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.
Besides the fact that I really don't like Metallica as a band, I feel that this is kind of a hypocritical stance, given that they were so vehemently opposed to file-sharing for so many years, and only want to adopt it now that it has proven itself to be a successful model.
Maybe if they weren't as staunch about the issue, I wouldn't be as critical against them for pushing this.
Yes, because it's never too late to do the right thing.
If Microsoft GPL'd Microsoft Office, would you install it?
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.)
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.
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?
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.
Will their "Pay what you want" form allow for negative numbers?
They are "unforgiven" :-))
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.
Even if that was Paul McCartney & Wings...
Everyone makes mistakes. It's what separates humans from machines.
The important thing is how we deal with them.
Now, if Metallica are big enough to apologise for their previous actions, I see no reason why anyone should continue a boycott. (Of course, if you're boycotting their music because you don't like it that's something different - but hell, you know what I mean)
To err is human. If they've seen the error of their ways, then I would reconsider them. They would need to do more than say "I'm sorry" though... They'd need to actively work against the copyright regime they helped create. 1997 NET Act made copyright infringement without profit motive a criminal offense. That's a first and is due in no small part to Metallica. They helped create a whole new class of "criminal" and they have to atone for that mistake. If they only post their music, they can keep it... If they post the music, along with an open letter to Congress requesting the radical alteration and/or repeal of recent copyright legislation like the NET Act or the DMCA, then I would consider spending my money with them.
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?
However I wouldn't buy their album because their music sucks.
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.)
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 was at The Farm in SF, way back in the day when Metallica said "copy our tapes and hand them out to your friends" and we did. Then they got a fat assed contract and said "stop copying our property and giving it away for free" We need MORE money. Lars and James were at the forefront of both. Now that the world has quit listening, they want to give it away again. Thanks, I'll pass.
Enjoy Every Sandwich
And besides, it's another way to kick the RIAA when they're down. They deserve it, Metallica does not.
Insightful and funny are really the same thing, except one has a punch line.
They want kudos for reversing their stand after they found out it is profitable?
I'll tell you what, if they donate the proceeds of their next album to the people who have been harassed by the RIAA, then we can talk. Till then, there's no basis for "forgiveness," they're just pursuing the almighty buck.
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!
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.
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.
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.
"'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.