×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Metallica May Follow In Footsteps of Radiohead, NIN

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the reconsidering-the-options dept.

Music 673

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?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

673 comments

Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (5, Insightful)

ThinkingInBinary (899485) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214426)

Would you buy a Metallica online album despite their former views?

No. They totally missed the point before, and it sounds like now they're just trying to latch on to an idea that helped others. The point of being a musician, or another kind of artist, is to share the art, not to make a profit. There's nothing wrong with expecting to make some money off of it, but that should not be the focus.

Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (5, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214436)

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

Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (4, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214476)

And besides, Metallica hasn't put out a decent album in the better part of 20 years. Why would anyone want to pay for their crap, or even listen to it for free?

Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23214764)

Hahaha. Yeah, I like the /. write-up slant (although appropriate) about now wanting their own piece of the action.

Dave Mostaine is not impressed and still laughing.

If they apologize. (5, Insightful)

MacDork (560499) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214846)

To err is human. If they've seen the error of their ways, then I would reconsider them. They would need to do more than say "I'm sorry" though... They'd need to actively work against the copyright regime they helped create. 1997 NET Act made copyright infringement without profit motive a criminal offense. That's a first and is due in no small part to Metallica. They helped create a whole new class of "criminal" and they have to atone for that mistake. If they only post their music, they can keep it... If they post the music, along with an open letter to Congress requesting the radical alteration and/or repeal of recent copyright legislation like the NET Act or the DMCA, then I would consider spending my money with them.

Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (4, Insightful)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214530)

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.
At the same time, if you're trying to push that viewpoint to the masses as the way music should be, would it not be pragmatic to support them?

Yes, they were dickheads before, but if they're really going to shift to this business model that's a fucking big name endorsing it.

Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214858)

Yeah, I have to agree. That's like "peace in the Mideast" or "the Dark Side is defeated" type of radical change of thought, right there. Cut 'em some slack. Embracing them with open arms would be the best policy.

I still giggle at times, when, for reasons unexplained, I suddenly find myself thinking of the Camp Chaos parody flash cartoons that made fun of Metallica back in the Napster take-down days.

NAPSTER -- BAD! *arm wave* [youtube.com]

Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (4, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214532)

The point of being a musician, or another kind of artist, is to share the art, not to make a profit.
I take a more pragmatic view. If I liked Metallica's music, I would probably buy their album. My goal is to ruin the big record companies, and the best way to do this is make their biggest sellers jump ship. For that reason, I wish any big act success in going out on their own, no matter what their rationale or motivation.

Why do I want to ruin the big record companies? In my view, it is one of the only ways to bring sanity back to the copyright picture. As long as these guys are around to pump money into congress, we little folks don't stand a chance. I fear we might have to do the same to Hollywood if they don't wise up.

Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (1)

palewook (1101845) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214538)

agreed. the way the band acted about mp3s in the past means I would never touch official metallica mp3s now. even when they tried to get the Camp Chaos Metallica, napster bad parody stuff removed was lame. (and not the encoded lame). if you havent seen the flash animations dealing with the whole napster thing: http://tinyurl.com/6xes8o [tinyurl.com]

Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (2, Insightful)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214560)


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.

I can't believe this got modded so highly. Share the art? Are you serious?

I'm sure there's bands out their that care deeply about the "art". There's also bands that just want to make a lot of money, screw some some girls, and party. Don't try to shoehorn all bands into the "share the art" category. You don't have to look too far to realize that just doesn't work. Do you really think Madonna, for instance, has a number one motive of "sharing the art"?

Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (2, Interesting)

Irish_Samurai (224931) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214612)

One is an artist, the other is a rock star.

Once your focus is on the money, you are a rock star. If you carefully craft a piece of art to have the greatest appeal to a target, you no longer get to tout the moniker artist and have anyone take you seriously.

I personally have no preconceptions that one is inherently better than the other, but there is a distinct difference that should be realized.

Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (3, Insightful)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214736)


One is an artist, the other is a rock star.

I'll never understand these strange semantic games people like to play. The distinction is really a value judgement, and nothing else. If you want to care about that kind of thing, that's fine. The only thing I really care about is what each actually does, which is produce music.

Are you really trying to argue that Metallica is an "artist", and their former napster suing behavior is in violation of their "artist nature"? If that's your argument, I give up. We might as well be arguing whether chocolate ice cream is better, or strawberry.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23214562)

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.

Two words: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23214620)

St. Anger... quite possibly the worst song ever played.

Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214664)

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

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

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

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

Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214698)

Its called 'selling out'. They sold out decades ago. Now that they realize they screwed up with the napster shut down assist, and participated in making the p2p market what it is today they want to capitalize on it as complete 2 faced hypocrites.

  I still think that if the RIAA hadn't gone after napster, with the help of bands like metallica p2p would have never made it into the mainstream and become what we know it as today. They CREATED the problem the industry is having today due to their shortsighted holier then thou attitudes. They shouldn't be allowed to participate in it now.

Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214814)

There's nothing wrong with expecting to make some money off of it, but that should not be the focus.

Oh? Why not? The world runs on money. You find something someone else wants, you charge them to let them have it. That, in itself, is not evil. Not all artists are pure; indeed, most are not. They found a way to make money off of something they are good at. There's nothing wrong with that, we all do that every day ( if we are lucky ).

Where metalica tripped up was in blaming technology for their own distributer's lack of innovation. The entire music industry missed the file sharing boat and spent years trying to plug the damn with a finger. Now, we have things like itunes and such, and notice how we don't hear about services like kazaa it's ilk.

trying to latch on to an idea that helped others? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23214832)

...so more like Metoolica then?

<ducks and runs>

Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214880)

+1, and I wanted to say "no" for the same reason.

But then I'm not in their consumer group seeing how I never buy music anyway so I doubt they will care.

And if I was a Metallica fan who bought music I guess I'd buy it in whatever form.

Buying a Metallica album?! (4, Interesting)

Fenresulven (516459) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214428)

No way in HELL! They made their bed, now they can lie in it.

Re:Buying a Metallica album?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23214484)

They kinda suck, too. Once you grow up, music for angry little boys who can't get laid just seems kinda pathetic.

Re:Buying a Metallica album?! (5, Interesting)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214492)

Yeah! How dare they want to keep an unfinished song from being heard by everyone in the world?

As I recall it, every single artist that bitched about Napster did so AFTER an unfinished, "still working on it", "no, you can't hear it mom" track was thrown up on Napster.

And everyone I knew who used Napster, or its equivalents, did so because they were too cheap to bother buying music. Sorry, Napster's not even close to the moral standing the GPL has.

Re:Buying a Metallica album?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23214914)

Yeah! How dare they want to keep an unfinished song from being heard by everyone in the world?

As I recall it, every single artist that bitched about Napster did so AFTER an unfinished, "still working on it", "no, you can't hear it mom" track was thrown up on Napster.


Guess every single artist bitching about that should have paid attention when Limewire said it was going to share the whole fucking hard drive by default.

If they'd paid some attention then no one would have been able to download their unfinished, "still working on it", "no, you can't hear it mom" track while the "artist" was busy stealing music off the internet.

Re:Buying a Metallica album?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23214522)

Would you buy a Metallica album, regardless of their views?

Hell no (5, Insightful)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214432)

Lars is still an asshole.

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

"Would you buy a Metallica online album despite... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23214442)

"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.

I support Harptallica (1)

inTheLoo (1255256) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214444)

Metallica played on Harps by hot chicks, Harptallica [harptallica.com]. They pay for it but it shows what good can come from machups and free culture.

Re:I support Harptallica (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214732)

Metallica played on Harps by hot chicks, Harptallica [harptallica.com]. They pay for it but it shows what good can come from machups and free culture.
That's kind of middling. I prefer Apocalyptica.

The thing I really like about the good Metallica songs is that the structures are so layered and they sound good when ported to completely unexpected instruments. This is the same reason why I get a kick hearing classical ported over to metal. :)

This is a very nice piano cover of the Call of Ktulu.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=y3UOL9lq36I [youtube.com]

The Trooper, Iron Maiden on piano
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uc6kW_VJTFc&feature=related [youtube.com]

Might get them some street cred (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23214448)

When Lars Ulrich was attacking file-sharing in the Napster days, Metallica had long lost its independent spirit and street cred. Albums like Load [amazon.com] 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.

Probably Not. (2, Insightful)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214450)

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.

Re:Probably Not. (3, Interesting)

dirk (87083) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214706)

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".

Hell yes! (5, Insightful)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214462)

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

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

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

Re:Hell yes! (5, Insightful)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214666)

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

Re:Hell yes! (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214784)

but doesn't that tell everyone else in the world that it's OK to behave like this because there are no repercussions?

It's sooo much easier to say "hey, lets let bigons be bigons, forgive and forget, eh?" when you're the one that wants to be forgiven.

If they were more interested in repenting for their actions than busy chasing the dollar bills blowing by in the street, they'd do something like offer a bunch of music free or very cheap as an attraction into their new pricing model, as an apology to their fans. Fat chance of that though wouldn't you agree?

Here's an idea... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23214464)

I'll set up a site allowing Metallica to pay me what they feel necessary to listen to their music.

Music Sucks (4, Insightful)

iphayd (170761) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214466)

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.)

Re:Music Sucks (3, Informative)

heptapod (243146) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214586)

Sorry, Cliff Burton is dead. Nothing is going to bring him back short of singularity.

Re:Music Sucks (3, Insightful)

slapyslapslap (995769) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214872)

Cliff Burton was nowhere near alive when they recorded ...And Justice For All, which I consider to be their best album. It was the peak before Black sent them diving off a cliff.

Re:Music Sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23214792)

Sadly, I have to agree. Haven't cared for a Metallica album since the first Load.

Re:Music Sucks (3, Insightful)

moranar (632206) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214856)

Either you are confused about their roots, or about what a complex, musical song is. Hint: Kill 'em all was their first album. Complex, musical stuff started with their second album.

What I liked about Metallica was their capacity to do different stuff and not paint themselves into a corner. Whatever your taste is, Master of Puppets, The Black Album and Load/Reload were _different_ from each other.

What I don't like about any artist is the tendency to do crap while attempting to "go back to the roots". If I wanted that, I'd just go buy their first records.

in 2 words (1)

bananaquackmoo (1204116) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214468)

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.

Re:in 2 words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23214672)

...I counted 25... you should work for the government.

Fuck Metallica (5, Interesting)

72beetle (177347) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214478)

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.

No. (1)

analog_line (465182) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214480)

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.

David Bowie Knows What's Up (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214490)

Would you buy a Metallica online album despite their former views?
You've got to remember that they tried to stand up and speak for all musicians. Some of the other musicians had completely opposite views though. So in my eyes what they did was worse than giving the RIAA justification for suing the hell out of people, it was also misrepresentation.

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 [slashdot.org] 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."

Nope! (1)

cunamara (937584) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214504)

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.

Re:Nope! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23214778)

Wow. Life must suck having your golden ears. You must be offended by everything.

Who listens to that crap? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23214506)

You know, even if they were good guys who cared more about music than their bank accounts, they play music that is so abhorrently bad that I wouldn't buy anything they've done. Who listens to Metallica anymore? I assume it has to be the same dumbshits who listened to Metallica in the early years, because they're the only ones who could have any positive memories of them.

Metallica's music = unmitigated dog shit

hell no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23214510)

they ruined everything. I made a point to get all their albums for free since they shut down napster.

Fuck Lars (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23214514)

Yeah, Lars and his band of motley retards can go fuck themselves. I'd sooner listen to Barry Manilow than Metallica. In fact, I haven't heard more than a few seconds of a Metallica song since the whole Napster debacle... if Metallica comes on the radio, the station gets changed. Lars is a dick, his views on digital music are appalling, the band blows, and they can all collectively fuck off.

If they apologize. (4, Insightful)

evanbd (210358) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214518)

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.

I think a better question is... (2, Interesting)

Scott Wood (1415) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214528)

Would you buy a new Metallica album, despite St. Anger?

Re:I think a better question is... (4, Interesting)

warrior (15708) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214816)

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.

no (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214536)

Would you buy a Metallica online album despite their former views?"
No, and not just because of their Napster douchebaggery. They haven't put out anything good since the Black Album. Whatever spark they had died on that crumpled tour bus and now they exist as self-parody. Very sad since they were one of the greatest metal acts ever.

Does it matter the format? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23214554)

They started going downhill after the black album anyway. Die-hard Metallifans pretty much only recognize their earlier work. Did it help them rise from the Metal-80s? Probably. As far as them jumping on this bandwagon, sorry Lars. No way in hell am I gonna support your "sorry about all that shit we raised earlier, how about a free song?" mentality now.

they weren't against it per se (4, Informative)

tommeke100 (755660) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214572)

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.

Nobody remembers... (2, Informative)

Q-Hack! (37846) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214574)

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.

Sure! (3, Funny)

Txiasaeia (581598) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214596)

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.

Yes. (4, Insightful)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214604)

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.

It begs the question... (3, Informative)

greyhueofdoubt (1159527) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214610)

"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

gayallica (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214622)

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.

Die Metallica, Die (1)

npridgeon (784063) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214626)

No, never. I was a fan before Lars became a raging idiot. I didn't much care for their newer albums anyway. I'll never buy a cd of theirs again or pay to download their music. I will probably download their cd as a torrent and seed it until it falls off the edge of the internet though.

It's interresting how NiN and Radiohead do something as a statement and when Metallica decides to do it, it's just a money grab from a bunch of rich ex-head bangers who want to make a quick buck.

Muscical Bandwagons (1)

merle (123399) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214654)

Jumping from one bandwagon to the other... with their fans caught in the spokes

It's Really Just a Question of . . . (1)

Knight of Shadows (1163917) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214670)

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.

Sellout monkeys (1)

Carson Napier (1045596) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214676)

NO! They sold out because someone on high told them to. I can still hear Lars whining in that flash animated anti-filesharing ad.
Hey, we work hard....

Right because it's in the dumb-assed contract you signed Lars!

I never liked their music much, and after the whole Napster witch hunt, I pretty much think they suck now. But, I wish them the best of luck, they'll need it.

too little, too late (1)

SD-Arcadia (1146999) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214704)

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)

Still musically irrelevant (1)

Bluetick (516014) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214718)

They were musically irrelevant then, they're irrelevant now. A business decision shouldn't affect that.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23214730)

As most Slashdot posters are talentless and useless thieves who only like stealing media and starving content producers so they can continue enjoying their pathetic lives in their parents basements, it is no surprise they would not support a band who helped stop the theft of intellectual propertythat was Napster.

People opposed to this theft are usually the same people who are unable to create anything on their own.

Metallica, who? (1)

Bluefirebird (649667) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214734)

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.

And why not? (1)

futuresheep (531366) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214744)

Why not? After that crapfest, St. Anger, this is really the only way they can get people to buy anything new.

File sharing good! (1)

yerktoader (413167) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214746)

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?

Sure, if they put their entire catalog up for sale (1)

erac3rx (832099) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214756)

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.

Re:Sure, if they put their entire catalog up for s (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214774)

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)).

money not values (1)

not_anne (203907) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214786)

It seems like they're just trying to cash in because their current model of distribution isn't working for them.

NAPSTER BAD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23214794)

http://www.campchaos.com/blog-archives/2006/05/napster_bad.html

no. (1)

Neuropol (665537) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214800)

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

In Korea, only old people listen to Metallica. (1)

julienthjamminjabber (1241742) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214804)

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?

Live and let live, eh? (2, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214808)

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)

Lars Ulrich Is a Waste of Atoms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23214828)

Aside from their moronic, greedy and self-righteous stance on file sharing, and aside from their predatory actions surrounding that whole thing, you cannot ignore the fact that they simply suck.

I once enjoyed their music a great deal, but I find that I have a hard time even listening to the old stuff without feeling just a little bit pissed off. When that happens it makes me notice the things about that music that I never noticed before, just how much of it really is formula and regurgitation. Everything I've heard from them in the last couple of decades has been pretty much amongst the worst rubber-stamp nonsense that has been produced by the 'bizz' and it is obvious that even their one talented band member Mr. Hammett doesn't really give a shit about it anymore...

As every word in a sentance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23214834)

Fuck the fucking fuckers!

Hell no (1)

Carcarius (989981) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214840)

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.

Red Pill (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23214850)

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?

No (1)

Kurt Wall (677000) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214862)

Would you buy a Metallica online album despite their former views?

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.

Nyet (1)

Detritus (11846) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214878)

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.

tcheleao (1)

tcheleao (171167) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214906)

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........

Sure except.... (4, Informative)

NIckGorton (974753) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214908)

Would you buy a Metallica online album despite their former views?
I actually have more respect for someone who is willing to say "Yep, I fucked up. Lets do it a better way."

However I wouldn't buy their album because their music sucks.

Yea, I'll buy it for $0. (1)

delmierda (1220360) | more than 5 years ago | (#23214912)

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...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...