No they wouldn't have; nobody would've said a word. The only reason they're in the news now is because they donated the money. If they'd have gone on their merry way, there would've been no criticism...

If it's such a horrible joke, then the family should tell Metallica to keep their money.

But I bet that ain't comin' anytime soon...

How is it they "sold out"?

I work in the music industry, and know a lot of well known musicians. What they do is their livelihood. As I do what I need to do to protect my job, so should they. So should you. So should anyone.

But because they actually stood their ground and said "If you want what we produce, you're going to have to pay for it", they're demonized.

I have a side business as a photographer (concert photography). A band I shot took a look at some photos I had of them on my website, and complained about the watermark across the photo. They complained about the resolution of the photo on the web.

When I asked them why they were complaining, they said it was because they couldn't use the photos, I said "Sure you can. I have the photos available, and for "X" amount, you can get full-resolution images to use for whatever you want".

They were flabbergasted. They insisted that, because the photos were of them, they should have unfettered access and rights to them. But that's not how it works.

People who use photos without permission, or illegally download music, are thieves...

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

My dislike for Metallica pre-dates their Napster fiasco by about a decade. See my previous post.

Well, “suck” is subjective.

They’re success demonstrates that there are enough people out there who like what they do. Hey, I don’t like beets, but there are enough people who do that Del Monte keeps selling them.

I always laugh when someone complains about a band “selling out”. Should they [i]not[/]do what they can to make as much money for themselves as they can?

The concept of “doing it for the music and the fans” is ludicrous. An artist’s first responsibility is to himself. If someone wants to complain about an artist making as much money as he can, they should first ask themselves if they would be willing to not be paid as much as possible for what they do.

It’s easy to be critical of them because they’re rich. Jealousy affords that. But one must consider why they’re rich. They’re rich because they’re smart…

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

Oh, for sure, they're making as much money as they can. They'll ride this gravy train as long as their retarded fans keep buying concert tickets. They crossed over in to mediocrity a long time ago, in the name of ticket sales. Nobody is telling them that they shouldn't sell out... but by the same token, they shouldn't be surprised when they get criticized for it.

Too bad you find the concept of “doing it for the music and the fans” to be "ludicrous". Says a lot about your musical tastes. Fortunately, there's still music out there that doesn't pander to the all-mighty dollar. When you put the music first, the fans will follow.

This is exactly how Metallica started out. They were selling out large venues in the 80's, without radio airplay, and without MTV. They had a die-hard fan base because their music kicked ass like nothing else. Then they got a taste of sucess and money, and went back on their fans, went back on the things they stood for, and started turning out the formulaic crap.

Speaking of which, didn't Samantha used to work for them?

They seem to hire fellow idiots, too.

__________________
The George W Bush Store:

http://georgewbushstore.com/

Also keep in mind that a lot of new artists use file sharing networks and programs (such as Napster back in the day) as a quick and free way to distribute their music to fans. They're more concerned about getting their music out there and to the audience, so they're more than happy to distribute their music for free. For Metallica, a big band that has already 'made it' many times over to essentially come in and try to remove this useful service from them pissed a lot of people off. Especially since Metallica encouraged fans to bootleg and distribute their albums free of charge when they themselves were a new and unheard of band.

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

LOL, forgot about that...

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

Fair enough...

Well, I don't suspect my musical tastes are the same as most people here. I like very little that's been released since the mid-70's...

Well, the fans seem to still be following them, as they continue to sell out arenas...

How did they "go back on their fans" and what they stood for?

Lars Ulrich has always been pretty open about always wanting to make money playing music...

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

I think Kid Rock said it best: "Anyone who says it's about the music is a lieing sack of shit."

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what's for dinner.
Liberty is a well armed lamb willing to contest the majority decision!" ~ Benjamin Franklin
"Diplomacy is the art of saying Nice Doggie! while you're looking for a rock. ~ Wynn Catlin
"There are no innocent civilians." - Gerneral Curtis Lemay. A.K.A Bombs away Lemay

Exactly.

Where and when did that happen?

I’m not saying it didn’t, I’m just unaware of it.

But, even if it did happen, so what?

Should they always be expected to give their music away?

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

No, not the same fans. The original fans left around the time of the Black Album (or before).

Again, no. They weren't always about making money, at least not primarily. They were about KICKING ASS. Male teen angst. Down with MTV and commercial radio. They were part of the metal underground.

In case you haven't figured it out, I was a bit of a metal head in the 80's. Good metal was hard to find on the airwaves, and MTV was busy playing hair metal. Fans of underground metal HATED the comercial stuff, it simply sucked ass.

I remember reading magazine articles about bands like Megadeth and Metallica. I distinctly remember an interview with Metallica, where they were shitting all over radio and MTV, because they never gave them airtime. This was more than 20 years ago, so my memory is obviously a bit fuzzy, but I remember their comments went like this: "They tell us they don't play our music because our songs are too heavy, and too long. Well, fuck that, we're gonna keep doing what we wanna do. We aren't going to shorten our songs. We're playing big shows, and our fans love us. And we'll never make a fucking music video." Within about 2 or 3 years, they made a video for the song "One"... and that's when I realized that Metallica had sold their souls.

Kid Rock is possibly one of the biggest douchebags ever. He could be the poster boy for "It's Not About The Music".

That may be true, but it doesn't mean he's wrong.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what's for dinner.
Liberty is a well armed lamb willing to contest the majority decision!" ~ Benjamin Franklin
"Diplomacy is the art of saying Nice Doggie! while you're looking for a rock. ~ Wynn Catlin
"There are no innocent civilians." - Gerneral Curtis Lemay. A.K.A Bombs away Lemay

My understanding is that Metallica and some others want, or wanted, since the argument is becoming increasingly moot, to limit the progress of technology so as to protect their business model. It's one thing to say you have a right to protect your intellectual property and quite another to say that noone should be able to download anything off the Internet because this limits your album sales.

Many bands make a lot of money off "free" music and they should be as free to do so as Metallica is to protect their property.

Making money from art that is "given away" isn't really a new idea. Televsion has been around for some time now.

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips