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.
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.
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.
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" :-))
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"
Their new stuff actually sounds pretty good ( search youtube for it ). The band has acknowledged that what they've put out since the black album has been pretty weak. They claim the new stuff will be a fresh take on the RTL/MOP/AJFA sound ( and it is, so far so good, hopefully it's been polished up quite a bit since those youtube videos were made ). St Anger was an interesting piece of ... work. The book "This Monster Lives" describes what the band was going through when they wrote that album. It seems it mostly revolved around issues with James - his alcoholism and control issues with the band's creative direction. The conslusion appears to be that James needs to keep the drinking under control or he will destroy himself and the band can't make an album without James at the helm. The collaborative effort produced a POS ( see St. Anger ). Anyways, I think I'll buy the new album, hopefully I'll get to pay what I think it's worth.
Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn
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.
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.
"'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.