was (paraphrased) it is the band's choice whether or not to participate in file sharing or not.
That's still just as true today.
Sure, if I liked their music. There's nothing more convincing that someone converted to your opinion. I hope all their fans buy the electronic version and the band gets stinking rich(er).
For starters, I wouldn't buy a Metallica album at all...but whatever.
The problem with this model is that it's inherently selfish. Radiohead's fame was built by a traditional music delivery model. No doubt that the system is broken, but it hardly seems revolutionary for an incredibly famous and wealthy band to go "independent."
By doing so, Metallica / Radiohead etc. milk their fame and pocket all the money for themselves with nothing going into the development of new artists.
I'm reminded of a comment Moby made when he had licenced every song from Play to a commercial of some sort: his comment was that the licencing money supported his label - V2 - which was a small label with not much money. In his view, licencing his music was a tool that allowed his label to develop new artists.
I certainly don't think the labels are all that benevolent (they're profit making machines that spoon feed their listeners pablum) but I don't think it's a good thing to have famous acts pulling stunts like this.
Perhaps Metallica should try starting a *label* then trying this distribution model, if they suddenly like it.
Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
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).
hmmmm... didn't mean for that to be anonymous. Radiohead doesn't even surface on my last.fm
against Napster, was the day Metallica died...
I believe everyone has already downloaded their music in spite of their last position on P2P. What would they release?
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
"Would you buy a Metallica online album despite their former views?"
Yes. I support people learning from their mistakes and willing to correct them.
It should come with a public apology for viciously undermining the understanding of their loyal customers and for treating them as criminals.
Txiasaeia says, "I've got a penny laying around here someplace. Given that most credit card companies charge merchants money for each credit card transaction (~$0.50 or so), Metallica would be paying for me to download their CD. That sounds about right."
The above post got modded troll, but that's actually an interesting idea, as a method of financially punishing an artist who attempts to sell kark.
Presumably shopping carts can be set up to reject offers that result in a deficit, but it would sure inform the artist that "Hey dude, an awful lot of your fans think this album sucks, AND care enough to tell you so in unmistakable financial terms. Better rethink the direction your music is headed!"
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Would you buy a Metallica online album despite their former views?
Until they issue a formal apology (preferably in a major magazine like Rolling Stone) for their previous comments and a repudiation of the RIAA's business model, Lars Ulrich and his band of has-beens can go suck an egg. I think they're just coming to the realization that they're becoming less and less relevant in today's music market, and this is a sad attempt to stem that. "Enter night" indeed, Lars.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
But I don't know if there's "enough" they could do, so it's not right to say "too little", since there is NOTHING Lars can do to get him or his band off my blacklist.
He's on it until death, period. He went so far out of his way to insult me, and was so persistent in his insulting treatment, that he's got a lifetime ban.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Never Forget:
Cartoon: @CampChaos NSFW
geeky stuff I'm proud to have been a part of: linux.com / themes.org / sourceforge.net / sicnus.com
St. Anger was SO bad that it wasn't even worth downloding for free. So no, I'm not interested. No other factors come into consideration for me.
Now we can really show the benefits of online open ended album sales: Not giving asshole "artists" our money directly and honestly. These guys are such incredible douches. They shut down Napster, they have that god awful reality show, and now they are emulating the leading bands who have so wisely championed the online model, and done so successfully by understanding: A) The fans, and B) The market. Leave it to Metallica to FAIL at this and then give the RIAA et al a reason to say, "See?!? The online model doesn't work!!"
What a bunch of pedantic, sold-out, no-talent hack corporate whores.
Rot in hell Metallica.
Oh, and your voice sounds like the shitty caricature of real metal, by the way.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
The real question is "Would you buy a Metallica online album despite their (subjective) lack of talent and their (reasonably objective) lack of any sort of relevance for the past (let's be charitable) decade and change (Almost a decade and a half if you cut it off at Load)."
I think my point is, this should be filed under the "Who gives a %#^& with "Axel Rose lies again about releasing Chinese Democracy."
Screw Metallica. Not only do they suck as artists/musicians and people. I would never support someone who tries to destroy a new system and denounce it only to turn around and want to milk it.
Metallica jumped the shark around the era of the self-titled black album.
Let me pinpoint this moment for all readers of this thread. I know when they jumped the shark because I watched as the daredevil feat was broadcast on television.... Music Television. Metallica jumped the shark with the release of their first music video- "One."
This jump-the-shark moment was created when Metallica embraced the corporate music marketing machine they had previously avoided. The content of the video was a rather strong message decrying the violence created by war. It's a bold statement, yet commercially un-risky at the time of its release. Contemporary Metallica songs and videos avoid such controversial stances (ala Master of Puppets) while the Iraq war drags on.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
No, people should never be forgiven for having different views than mine. Even if they change their mind later they should always be reminded that I was right first. If someone changes their mind on a subject they are just being hypocritical, you should take all your opinions with you to the grave. George Bush never wavered on his views, did he? If someone tries to make a living off music or art they are a sell out. They should all be true artists, suffering and poor, like the common people, like John Lennon. When I get paid for my work it's a totally different thing. bb
'nuff said.
To me, this kind of discussion is a good example of why bands should not follow this kind of a "business model". Instead of setting the price for their work, as everybody else does, they are letting the buyer choose whether to pay them and how much, essentially reducing themselves to beggars. The excuses for why not to pay (while downloading the music anyway of course) are all to easy to come by, especially since that course of action has the added benefit of saving you money.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Since they become the first band to sue Napster, every time I try a new p2p program my first download is a Metallica song or album. They have might killed the company but not the spirit.
Don't give them anything, not even your e-mail address or gender. Wait for a free seed and even if you don't like the music, download it and seed it for a week or so.
I'll buy it just to support the model. I figure any time that I can let the RIAA know how I feel it is a good thing. Plus, I like the idea of supporting this sort of business model.
Like others have said, if they do this and if flops it will send a big message and maybe others will shy away from it. If they do this and it works, there might be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for us all.
For the good of music I will support this and hope we all get the pot of gold.
I pirated their last album to preview it (Well, probably all of them at some point).,, However, their last album is still the only one of which that I do not have a legitimate copy.
So, what makes the "pay what you want" model great?
The band that tried to sue Napster into oblivion? .... hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha.
Not in a million years would I buy a record from these jackasses. Not even download it for free. The bits on my harddisc mean more to me than any of these phoney attempts to live up to reality.
*continues frantic laughter*
Given the crap that they've churned out since the black album I wouldn't download it even if I was paid to.
Either Metallica need to go back to their roots, or preferably, realise their time has passed and do what many bands fail to do and fade out gracefully.
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
I hope they'd be following Radiohead's and NIN's footstep and release an album that wouldn't be a piece of crap for a change.
I'm a fan. I downloaded all of their albums. I spent a lot of money to watch them live, more than it would cost me to buy the CDs. I will probably do it again this summer if time permits.
There, that's the business model I'm willing to participate in: do a great gig, show respect for your fans and collect the ticket money.
Back in the day, It started on a Sunday afternoon I was about 13(1993) and I heard Metallica for the first time. Was instantly hooked on Enter Sandman. I became a Metallica fan. Wasn't able to buy the albums cause of my parents. So, i managed to get them from friends. I had a long an good relationship with Metallica all the way through HS and even a few years after HS(CO '98) then in 2000 when they pulled their shite with Napster; I d/Led ALL the albums they currently had out(Yeah even the "SELL OUT" albums LOAD and RE-LOAD) so, I think at the time was 8 albums in all. Burned them and stored them away, i still have them in storage and they do work. NEVER again will I listen to or buy another Metallica song/album again! They attacked the internet, p2p, computers, etc which means they attacked me personally. FSCK METALLICA!!!
"That's right...I said it."
"Would you buy a Metallica online album despite their former views?"
Only if I like a song, or an album will I purchase it (online, or offline).
With that said, and as much as it pains me to say - I had to buy the Miley Cyrus/ Hanna Montana album for my daughter. So in my opinion it all boils down to the demand for the music, as opposed to any particular musicians position on downloading or how I feel about it.
I am open source, and Linux baby!
Honestly, how often Metallica rail against something and then turn around and completely over the top embrace it? They spent the better part of the 80's saying "they don't do videos" and the better part of the 90's making an above average number of videos each with an above average budget. Metallica was good while thrash was popular, and people were still taken in by Friedman's style of shredding. Today, they're just antiquated, pathetic, and old. Metallica stopped being a band and became a franchise somewhere between ...And Justice for All, and the 'black album.' This move is just them as a franchise capitalizing on a new way of making money. If there's something they're railing against now, I guarantee they'll be doing it in a few years when it looks profitable.
New! Device Legs: These legs will help your poor OEM installed product escape any hamfistedness it may encounter. Ava
If their new album is as awful as St. Anger, I wouldn't listen to it unless they paid me to.
Circumcision is child abuse.
If Metallica releases some good music on their next album and it's being distributed online, then I'll consider buying it. I never buy CDs anymore anyway, digital media is the way to go. Online distribution is here.
We (as people) are better off forgiving those who are correcting their past mistakes. Maybe the RIAA will eventually notice the correct way to act when facing new technology.
They forgot their success was made by hordes of fringe-dwellers duping tapes and spreading the music. Then they kill the 1st, and probably most user-friendly electronic version of what made them big: Tape swapping.
To hell with them. They've become irrelevant.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
LAWL, it's one of their songs :D I've learned it long time ago, and I still enjoy playing it from time to time :)
Some would say that Metallica died September 27, 1986.
They burned their bridges when Ulrich called his fanbase thieves. Fuck off Ulrich.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
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.
Perhaps reality is stranger than fiction.
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
"Would you buy a Metallica online album despite their former views?" Only if Lars left the band.
against the new ways ? after years of having lars the cash nightingale ulrich sing 'mo money' songs to public press ? turning on your listeners and facing the big buck ? what happened now ? did you smell more cash ?
dont think so. go to hell, metallica.
Read radical news here
Bring back Flemming Rasmussen
bands are no dishonest, roundabout, backstabbing shit like metallica, but valid ones like nin and radiohead, and i like.
and i wouldnt regret the money. if the song is good, why not pay a few bucks. that will make sure that the band puts out more songs like that, and keeps going on. there are a few artists i would like to support that way.
Read radical news here
All this talking made me remember those funny flash cartoon videos back in y2k that made fun of Lars and his quest against P2P and their "criminal" users:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster_Bad!
and thats the payback for the shit they have pulled with 'the people', which is us, at the advent of p2p and the new ways to distribute music.
Read radical news here
I used to be a "new" fan (I love the Black Album) but I haven't touched anything from Metallica since "Reload".
I gladly payed for the NIN album (not the colectors edition, though), but I would have serious second, third and forth thoughts about buying a Metallica album.
"A sysadmin is a cross between a detective, a police officer, a gardener, a doctor and a fireman"
After a lot of seek and destroy they have finally found no remorse and put justice for all. It's sad but true but as I see it they can only be unforgiven.
Note that "inTheLoo" and "gnutoo" are the same person. I have no idea why twitter feels the need to shill up his own posts, especially something as tepid as a joke about Metallica. Sorry for the offtopic post, but anyone posting in or moderating this thread should be aware of that.
The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
Sorry Guys but Metallica is dead for me. I can and will not forgive the way they acted during the "Napster issue". Especially the hypocracy, when they write in the booklet of Garage days that Mr. Hettfield always hung out at Mr. Ulrich's place to copy the latest NWOBHM imports. Bloody losers!
Besides that, they haven't released an album worth buying since "Justice" and that was 20 Years ago. After that, the sellout started...
Metallica, go to hell!
there is no way i would support them.
I'm serious! fsck(8) them. When I was younger, I used to be a bit of a Metallica fan - but didn't have any of their music on my computer, much less shared, because it was all on tape.
Then, I got banned from Napster by them one day, because they said my username had shared Metallica songs. Perhaps they need to check their disks for corruption!
Lars Ulrich is a fucktwat. Wouldn't get caught dead listening to them by choice anymore, but I keep a pirated discography around as a permanent middle finger to money-obsessed bands.
Didn't they learn their lesson after St. Anger?
The Black Album is the last one I can listen to, and even then it's nowhere near as good as the previous 4.
Cliff Burton may not have gotten a lot of writing credit, but they went downhill fast after he died.
No I'd never give Metallica a dime, but my opinion doesn't matter. If they make money, then I'm sad that those assholes made money. If they lose money, then I'm sad that the "business model" has been weakened.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Metallica screwed their fans over and really poured salt in the wounds.
"If you want to download our music over the Internet, then we don't want you as our fans."
they can stick their guitars up their asses because that is how useful they are right now.
They're using their grammar skills there.
No, only because I actually paid for their last CD and it was really bad. After years of being a loyal fan, they owe me big time with some free downloading.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
Dammmit twitter, and you seemed to be doing so well for a while there. For a minute I thought you had actually taken my advice about being an actual contributing member of the slashdot.
You can still do it. Drop the shills and just be one of them (any one, you pick). Don't give up on your dreams. You can reach your goals, I'm living proof. (obligatory: Beefcake!)
Stop it twitter, the only thing you're doing for yourself is becoming the most-documented douche on slashdot EVER.
Since the start of 2008 I am boycotting(*) all RIAA member companies(^) for being litigious bastards. If they want to sue college students and grandmas, they can do it with some else's money. Metallica, who possibly were the first to be google-bombed for also being litigious bastards are now considering giving the RIAA the finger, which if successful may inspire further artists to do the same.
:)
What do I do?
Please note this is not a discussion on the merits (or lack thereof) of Metallicas art.
(*) By that I mean not only not purchasing any of their products, but not endorsing them either. That means no downloading, streaming or listening. Anything that might make someone else likely to buy their products.
(^) That includes Sony BMG, a very different beast from Sony Computer Entertainment. I'm still buying a PS3
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
If there is any inefficiency in the music industry it is due to artists not seeing a reasonable percentage of the wealth generated by their work. Too much of it is sucked up by the machine, and only a few survive long enough to become independently wealthy.
Blar.
If you don't buy Metallica's new album (their 'art') solely because of their stance on p2p (their 'business') then you're as bad as any artist who compromises their art for business reasons. You're doing exactly the same as the artist who sells out: they mess up their art over money, you're messing up your art consumption over money! Don't buy it cos you don't like them, not to take some moral higher ground you don't have a right to stand on. The tactic won;t even work, how are Metallica supposed to know you're teaching them a lesson?
After the Master of Puppets album, and the death of Cliff Burton (1986) many saw the decline in the groups artistic abilities. As far as I am concerned, this "new online venture" is just a ploy to jump on the bandwagon they previously abhored and follow the lead of Raidiohead and then NIN. Lars was a greedy bastard who was misinformed and thus pointed his misguided ignorance at Napster. I lost all respect for the band over the Napster debacle, and really felt that post Cliff Burton and the Master of Puppets album, the band has lost their way and tail spun into producing noise and no substance. I was a fan from the beginning at Kill'em All. But now, they are just a bunch of losers. I wouldn't waste my time to even download just one of their new songs if for free. There are just to many talented bands who have held their own over time. Example: Rush with 18 full length albums in their catalog. And every one is of quality. And their live shows do not have a front band. They recently played here in Austin from 7:30pm opening to almost 11:45pm, with two breaks. Now thats a true band. Metallica is just crap.
I've been a rock & metal fan for 30+ years now & when Metallica killed Napster I sold all of their CDs on eBay & vowed never to listen to anything of their's again. No, I wholeheartedly disagree with unlicensed music copying but I also buy huge amounts of CDs, will never buy anything with DRM on it & found it very impossible to have any pity for multi-millionaire Lars Ulrich's loud-mouthed whining about Napster, purely because he couldn't change his Rolls Royce because the ashtray's were full in the old one.
These days I've broadened my musical taste considerably & whilst I do think Radiohead are a bit up their own asses, they have made some excellent music & I believe their hearts are in the right places.
And let's face it, Metallica need to make some kind of directional change since their last few albums have essentially flopped.
Perhaps their next album should be a sequel - "Mastered As Puppets (Of The Record Company)".
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Here's my take. I was never a big Metallica fan. Not that they didn't create decent works. Their "One" video (Footage from Johnny Got His Gun)is at least thought provoking. I've found if I can't agree with the artist's political views I'm not very likely to enjoy their work.
Metallica in the 80s encouraged fans to copy their material. It made sense since each tape was like an advert to buy the next album or see the show. But in the early days of Napster they took a very aggressive stance against them. They claimed it was different now since digital copies didn't fade with sharing, which at least is a somewhat valid argument. They also claimed to be for artist's rights... which technically should include using their business model from the 80s which was service oriented, product sells service... not to speak of artists no longer need to sell their soul to produce material and should have the freedom to adopt a new paradigm.
Metallica made a choice to defend big corporate music... and made it perfectly clear they no longer wished their material to be share. We obliged. And just like RC cola who once was dominate on the soda field, they faded to obscurity. You can see their material shared today, so all this kicking and screaming was pointless, and if you look at the number of downloads for their albums it's pathetically low. Youtube's view count is more respectable at 8 - 9 million per track putting it sub par to Rick Astley.
Will I download their material? No... they told me not to. Sure they changed their minds... but any artist who will encourage suing its fans for acts they formally supported isn't worthy of support. It's changed from disagreeing with their position to seeing this for what it really is, a bunch of turn coats devoid of all moral and ethical worth. They rejected this new medium and through action tried to deny others of their choice.
Fuck'em.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Too late, Metallica. Yall already blew it for me when the quality of your music took a sharp decline after the black album, and especially after yall decided to go after Napster, which essentially kicked off the RIAA's bullshit campaign. I don't think there's anything yall can do to recover from that one..
Not a fucking chance.
Metallica are a bunch of wankers. Their music is shit, the way they've treated their fans is shit. They are shit.
Besides, even if Dave can be a giant asshat, Megadeth's better.
I am a big Metallica fan, but good god St Anger sucks. I'm not holding much hope for the new album to be any better. (Another reason why downloading music before buying it is good! I would have been royally pissed had I wasted money on buying St Anger).
I won't even *illegally download* metallica's music. I turn the station if it comes on in the car. After all their bullshit with Napster, I've permanently boycotted them and I go out of my way to get others to do the same.
An apology contains three parts:
1-Admitting you did something WRONG. (Counterexample by Homer Simpson: Mistakes were made.)
2-Admitting it was YOUR fault. (Counterexample by Homer Simpson: I blame society!)
3-Asking what you can do to MAKE UP for it, and do it if it's reasonable. (Example: Earl's Karma list)
Metallica should have no problem doing all 3 at small enough a cost to satisfy most filesharers who care.
> Would you buy a Metallica online album despite their former views?
Hell, I'd buy it *because* of their prior stance. I'd do it to emphasize how wrong they were before, and how right they and others are in pursuing this marketing tactic.
I'd even buy one of their songs to support this, even though I don't like any of their songs.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
What will Metallica do? So far, NIN : Big. Radiohead : Huge. If Metallica follows suit and they bomb fantastically, then will they go back to business the old fashioned way? Will they sue all the downloaders again? I'm curious...
hell no, i will never give them a cent. as among the most ignorant of all musicians trying to cope with the new online economic reality, now they are just thrashing around for breathe when they have already drowned.
Courtesy of the Phoenix Projekt. It's got Max Raabe doing the cover, a flaming tuba, dancers...the works. Turn this one up - you'll love it. =)
Standard Disclaimer: Not a member of Phoenix Projekt. Not a rickroll. Void where prohibited. If bleeding persists see a doctor.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
But here it is. Remeber this?
Fire bad, beer good, napster bad!
Disclaimer: NSFW language, not a rickroll.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
You guys come up with some very complex reasoning to decide if you like certain music. Did the band "sell out"? What is their position on copyright? What was their previous position on copyright? Are any band members assholes? Are they using a new business model, and if so, are they one of the first two to do it? It sounds like high school drama. I just don't understand slashdot mentality sometimes. Here's a novel idea: Listen to the music. Do you like it? Buy it. Do you not like it? Don't buy it. Now take the free time you just created and do something useful with it.
Plus it helps their music sucks nowadays.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
is that Metallica developed their original massive fan base, way back in the day before mainstream had even heard of them, by means of bootleg cassette tape exchanges that spanned across America and beyond.
I happily purchased Metallica's first three albums but I'll never consciously give them another dime. I just don't support greedy assholes no matter how good their material is.
-PM
If Metallica sat down and made a good album I'd buy it, but they haven't since In Justice.
The funny thing (just to me I guess) about their stance on piracy was that my first exposure to their music was through a bootleg tape. KOME (don't touch that radio dial there's KOME on it) and KRQR weren't playing speed metal in 1984. There was no internet, a pirate BBS, or whatever. It was just tapes that got recopied until you could barely hear the band that wasn't being played on the radio.
When their first album came out, I bought it because was great. The last I bought was the Black Album. I've never downloaded any of their stuff because I owned everything worth downloading before there was an MP3 to download.
"The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
Muttallica's gesture is too little, too late - they think they can 'win' fans over after they went all out to sue the very same fans for doing what made Metallica famous in the first place - bootleg tapes, not that their music is worth listening to these days anyway.
Fuck off and die muttallica, you're finished. Bye bye.
Because our system is so corrupt, we should just go ahead and condone buying politicians so we can get cheaper drm-free downloads? I say screw that; we should avoid buying products from companies that participate in bribery (lobbying sounds better, but isn't the right word for it).
Shift happens. Fire it up.
"'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.
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.
Once apon a time, in a far away land, there lived a boy who was once a Metallica fan.
This boy spent far too much time smoking herb and listening to Metallica.
Metallica released an album with quite a different feel, and the boy was not sure he would enjoy it.
He heard of this thing called Napster, and downloaded a song about Whisker in a Pail or somesuch. He thought it was crap, but remained a fan of Metallica.
Then one day he received a letter from some Mr. Fancypants in some other Place. It said 'Your account on Napster has been deactivated because you had Whiskey in a Pail on your system, bla bla bla..'
Coupled with what he read in the papers, the boy deduced that Metallica was very much against the sharing of music. What, thought the boy, is radio then, if not sharing? What about all the statements to 'bootleg' the music that Metallica has made in the past? How was his downloading of Whiskey in the Pail hurting Metallica? Because he had a chance to evaluate their crap before buying it?
Within an hour, the boy was again checking music out with Napster - if I recall, a simple registry key change - but Whiskey in the Pail was deleted from his computer, and he would never again purchase music from Lars Ulrichs Metallica. Was it the quality of their music or their insatiable greed?
We may never know.
In other words, then, you preferred them when they were four musicians all racing each other to get to the end of the song first rather than later on when they were sucking on the teat of their record company.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
If they make a good album I would pay something for it. But I doubt that they will.
If they did this. I would totally support a download the work for $0 to cripple the servers it came off of. After their legacy regarding this very group of concepts and innovations, they should have the decency to stay the hell away and keep with their friendly record label that supposedly treated them oh so well.
Still great!
http://www.campchaos.com/blog-archives/2006/05/napster_bad.html[17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
Metallica's credibility doesn't matter one way or another, they just haven't released anything decent since the "Black Album" - "Load", "ReLoad", "St.Anger" aren't even worth illegal downloading.
My memory is blurry on this, but I'm sure Metallica is so greedy that they fired a bassist | drummer because they didn't think he was 'commerical' enough. Metallica's over the top greed turns me off to them. Don't support Metallica. Metallica = bad for music Metallica = bad for music listeners Metallica = bad for I hope I don't get minussed for this, but I REALLY REALLY don't like those guys.
BEEER GOOOOD! NAPSTER BAAAAD!
I remember seeing an interview with Lars years ago on an English heavy metal show. He was asked how he came up with the name Metallica. Lars went on to describe how a friend of his was creating a metal fanzine and had a long list of potential names. His friend had several marked as his top choices, one of them being Metallica.
His friend asked for advice; Lars saw the name and thought that it would make an awesome name, so he decided to convince his friend that Metallica would be a crap name to use, nudged him towards another name for his fanzine, and Lars stole and used his friend's name (Metallica) for his band.
I saw this interview years before the whole Napster thing happened, and was a Metallica fan at the time, but Lars' attitude about the whole thing pissed me off. However inappropriate or illegal it may be to take someone else's intellectual property without permission, stealing intellectual property from a friend is sinking to another level of compromised ethics.
My thinking is, if you're going to pontificate on the evils of IP theft, make sure that you didn't get your start by stealing IP and then laughing about it.
When did Metallica go after people for trading their music on cassettes? Or did you mean "something similar", which realy isn't even all that similar?
And as I recall, they went after people for trading their music without their permission. The "for which they had not paid" part is something people like you add to muddy the issue and make them seem like money grubbing whores. Not that they aren't, but your point isn't valid in the context of what actually happened.
As many of you may know, Metallica used to be a heavy metal band famous in the 80's and 90's. This band released great albums such as Ride the Lightning. Many of the fans felt that the feel of Metallica changed with the self titled "black" album. Some felt it to be the band's best album. Some felt it was a sign of things to come. Over the next few albums Metallica continued to lose sales and popularity.
During the fall in popularity/sales, a new movement in music was happening. The internet was becoming very popular and with it a new file format for holding audio called "mp3". These mp3 files made it easy to share music over the internet, even on the then prevalent narrow band modem connections.
Metallica, the business not the band, found themselves in a position where they were losing sales. They were unwilling to look at themselves for the reason they weren't selling as well as before. Perhaps the most vocal member of Metallica, Lars Ulrich began to point the finger at the mp3 format and the service Napster as the reason for the lower sales numbers. Never was it mentioned that underperforming albums such as Reload or Garage, Inc. might be the underlying cause.
What we all need to remember is how hard it is to look at yourself as the problem in a bad situation. Metallica, either the business or the band, took a great deal of time looking for outward reasons as to why no one was listening to them anymore. Perhaps had they taken the time to look at a breakdown of those mp3 downloads and seen that the majority of downloads were for the older and widely considered better music they might have seen the light sooner.
But now, it's far too late. Perhaps if they changed their name to Rockica or Popica instead of Metallica they could gain some new fans. I'm too busy listening to all the bands that the old Metallica inspired over the last 30+ years.
"I, for one, welcome our new %INSERT ARTICLE SUBJECT HERE% overlords."
Metallica should send Sean Fanning a signed apology.
...I'd buy a Metallica album when a paper cat chases an asbestos dog through Hell.
They would have to apologize AND make music that doesn't suck. Personally, I don't think that they are capable of either.
I bought their St. Anger CD... that was their last chance at redemption for me. I listened to it twice, and threw it in the garbage. I still listen to pre-Black Metallica, but it would take something pretty extraordinary for me to even listen to anything they put out.
Metallica can't re-capture their glory days, they are too far gone. Just go listen to Clutch and remember Metallica for the awesome band they used to be.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I wouldn't buy a Metallica album no matter what their views. They've been watered down shite after The Black Album (and some would argue after '...And Justice For All'). That being said, however, I think anyone can come back from the Dark Side, so their change of heart (or shifting wallet eyes) is valid enough for me.
Truth, Just Us, And Hatred For All Mankind!
I'd actually BUY one of their albums if they'd put out a decent one. They've been trend followers since their Black album.
I'd sooner spend 17.99 for an Overkill album.
I still have The Melvins and a Slayer with Dave Lombardo back behind the kit.
That's good enough for me these days.
Pooty tweet
Proving, contrary to prior indications, that "free" really does mean "worthless."
Regardless of where anyone stands on the P2P issue, Metallica is a bunch of money-grubbing whores. Remember this?: http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/12044721
Wasn't a fan before they started acting like idiots, disliked them even more after. Vowed I'd never pay for anything they do, and I never will. I bought the NIN album on MP3 the day it was available, but I wouldn't touch their crap with a 10 foot pole. And, on a side note, I've really always had this dream that they'd end up as the opening act for a clown show at the county fair. Who knows, maybe they'll have a big hit in Japan? A group of has-beens trying to look hip doesn't do it for me.
but after their evil attitude, I decided I won't ever buy another Metallica album if I can help it. They were just too ass/money hungry/fuck the people all at the same time.
...it's just that they're not all that good anymore. I would have willingly paid $20 for Master of Puppets if it were sold directly online. But for another St. Anger or whatever? No thankee.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
I never used Napster. None the less, I remember Metallica and Lars in particular being mouthpieces for the record industry in its earliest attempts to halt progress in network protocols. They let themselves be used to protect the greed of the RIAA while demonstrating a complete lack of understand of what they were talking about and the damage they were doing. Beyond all doubt, they proved themselves to be selfish greedy imbeciles.
Back in 2002, after reading of EMI's abuse of a customer who could not play a CD he purchased due to copy protection that corrupted it, I sworn off any RIAA products free or otherwise. Metallica would have further to go than anyone else in the industry to redeem themselves in my view. They would have to come forward and admit they were incorrect idiots about about Napster and their handling of it. They would have to repeat this in a great many forums. Most of all they would have to demonstrate that they understand how wrong they were and why. Quite simply, I don't believe them capable and for several reasons.
Back in the days of Napster, I downloaded Metallica along with songs from other bands that I had always heard a good word about. I enjoyed discovering these bands, but when Metallica made it clear that I was scum and shouldn't be downloading their music, I stopped. I deleted my Metallica songs and have never listened to them since.
I wasn't much of a napster user but i've boycotted metallica since then.