I don't remember the exact when and where, but I remember reading about it in Circus or Hit Parader, something like that. That's besides the point though... Speakeasy's point was that Metallica was trying to shut down an entire system of music sharing, when they actually encouraged sharing early in their career. Hypocrites.

There's nothing right about Kid Rock. I find it incredibly ironic for him to say something like that. He's the epitome of someone who is strictly in it for the money.

The only band I respect somewhat for taking a stand against unmitigated corporate greed was Pearljam in their fight against ticketmaster.

As far as the current topic, its good that the band is giving something to help, if its true that the girl was at their venue before it happened (I haven't paid much attention to the story honestly).

Perhaps.

But it can't be argued that there haven't been enough fans to sustain them for tha last 18 years...

There's a quote in the movie Jerry Maguire that I like to point out to people, because the reality of it is absolute: "It's not show friends, it's show business".

Sure, Metallica may have wanted to continue doing what they were doing. The reality of it, though, was that doing what they were doing wouldn't have sustained them. If they wanted to continue to play music on the level they wanted to play it, though, they needed to treat what they were doing as a business.

That's the reality of it, and treating it like a business is what turned off a lot of fans. But it's also what allowed them to continue doing what they were doing.

This country is littered with bands who refuse to compromise or work within a business structure. People in these bands have day jobs, car payments, and credit card balances. They will always have those, and their "fans" really couldn't care less about those. As long as these bands are entertaining the fans in the manner that the fans want to be entertained, that's all the fans care about. These bands play on Tuesday nights in little shit-hole dives, and are content with getting paid their $150.00 a night for the entire band. Hey, maybe they'll even sell one of their CD's or a t-shirt, too. Then they'll all wake up Wednesday morning and go to their jobs, all the while not understanding why they haven't "made it" in the music industry, while not considering the fact that "being true to the fans" is not what it takes to make it in the music industry.

I played in a pretty successful local band for about ten years. We started out only wanting to play the "cool" clubs in town. We quickly learned that, if you wanted to continue to play, all the teen angst in the world wasn't going to permit you to do it.

You had to go with "pay to play" if you wanted even a prayer of seeing revenue.

Essentially, the promoter gives the bands tickets to sell; say 100 of them at $10.00 a piece. The band has to charge more than ten bucks a piece to make any money, and they have to sell them all. Rarely do bands sell all of their tickets, so they rely on swag sales (CD’s, t-shirts, bumper stickers) for their money for the night. Unfortunately, their “loyal fans” are often offended that they have to pay to get these things. After all, they’re “loyal fans”, and should be rewarded for such. What the “loyal fan” fails to realize is that, if the band isn’t making money, they’re going to have to do something else to make money, which equates to them not playing music for much longer because it’s a losing proposition for them.

When these bands decide to pack it in, their “fans” blame everyone from promoters to club management for a band’s demise, but they refuse to acknowledge that some simple, real support from their fans would’ve prevented the band having to close up shop, so to speak…

__________________



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...

So now I understand why lots of musicians forbid cameras at their concerts. Thanks a LOT Steve

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

When did Metallica attempt to stop the progression of technology?

That's just the silliest thing I've read all day...

There is no difference.

If you buy an album by Joe Rock Star, you have no right to make that album available to anyone else. Period. You are not granted that right when you purchase it...

How does someone make money by giving away something for free?

Um, television programming is paid for...

__________________



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...

Precisely. At the time, there weren't sites like MySpace or Facebook or other networking places where bands could and were encouraged to let others listen to and download their music for free. Napster was basically the only way to go on the net, as it was the biggest file sharer and reached the largest audience.

If Metallica stepped in an issued a cease and desist on Napster from distributing their songs and their songs alone, that would be one thing (Dr.Dre actually did exactly this. Napster failed to comply and he ended up suing, but I can't blame him much because he attempted other means first). But Metallica stepped in a slapped a $10 million plus lawsuit on Napster and 20 fans first thing, which is far more than the service was worth and far more than the 19 year old owner could afford to pay out. This was the beginning of the end for Napster.

Meanwhile, Radiohead encouraged the download of their music off of Napster. One of their new albums was leaked to the service and Radiohead decided because of this that they would spend almost zero money on advertising. Guess what? Kid A premiered at number one on the billboard when it was released, with incredibly minimal marketing.

__________________
“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!

Well, as a photographer, I shouldn’t be able to get into any show I want and do whatever I want with the photos I take.

Tommy Shaw of the band Styx is a friend of mine (hey, I’m old). His primary reason for wanting camera access limited in because, after a few songs, the band looks like a pack of wet rats. Stage lighting is hot as Hell, and musicians sweat. Guys like me, who get credentialed for the show, aren’t a problem. We know the rules, and we abide by them. The problem is with people who sneak cameras into a venue and throw shots from a second encore, when the band is drenched in sweat, up onto the internet.

Image is important…

__________________



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...

And, in order to continue doing what they were doing, they needed to adapt to the business.

Where do people come up with the idea that they're "entitled" to music for free?

__________________



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...

Which is why he said that anyone who says it isn't about the money is full of shit.

There's nothing ironic in his statement...

__________________



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...

Thanks for the lesson in Music Industry Steve. None of this changes the fact that Metallica still sucks major poser ass.

I'm not sure if you will understand this Steve, but Metallica once made an E.P. called "Garage Days Re-visited", where they did cover songs by bands like The Misfits and Killing Joke. Now they cover songs by Bob Fucking Seger, and turn their songs in to Muzak. They make me want to puke.

Oh, and BTW, I know plenty of guys who do not wonder for a second why their band hasn't "made it" in the industry. They know damn well why their band hasn't made it - they don't want to make it. IOW, they're doing it for the fun, not the money.

And they're fucking rich, laughing at people who whine about the being "sell outs"...

And they're fucking rich, laughing at people who whine about the being "sell outs"...



Right.

Wanna' guess how many times I've heard that?

Without exception, it comes from people who would jump on a record deal if it presented itself to them. Far more often than not, they're just not good enough to make it...

__________________



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...

It doesn't mean he is right either. Is the way of the craftsman gone? Is the only thing that remains is the way of the profiteer? No. There are plenty of people who disagree and do things because they love doing them and only think of profit as a side consideration.

__________________

My experience shows me that younger musicians do it for the money, and older musicians do it because they don’t really know how to do much else.

If a band isn’t prepared to do what it takes to “make it”, then money doesn’t become a “side consideration”, it becomes “no consideration”, because they won’t make any…

__________________



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...

In Rainbows was download-only from their website, and they're still manageing to make money. No music industry involvment. Imagine that.