Poll: New Metallica single - like it or hate it?

[Dedpuhl]

St. Anger is pure crap...

<--- Big Metallica fan

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: Underground727
Metallica is no longer about the music, they are about the money.

Yes, they are so dearly desperate for money that they would risk giving themselves a bad name with a highly publicized lawsuit against Napster, while losing millions upon millions of fans in the process. None of their triple platinum albums are making them money anymore and they've lost everything. They dearly need more money because they can't afford a 4th car to park in front of their mansions.

Yes, they are that greedy. Give me a g'damn break. Do you think they're really that stupid? If your answer is yes, you're worse.

 

[anxi80]

Originally posted by: Dedpuhl
St. Anger is pure crap...

<--- Big Metallica fan

very good point, and im dead serious. if your a metallica fan and anticipating buying this album, and kinda dont like the st. anger single or cant decide whether you like it or not, listen to this album first before buying. this whole album was a disappointment to me and from what ive heard and read, to a good majority of others in the net community also. buyer beware.

 

[FuZoR]

June 5 release day, moved up 5 days because they didnt want it spreaded online when the europeans get it earlier then the states.

Though the album came out on the internet yesterday. 🙂

 

[nan0bug]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: dparker

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: dparker

Originally posted by: Eli
You people are fscking clueless. My God.

Metallica lashing out at Napster had NOTHING to do with money.

They simply disagreed with the model that Napster was. That's it. It had nothing to do with money.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

They said it over and over and over and over and over again.

What makes you believe otherwise?

Ummmm, common sense? You actually believed they attacked Napster out of the goodness of their hearts?

It is not common sense. It's a common ASSumption.

Like I said, they said over and over again exactly their reasons for fighting Napster. It had nothing to do with money.

As a musician myself, I completely understand.

and sammy sosa 'accidentally' used a cork bat. and right over this way gentlemen we have a bridge....

 

[nan0bug]

Originally posted by: MachFive
I do have a concept of copyright. I'm a digital artist, so this is an area very near and dear to me.

However, one needs to separate the duration of copyrights based on numerous factors. I don't feel the copyrights for music should be same as those for art and literature, for good reason.

Artists and writers cannot perform. Our income is determined by one thing - The sale of our works. That's pretty much it. Occasionally, we might get some sort of double-dip, when something we make gets picked up for use by another entity, and we make money on top of what we're selling, but for the most part, 99% of what we make comes directly from selling our works.

Musicians are entirely different. Today, an artist like Incubus makes 99% of their money from concerts, touring, memorabilia. The other 1% comes from royalties, BUT ONLY from the royalties that are left over after the Recording Industry recoups the expenses spent funding the development of the album.

In essense, the royalties do not keep the musician alive. The royalties keep the monopolistic, evil, disgusting juggernauts known as the recording companies alive.

Musicians do NOT need the record companies.

In fact, for 95% of the musicians in the world, the recording companies are the enemy, a necessary evil that is needed in order for them to have any chance to see a CD hit the mass market.

For 4 percent, the recording companies are an entity they rely on to force-feed their product over the airwaves and into our ears, ensuring a more than comfortable lifestyle.

And then there's the 1 percent who is succesful with little or no help from the recording companies, bands who gained such an underground presence they could make CDs for the rest of their days, ensuring them a large enough audience to live a good life.

That entire dynamic would shift without the recording companies. Artists would be successful based on their ability to self-promote, to record quality music, and to make themselves heard amid the sea of other contenders. They'd all be on equal footing, DARWINISM would take over, and only those bands who consistently establish a fan base and kick ass live would succeed.

The Britney Spears, with no record company to shovel her feces into the mouths of hapless consumers, would die out. They'd be replaced by more Dream Theaters, more Tori Amoses, more White Stipes, more Paul Oakenfolds.

Musicians don't need to sell CDs. I used to buy CDs because I wanted to have a physical object, not just the music, but the disc, the packaging, the accompanying artwork. Something to place on limited shelfspace that says, "This band made something worth owning."

I have over 125 albums, each one in pristine condition. I have another 100 that, through years of abuse, are unfortunately scratched to hell. I used to buy music.

But I will no longer. I realized something a while back - Buying this CD is hurting millions of artists to a much greater magnitude than it is helping the band. Buying this CD puts money into a greedy, horrible corporate octopus which has a stranglehold on the very industry that I love so much. Buying this CD, regardless of which musician it is, says, "I support the current paradigm of music distribution."

And I don't.

If more people actively boycotted CDs, and actively wrote their congresspeople about the horrible practices of the industry, and actively lobbied to bring the record companies under the scrutiny of anti-trust lawyers, they would be gone in no time.

Unfortunately, few do. Few care enough to even think about the wrongs this industry commits.

I am an artist. Imagine a world where, in order to get a print of my works published, I would have to sign away the rights to the song to a Printing Company, who would then make millions off of it while I starved, until I was able to bring them so much money that I regained artistic control.

That's the reality of those in the music industry. And the sooner we tell the RIAA to f*ck themselves, the sooner artists will benefit.

Metallica doesn't realize that while the issue truly doesn't effect them (they're going to be rich regardless of how many albums they sell, because they'll always pack the venues), it does effect those struggling artists, who want to get noticed, and to whom MP3 filesharing would provide a much greater chance.

F*ck the RIAA, F*ck Metallica, and F*ck all of those musicians who would support the subjegation of the rest of their ilk.

Traitors of the craft, each and every one of them.

*cheers*

well said. everything I was thinking, you posted.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: FuZioN
June 5 release day, moved up 5 days because they didnt want it spreaded online when the europeans get it earlier then the states.

Though the album came out on the internet yesterday. 🙂

the only thing i've seen is a couple of fakes.

 

[pX]

holy moley batman my name is Josh Puckett!!! really!

 

[CChaos]

I wasn't much impressed with St. Anger either. I'm not a huge Metallica fan but I am a music fan and it just didn't seem very interesting or compelling.

As for the music industry. Well, there are some examples of bands out there that encourage their fans to tape shows and distribute them. I'm talking about bands like Phish and the Grateful Dead. They do make albums, but they almost seem more like an afterthought. There's no spending 2-3 years working on an album and then touring for a few months to publicize/support it. There's a special feeling that comes with having a copy of a show that you saw in person and it's amazing to think that there was a band out there that basically toured for 30 years straight. Sure there are breaks, but the focus is on making music and sharing it with people.

EDIT: I don't think Metallica is deserving of any grief for they way they choose to handle their business. If they wanted to they could certainly break off and do it all their own way, but that's their choice.

 

[Eli]

Wow, this thread is like the Energizer bunny.

You cannot base an album or a band on one song. Have any of you actually listened to the clips that someone posted a link to?

There are some very rockin' riffs in there guys....

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: CChaos
I wasn't much impressed with St. Anger either. I'm not a huge Metallica fan but I am a music fan and it just didn't seem very interesting or compelling.

As for the music industry. Well, there are some examples of bands out there that encourage their fans to tape shows and distribute them. I'm talking about bands like Phish and the Grateful Dead. They do make albums, but they almost seem more like an afterthought. There's no spending 2-3 years working on an album and then touring for a few months to publicize/support it. There's a special feeling that comes with having a copy of a show that you saw in person and it's amazing to think that there was a band out there that basically toured for 30 years straight. Sure there are breaks, but the focus is on making music and sharing it with people.

EDIT: I don't think Metallica is deserving of any grief for they way they choose to handle their business. If they wanted to they could certainly break off and do it all their own way, but that's their choice.

I know this wasn't entirely your point, but Metallica does promote and support people who boot leg their shows. They have a specific forum for traders at their site and in their offical fan mag.


Lethal