Reputation Is A Scarce Good… As Metallica Is Learning

from the oops dept

On Thursday, we wrote about Metallica’s latest foray online, where it’s attempting to build a community around its latest music. Given Metallica’s history of attacking Napster all the way back in 2000, we expected there to be some pushback, but what was really stunning was how many of the comments were from people (many of whom had been big fans of the band) still pissed off about Metallica’s actions, and refusing to have anything to do with the band. We weren’t the only ones to notice. Wired had a story on Metallica’s efforts and discovered exactly the same thing. The vast majority of the comments were vehemently negative. Clearly, Metallica really tarnished its reputation by its actions eight years ago, and it’s still paying for it.

This brings up a good point, that we’ve mentioned in the past in the comments, but not so clearly in a post. A person, organization, band or company’s reputation is an important “scarce” good — and once damaged, it’s quite difficult (though not impossible) to rebuild the shattered goodwill. When talking about what would happen in a world without copyright, for example, people often say “but in a world without copyright, couldn’t someone just copy your own creation and pretend they were their own.” The answer is yes, but they do so at the risk to their own reputation. If the news comes out that the person/organization/band/whatever was taking others’ works and not giving credit where it was due, that would harm their reputation. And, as Metallica is learning, a tainted reputation can have serious long-term impact.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Reputation Is A Scarce Good… As Metallica Is Learning”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
78 Comments
some old guy says:

yup

I destroyed my metallica cds (that were legit!) and deleted all my mp3s of them when they pulled that shit. They might have been unsuspecting victims of their labels puppet mastery (now isn’t that ironical?) but the fact that they quite loudly vocalized their labels words as they demonized their very own fans sealed their fate in my mind.

That type of relationship is not easily reversed.

Sean says:

Re: yup

You destroyed your CDs? So you bought something, gave them money, and then destroyed it? ….Wow. Why didn’t you SELL your CDs to someone who wanted a Metallica collection so you would be representing, somewhat symbolically perhaps the trend in modern day music – exchanging music without the label’s permission and stick it to them? Instead, someone went out and bought the CDs you could have sold them.

Don’t be so proud of your short-sighted actions, you could have had way cooler things to brag about on the internet!

linlu (profile) says:

Wasn't there a recent South Park episode?

I thought I recently saw a South Park episode about how poor Lars of Metallica could not put in his gold plated bar next to his huge pool at his mansion. It was a riot where it had several artists profiled who may have said that downloading music hurt them. In this episode it showed these selected artists and how free downloads made them poor – as in that they couldn’t afford obscene luxuries.

Personally I buy all my music, I know I am a dinosaur. Still I won’t buy a Metallica CD nor support them in any way, since I thought they were being shills for the record labels.

Most artists don’t get much if anything at all out of a record deal/royalties. They only really earn their money via concerts and as you mentioned merchandise. I have local musician friends who confirm this.

So when I hear the RIAA say it hurts the musicians – that’s really a load of crap. It only hurts the record industry – lawyers, overpaid gatekeeping record execs, and those that work at the labels. In my estimation, they are nothing but leeches, who profit off the creativity and work of the musicians.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Wasn't there a recent South Park episode?

“Most artists don’t get much if anything at all out of a record deal/royalties. They only really earn their money via concerts and as you mentioned merchandise. I have local musician friends who confirm this.

So when I hear the RIAA say it hurts the musicians – that’s really a load of crap.”

I’ve seen this argument over and over again, and this is a very simplistic way of looking at it. Yes, most of the direct money off of the CDs goes to the record label, but because they are able to make this money, the label is able to exist. Label’s will not sign bands if there isn’t money to be made. How does the band and fans benefit from record labels? Simple. The label invests more money into the creation of the album then most (except a few well established) bands can afford. In turn, the potential is there for a better product. Also, the label again can do more to promote the band then most can do on their own. In turn, you the fan are more likely to hear about a particular band.

Regardless of your position, and whatever business models you think do or don’t work, if you’re going to argue this, please do it honestly. We all know, or should, that there is a trickle down effect. If the label loses profit, they have less they can invest in the artists, and the artist lose profit.

griaule says:

Re: Re: Wasn't there a recent South Park episode?

“the label is able to exist” “the label invests more (into the band)”

the technology available to the average consumer today is far more than what it was 20 years ago. With an acoustically decent room (not hard to accomplish) a few mics and a computer (with plenty of freeware or stolen audio progs) any band can create a decent album of comparable quality to “professional” studio output. And the technology advances every year, making it cheaper,easier, and better.

As for “promoting” the band, television and radio are 20th century dinosaurs. more and more people will be getting their information/entertainment primarily from the internet (as i do) So promoting your band yourself on the internet (as i do when i’m not being lazy) is not only cheaper(as in free) but more effective. Youtube, Myspace, Soundclick, whatever.

Recording Labels are obsolete. And free market capitalist especially should realize that paying for music is a thing of the past. The capitalist ideal is simple: competition drives prices down while increasing quality to the consumer. If i can get a good product at a lower price i will. Never mind “stealing” there are hundreds of thousands of artists out there giving their music away for free. On purpose! And every year those rebel artists get a little bit better. So when you corporate idiots finally figure out how to make your music theft-proof, we rebel artists will be there to fill in the gap, watching you wither and die.

Matt says:

reputation is also something lost...in metallica's case

See, metallica used to be great. Then they went pop. Now, they’re still pop….kinda hard to go back to your roots once you’ve sold out completely and did all this with P2P. I doubt they will return to true respect and success anytime in their career even if they fully embrace p2p, honestly.

Overtkill says:

Re: reputation is also something lost...in metallica's case

…. On going pop, Their producer changed to Bob Rock I believe. He is much of the reason they went main stream.

Still, my wife and all still respectfully refer to them as “The pilfering grab asses.” (Camp chaos flash cartoon term over the whole napster thing). We do not allow their music on the premesis.

www.custompcmax.com (user link) says:

Metallica definately have a different place in my heart after all their Napster actions. At one point, they were the kings of metal (to me). Now, they aren’t quite as cool or “awesome”. But, whatever. They have a right to speak out for artists rights. But, the group that they needed to demonize was not the fans, but the recording industry. The RIAA is the group that hurts artists the most, especially new bands. Sure, downloading is illegal and essentially theft. But, there needs to be some middle ground and bands like Metallica are realizing that their actions can tarnish their image. I also found it funny that they acted like the downloaded music hurt them personally. Yes, they may have made a little less money that if those people bought the music. But, they still have one of the most lucrative deals in the music industries history. I think they make something like, $4-$5 for each CD sold, which is astronomical. Usually it is less that a $1 that goes to the artists. And those people that downloaded the music, most likely would not have purchased any music. Some would, but a large majority got the music because they could. If they had to pay for it, they would not have gotten it.

James says:

Good for them

Its not quite karmic justice, but they are definitely reaping what they have sewn. I’m not a against copyright, its not without its place, but its long past time that content creators realize you can’t treat your legitimate customers like criminals and you can’t control 100% every way they use your and consume your content; let those who try fall by the way side.

ScytheNoire (profile) says:

Screw the whole music industry

I grew up on Metallica. I had all their tapes, and then when CD’s came out, got all their CD’s, and even some DVD’s. I had a whole bunch of shirts, used to try to collect them all. I was a total metal head, and Metallica were my gods.

Then came them trying to destroy new technology and being pawns of the music industry. That was the end of my relationship with Metallica. Done and over with.

But it wasn’t just Metallica I wrote off, but the entire music industry, all music. The entire industry just disgusts me, as it continuously lies about the artists and writers not getting their fair share, but it’s always been like that, because it’s always been the corporations that got the majority of the money. And then they waste that money on crap like Michael Jackson and other pop losers, not to mention all the lawyers they waste money on, and it just makes you not want to fund a terrorist organization like the music industry.

The toughest thing to get back when it’s been damaged is the reputation. Even people who have been falsely accused of things have had reputations that were damaged forever.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Screw the whole music industry

I understand your sentiments there, ScytheNoire, but that’s the wrong way to do things. If you just stop buying *any* music, the industry will assume that it’s down to piracy and continue to attack their fans.

The way to really fight back is to support independent music. Avoid all music by RIAA members, buy direct from the band or an independent website like eMusic or AmieStreet. If nobody buys any music, their attacks will seem justified. If the same money is used to make independents more successful, that argument disappears.

sehlat says:

I ran into the same thing in another context

Author: To prevent piracy, the police should have the power to search anybody’s hard drive online and delete anything they deem suspicious. Anybody who objects to this is a thief or thief wannabe.

Me: I object vigorously. And aren’t you being a bit harsh calling somebody who has bought copies of all your books a “thief”?

Author: Big deal! All the royalties I’ve gotten from you wouldn’t send me to dinner at my favorite restaurant!

My formerly complete collection of the “gentleman’s” works, many of them signed by him, promptly became pulp fiction. I also swore a blood oath that I’d never again give him a dime or proofread any of his books.

Since then, I also haven’t even been able to find any interest in reading the pirated copies of his stuff that are available on the net.

Metallica, meet S. M. Stirling

Ferin says:

True

I still dislike them for the way they reacted to the whole thing. I remember reading stories about how many bands were happy to have people buying their old albums cause people found on napster, and then Metallica comes in in a foaming rage about people ‘stelaing’ their music.

One wonders how much different things could have been if Metallica hadn’t reacted the way they did. Perhaps if the industry had a better example, they might still have a chance to survive in the new market.

DollarCounter says:

Successful Biz Model

Grateful Dead. Lets not discuss their music. They gave away EVERY concert they played for free. And they:

Were the highest grossing touring band of all time
Still sell high volumes of CD’s of these same concerts
Made huge amounts of money for both themselves and production company
Created a vibrant community around ‘trading’ that fed the touring (read- money) machine

With the CD market dying musicians are moving to touring more to make the coinage they want/need. Regardless of all the other issues surrounding the GD, their biz model ROCKS!

ehrichweiss says:

Re: Successful Biz Model

Incredibly true. Hell, they have their own channel on Sirius; only a few artists have that type of appeal.

They didn’t like people to copy their studio albums but they probably weren’t copied often because the live shows were absolutely where it was at… with “Drums and Space”(something hard to describe musically but worth hearing at least once) being a part of the show, most of the albums sucked comparatively.

some old guy says:

Re: Re: Re: Re

What other grammatical object other than nouns would perform actions?

How about proper nouns? oh wait…

Thanks C Sense, that was giggle out loud funny. As for your other post, search for scarce goods in techdirts search box, and read Mike’s other posts on the difference between scarce goods and infinite goods. They are very much worth reading.

ehrichweiss says:

Re: Re: Re:3 On Scarcity

No, reputation is most definitely not an infinite good. How do you rate mass murderers? Probably not very highly. If it were infinite, they’d be spotless. Check out a book entitled “The 48 Laws of Power” by Robert Greene if you’d like to know more about why reputation isn’t infinite. I promise you’ll be enlightened.

Ima Fish (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Ima Fish

“Ura Retard, quit digging your own grave.”

And a person who thinks a noun can file a lawsuit is not a retard?

X made the asinine comment that Metallica did not attack Napster, it was a member of Metallica. Which is idiotic because 1, Metallica cannot do that and necessarily needs a person to do that, and 2. a person did in fact do that for Metallica.

Thus blaming Lars instead of the band makes no sense. Now, if the rest of the band had told Lars to shut the frick up. Maybe I’d agree with X’s point. But that never happened. So the entire band is to blame for their fiasco.

Ima Fish (profile) says:

The irony here is that Metallica owes its entire career on copyright infringement. There were no radio stations playing their brand of metal back in the 80s. MTV didn’t play it either. The only wide exposure the band received were hardcore fans copying and sharing their demo tapes. One guy would give five tapes to five friends, those five would give out give five more each, those twenty five would give out give each, etc.

Pretty soon they had a huge fan base. Large enough that their initial independent releases made the billboard charts. Which is shocking considering the complete lack of radio or video support!

That huge fan base then got the band a major label deal with Elektra Records. And the rest, as they say, is history. History, until they turned and spit on their fans by suing them. Good work there ungrateful idiots.

Benjie says:

Art is not a commodity, and should not be treated as such. Also, there is no right or wrong, just that which hurts society or helps society. It is a social obligation to make sure that artists can get rewarded for their contributions, but copying their music/etc can’t be compared to ‘stealing’.

There will always be some people who always steal, but that is usually a small percentage. The only time a large amount of theft is when the balance between supply and demand is off. Most ‘art'(music/videos/etc) being digital, there is now an virtual infinate supply and a limited demand. The day most people think/act that artists/producers should not get paid because they can copy for free is the beginning of the end of society.

*AA needs to learn to work with society rather than against it. Not to mention that ALL laws should help society, directly or indirectly, and none should hurt it.

Nasch says:

Re: Re:

Also, there is no right or wrong, just that which hurts society or helps society. It is a social obligation to make sure that artists can get rewarded for their contributions, but copying their music/etc can’t be compared to ‘stealing’.

Which is it? Do we only focus on the good to society, or do we also make sure to protect the profits of certain individuals?

The day most people think/act that artists/producers should not get paid because they can copy for free is the beginning of the end of society.

I don’t think anybody is saying artists should not get paid. The questions are what they should get paid for, how, by whom, and how much.

John Wilson (profile) says:

Re: Re:

What really gets to me about comments like this is that you, and people like you, come across with a massive sense of entitlement.

Kinda like Billy Bragg whining about getting paid and paid a lot like any of the numberless capitalists he keeps attacking with his music. (Bragg, bless him, is somewhere to the left of Karl Marx.)

No, art is not a commodity. We’re not talking art here. We’re talking peformance. A recorded song is a performance. One very unlikely to ever be repeated live or anywhere else due to retakes, dubs, overdubs, sweetening, filtering and on and on and on.

Like it or not performance is, and always has been, a commodity.

Now, unless you’re a band that is good enough and dedicated enough to record in a single take, say The Who, Led Zeppelin on their better days, Jethro Tull any time and so on, you’re wanting me to pay for a studio recording which is, in fact, a promotional piece for a musician so that people will come to a concert where the musician(s) actually get paid, sell bling and other things that they’ll make money on over and above their recording contract where they’re lucky to make a dime.

Oh well.

As for social obligations “artists” have a higher calling on that than any of the rest of us? To get paid for our labour?

And no,its not the beginning of the end for society or much else. It’s a massive shift in how the buisness end of music is done and promoted. Much the same as when recordings became a viable form of mass entertainment.

ttfn

John

Chris says:

Real Metal

I was a big Metallica fan too. I’ve replaced all my tape copies and started to buy CDs. But, when you take a crap on your fans… And I do agree with Matt. They don’t play metal anymore. If you want real metal check out Manowar.

During an interview when asked what he thought about Metallica, Joey DeMaio replied, “I’m sorry, I don’t listen to country music.”

Ronald Hobbs says:

Dunno about scarce

I don’t agree with reputation being scarce, it’s certainly valuable, but scarce?

I guess this goes back to that Doctorow novel where reputation was currency. Never quite got my head around the economics of it but the basic point is that reputation can come and go, be multiplied or divided depending on a variety of factors not all under your control.

So since reputation can be created for no cost, I trust my friend Bob, if Bob likes something it’s earned reputation from me for free, as long as I think Bob and I have simlar tastes in whatever it is. Sure you can earn reputation for a cost too, where you expend effort in gaining it, that first marketing drive to reach Bob for example.

Then you can also have your reputation ruined due to some troll on Digg posting a complete fabrication, yet your product, effort and value offering hasn’t changed at all.

I don’t think the economics of scarce vs infinite goods apply to reputation at all. I think a reputation economy does exists, and I belive it’ll most likely be a form of utilising the reputation economy that ends up being the killer business model as everything moves from scarce to free, which is what socnets are counting on too I guess. But I think it operates on an entirely different set of rules than supply/demand, rules which I certainly don’t understand.

chris (profile) says:

Re: Dunno about scarce

Then you can also have your reputation ruined due to some troll on Digg posting a complete fabrication, yet your product, effort and value offering hasn’t changed at all.

your initial investment hasn’t changed, nor has the amount of time and effort you put into a product, but if your product stops selling because of your damaged reputation, then the value of that product has changed immensely.

the value of something is nothing more than what the market is willing to pay for it. markets are made up of people; people have money that they use to buy things. if people don’t want to buy something, it’s not worth very much. a reputation is what people think of you, so clearly what people think of you as a vendor or service provider has a very real effect on the value of your product.

you can’t just sell something for whatever arbitrary price you decide, you have to see what the market (people) is willing to pay.

sure, you might get lucky and move a few units, but selling something at a higher price than the market is willing to pay is not sustainable.

the right product, at the right price, from a reputable vendor, is worth exactly what it sells for. if people stop buying that product, it becomes worthless. if your reputation influences the sale of your product, then it influences the value of that product.

if you can sell something for a million dollars, it’s worth a million dollars. if you can’t sell it at all, then it has no market value.

if your reputation is damaged to the point that people are not interested in your products, like in metallica’s case, then your products have decreased significantly in value, and may actually become worthless, regardless of your investment or your personal feelings. that’s why there are phrases like “it’s worth less than the paper it’s printed on” and “it’s just business… nothing personal”.

Loonez says:

Hey they aren't all at fault!

Unfortunately Lars and James are “Metallica” and at the time when all this came out a few years ago I don’t remember Kirk and Jason ever being on record as agreeing with Lars. It was always “Metallica” has stated they are opposed to the downloading of mp3s. All those statements really came mostly from Lars and the A-holes at the record company that were telling him that people downloading music was taking money out of his pockets. I used to be a huge fan of the band personally. I thought they were all “cool” guys. Now, not so much. Hey I wasn’t about to burn all my cd’s or videos over this but I was insulted by Lars’ actions and statements. How much money do yoo effin need Lars? Now I can’t stand the sight of him and can’t tolerate the sound of his voice. I thought that episode of South Park was awesome. Take that Lars yoo whiny Bitch! Thanks Ima for articulating what I was going to say so eloquently.

Ima Fish (profile) says:

“So since reputation can be created for no cost, I trust my friend Bob, if Bob likes something it’s earned reputation from me for free, as long as I think Bob and I have simlar tastes in whatever it is.”

You just disproved your entire point. If you trust your friend, you must base that trust on something. You would not trust on blind faith an opinion from someone you did not know. Thus, trust does not come out of nothing. It comes from past behaviors which necessarily have costs as energy was exerted.

Does that mean the cost of a good reputation is high? No, but no one said it was high.

Ronald Hobbs says:

Re: Re:

@Ima Fish

“You just disproved your entire point. If you trust your friend, you must base that trust on something. You would not trust on blind faith an opinion from someone you did not know. Thus, trust does not come out of nothing. It comes from past behaviors which necessarily have costs as energy was exerted.”

Well no, my point was that reputation is not a scarce good, if you consider that my relationship with my friend needed no input from you. All the effort that was expended to build the trust between me and my friend was expended by just us over time. and it’s not the trust that’s the scarce good there it’s the time and skill to build and maintain the relationship.

Yet because my friend likes your product, I give your product more trust, so in effect you’ve gotten two “units of reputation” yet possibly only had to expend effort to obtain the trust of one person. And that scales out depending on how trustworthy/popular Bob is, and the intelligence of his friends.

When companies invest so much money in making something viral, they’re directly trying to work this multiplication angle to get more value out than they’re putting in. any good that you can do that with is not scarce.

“Does that mean the cost of a good reputation is high? No, but no one said it was high.”

I also don’t agree with this, I think the cost of a good reputation is high, in some cases very high. PR firms, Brand consultants, etc are founded on this concept.

My point is simply that reputation can be increased at no cost to the subject of reputation, and therefore is not a scarce good.

The people with trusted relationships however are a scarce good, and that’s the bit the SocNets are trying to monetise.

Nasch says:

Re: Re: Re:

I think it’s tricky to call reputation scarce or infinite, since there are no measurable units of reputation (other than the not very useful 1 reputation per person/entity). With physical scarce goods, there objects that can be counted. With intangible infinite goods such as movies and books, there are a number of copies, although nobody can know how many there are. What can you count with reputation? Nothing, it’s not measurable. It’s also questionable to call it a good IMO, since it cannot be bought or sold.

We can agree that it has value, and requires effort to create. We agree that it can be lost, though not given away or sold (at least I assume everyone agrees with that, but probably a bad assumption). But trying to fit it into these infinite/scarce goods categories is I think problematic at best.

Ronald Hobbs says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:Nasch

Yeah, I agree with you that reputation doesn’t fit into the scarce/infinite model very well.

I also agree with chris (42) that reputation is a demand driver, positive or negative.

I do think it can be bought and sold, I think Social networks increasingly will try to monetise it, so I do think it’s a kind of a good, just not in the sense that we know. And a business that can figure out a good business model using it as a good will do very very well as the net gets more social.

ZeTron says:

Word of Mouth

I once had a trainer for a large cell company tell me that one positive experience affects about 10 other people. By the person positively effected telling a friend or family about the experience. Those told may pass the good word along to another…

However, one negative experience affects 250 people. Because people are much more likely to bitch and vent about a negative experience and the person told is much more likely to pass that info on. Or more just “I heard they are a bad company, or a stupid money hungry band” With no real first hand experience.

The numbers of people affected are probably pulled out of the air. But I think you would agree that positive word is much harder to get and maintain than negative.

brett says:

my two cents

Metallica used to be at the forefront of heavy metal, but yea their stance of being anti mp3 / internet just goes to show how antique they are becoming. They remind me of the stereotypical grandfather cursing this new fangled technology. They lost me when it became obvious that they “sold out” with the black album. And well I wouldn’t be the least bit upset if Lars took a fatal trip in an airplane as well.

Loonez says:

Cliff Burton R.I.P.

“And well I wouldn’t be the least bit upset if Lars took a fatal trip in an airplane as well.”

I would never wish ill will towards anyone and I’m not sure what the “airplane” reference has to do with Metallica. Maybe brett meant a fatal bus trip perhaps?

Ima, Lars would have fired Jason on the spot if he told him to shut the frick up about the napster thing. As far as Kirk is concerned he appears to be pretty non-confrontational and scared of James and Lars so he wouldn’t have spoken out against the them. Jason and Kirk had very little or absolutley no say in the business decisions concerning Metallica at that time.

YouFAIL says:

I hope it still hurts.

I love it when fools who disregard the power of their fanbase get hurt because of it.

Metallica lost fans for being greedy.
Ubisoft lost followers for its anti-piracy crap that they installed to your computer.
EA and Bioware were very close to doing the same, but on a larger scale. (EA could’ve potentially cut their revenue in half for the most popular game ever to be released [Spore] if they had kept up with their authentication process with SecuRom)

Also, piracy sites get MORE attention as soon as you try to bring a lawsuit to them.
Notice the trend?

We don’t like idiots who dont know technology to be infringing on OUR turf. As gamers, I think we feel that we have a sense of duty to protect our “realm”. Maybe it’s just me, but I feel that I have more right to the internet and computer technology than some corporate a**hole who just wants money because I understand it better than they do. Does anyone else feel the same way? I get the sense that we’re trying to stop companies from taking away our true freedom in the digital world. It’s our escape from your corrupt REAL world and we will do anything to preserve it.

Loyal Fan once, Never again! says:

I remember a time when Metallica was anti-commercialism

They[Metallica] hated radio because they commercialized songs that THEY[radio stations] felt were worthy of radio play. They had one underground video available “Cliff ’em All” With the late great Cliff Burton… And then… That crappy black album came out… People who had never heard of Metalica and had NOTHING to do with Metallica’s fame or money in the World of Heavy Metal – called the best crappy song on there – “Enter THE Sandman”… That was when Metallica sold itself to NON-METAL FANS! Lars was on Live Sh*t Binge – whatever it was called… He said they had come up with this idea to evolve because their fans had all grown up… I’m 37 now… I’m listening to Slayer, Megadeth, Sacred Reich… etc… I’m looking for more hard hitting bands that are replacing what use to be Metallica’s throne I download them for free then I go out and BUY them!

But as for Metallica whom claimed to be so happy with their loyal followers… AND THEN SOLD OUT! Your days ended the same day you decided to commercialize your selfish selves! I have NOTHING Metallica… At one point Right up till “RELOAD” (Someone gave it to me as a birthday present)- I had EVERYTHING METALLICA… Then I destroyed them all! Seek and Destroy is no more. Metallica has sold its soul to mainstream – and now – mainstream has given you, Metallica the same dirty shaft that you gave to your loyal fans! Do us all a favor… Follow in Faith No More, GnR, STP, RETIRE…
Lars, I know he’s deaf but there is no way you can feel the base of a double base – and say it sounds the same as your new gay drum kit – That is Smashing Pumpkin’s drums – give them back! THEY DO NOT PLAY METAL! THEN AGAIN – NEITHER DO YOU!

“LOSSERS!” – David Hasselhoff to his German team, in the movie “Dodge ball”

Skippy T. Mut says:

Metallica Sucks!

I used to be a huge Metallica fan. I bought their CDs, I went to their concerts, I bought their t-shirts, I even actually enjoyed their music. Then…the music started to suck…the members all became gay…they started crying about how much money they had…and what used to be a good thing became shit. So threw out my CDs, t-shirts, and concert stuff. Downloaded ripped copies of all their music just because I could. And promptly stopped listening to them. Lars Ulrich can go eat a bag of dicks for all I care!

Anonymous Coward says:

Hello? Is anyone home?

If you haven’t seen the VH1 Behind the Music on Metallica you should check it out. They tell the story of how Metallica started out and how they got popular through the illegal underground trade of mix tapes and copied demos that existed before the internet made it easier. If people didn’t illegally trade music Metallica wouldn’t even be famous!

Jack says:

poptallica will never recover

So, look what they have done to themselves. I can only think, “LOL.” I also discarded all of my Metallica paraphernalia. And, I’ll never buy another item with their name on it. They were so quick to punish their fans and speak out, maybe they need to be humbled a little. What’s next? Lars gona quit eating brown M&Ms? Their fans we not hurting their sales. Downloading their music only helped them when they needed it. Look at NIN and several other bands that are GIVING their music away for what the fans think they should pay. That’s had a great response. I don’t even care for Trent’s style, but I’ll throw him $10 for his treatment of his fans.

Another Old Man says:

Metallica still lives on...

Screw all you guys who are bad mouthing Metallica… they were just trying to do something about an impossible situation with p2p. Whether it was sucessful or not, atleast they haven’t taken it laying down. From thier (and other artists’) point of veiw, p2p did give them a substantial pay cut. Not to say they ‘need’ all of that money, but I doubt I can find many of you pissed off bloggers that would stand by and watch your paycheck get cut.

Metallica still rocks in my boat and I will still be attending every concert they have in the area.

Nasch says:

Re: Metallica still lives on...

The fact that other artists have adapted to the situation indicates that it is not actually impossible, as you claim. And yes, P2P may have given them a pay cut (I don’t know if it did or not, it is not a foregone conclusion without evidence). But it was their decision how to react to that, and since then they have experienced the consequences of that decision.

Cliff M. Ahl says:

It’s funny, but at the 2000 “Tattoo the Earth” tour, which Metallica headlined, I had a Napster banner on my car’s antenna (this was when Lars was starting his BS). Nobody else in the parking lot had any idea who Napster was, and few even knew what an mp3 was. Boy how times have changed. Oh, and make no mistake about it, Lars and James ARE Metallica. Anyone else in the band is just a hired hand, no matter how long they’ve been around (like Kirk who replaced Dave Mustaine and Jason who replaced Cliff). Jason was in the band 15 years and was still treated like crap by James and Lars.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...