Metallica Still Doesn't Get It: Forces Early Reviews Of Latest Album Offline

from the have-they-ever-used-the-internet? dept

While Metallica has been trying to appear more internet friendly these days, it sounds like the band still has a lot to learn. Representatives of the band invited a bunch of music journalists and bloggers to a “listening party” last week to hear tracks off its upcoming album. Attendees weren’t asked to sign any kind of embargo or non-disclosure form. So, as you might expect, some of them went home and wrote up quick reviews based on what they heard. And that was the point at which Metallica representatives went around demanding that these early reviewers take down the reviews, claiming that the songs they heard were an early mix of the album, rather than the final cut. If that’s the case, then they shouldn’t have played it for journalists — or they should have at least required a non-disclosure agreement. To go around forcing journalists to remove their reviews of music played for them by a Metallica representative is simply ridiculous. Not only that, but it wasn’t even as if the reviews were bad. Last time we wrote about Metallica, we noted that the band was still suffering from the hit its reputation took in 2000 when it sued Napster and various colleges. Pulling stunts like this only makes sure that its reputation will continue to slide.

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 “Metallica Still Doesn't Get It: Forces Early Reviews Of Latest Album Offline”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
82 Comments
bdang says:

Metallicrap

This band is way out of the loop in the music industry. They hold a review and then expect journalists to not publish anything about it. They should of stopped playing music after the 80’s. And then they gave Napster a hard time. You can see that their music is no longer pulling their weight. What a bunch of washed up losers. Get off the map.

Crosbie Fitch (profile) says:

Mike, I’d question the ethics of non-disclosure agreements if I were you.

Although copyright hasn’t yet been successfully challenged as an abrogation of a citizen’s right to free speech, and corporations have no such rights to alienate themselves from, citizens cannot otherwise alienate themselves from their freedom of speech.

An NDA is a con trick when applied to individuals.

If you voluntarily make someone privy to something, you cannot bind them to silence. You can only incentivise or appeal for their discretion.

An NDA may work against a reviewer’s employing publisher if the reviewer represents them, but it cannot bind a citizen blogger.

Heywood Jablowme says:

Re: Re:

If that individual “citizen blogger” signed an NDA, why wouldn’t they be bound to the agreement? Here’s a hint: they would most certainly be bound by an NDA that they signed.

The point of this article is that there was no NDA to sign, and Metallica is just being a bunch of dicks by trying to enforce reviews offline, a right that they do not have.

Crosbie Fitch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Just as you cannot contract yourself into slavery, so you cannot contract your yourself into silence.

You might lose your job.
You might lose your reputation.
You might lose any hush money.

But, you can’t lose your liberty to speak freely concerning information you have been made privy to.

NB You may be in a jurisdiction that has an ‘official secrets act’, and your silence may be so obtained. But, individuals and corporations, unlike the state, do not have such powers (yet).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You can very well sign away your right to speak about something, it happens every day in court settlements.

You have the choice and you have to make it. There is a far cry from slavery and not talking about something. Slavery is illegal and therefore the contract would not be binding, however, you signing an NDA about a product does not infringe on your right to free speech. Free speech is not about being able to open your mouth and make sound.

Crosbie Fitch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Given these things happen every day, you will no doubt find it a cinch to cite an instance of someone signing away their right to speak about something.

A few years ago folk in North America had a wee squabble about slavery – among other things. I gather there was a little more reasoning behind the abolition of slavery than whether it was legal or not.

Your rights are not determined by the law, but protected by it. As to what your rights are, these are supposed to be self-evident.

Kevin says:

Re: Re: Re:3 So close, and yet so far...


A few years ago folk in North America had a wee squabble about slavery – among other things. I gather there was a little more reasoning behind the abolition of slavery than whether it was legal or not.

Well, it’s not quite invoking the Nazi’s, but almost.

Please, please tell me that you didn’t just compare someone signing an NDA and agreeing not to disclose private information with actual slavery. Slavery is when people were forcibly removed from their homelands and shipped around the world where, if they survived that long, they were forced to work in deplorable manual labor positions with no pay and minimal provisions for living. Slavery was when it was considered cheaper to work a person to death and “buy” a replacement slave that it would be to feed them and provide them with the bare necessities of life. Slavery is when your “master” has the legal authority to beat, torture, rape, and even murder you for any reason whatsoever, including whim, and do so with impunity. Please, please tell me how signing an NDA in any way equates to slavery.

Your rights are not determined by the law, but protected by it. As to what your rights are, these are supposed to be self-evident.

I don’t understand how you can still think that it’s signing away your rights to sign an NDA. Here’s a news flash for you, freedom of speech doesn’t mean you’re free to say anything you want about anything you want. Freedoms aren’t even absolute. Sometimes one person’s freedoms have to be limited because they can impinge on another person’s freedoms. Do you think that people who work in hospitals should be free to talk about whatever they want with whomever they want to? How would you feel about them disclosing sensitive medical information about you? What if your banker started shouting out the details of your accounts and telling people how to steal your money? Whose rights win in those cases? The right of “free speech” or your right to privacy?

BTR1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

> Your rights are not determined by the law,
> but protected by it. As to what your rights
> are, these are supposed to be self-evident.

I don’t know where you got this idea that people can’t waive or contract away the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution but it’s completely false.

People legally waive their rights all the time. Examples:

The 4th Amendment to the Constitution states that citizens have a right to be free from warrantless searches and seizures by the police. Yet it’s been a long established and legally recognized principle that I’m perfectly free to give consent to the police to search my home even if they don’t have a warrant– essentially waiving my 4th Amendment rights– and any evidence they find of criminal activity can and will be admitted against me at trial.

Likewise, the 6th Amendment guarantees one’s right to counsel in a criminal proceeding. Yet if I’m arrested, I can waive my right to counsel and respond to questions from the police unrepresented. I can also represent myself at trial if I so choose.

The 5th Amendment guarantees one’s right to be free from coerced testimony against oneself, yet I can waive my 5th Amendment right and testify if I so choose, even if that testimony ends up convicting me.

I have no idea why you think the 1st Amendment is any different– that a citizen cannot legally waive their right to free speech– but your position is not supported in law.

Kevin says:

Re: Re:

If you voluntarily make someone privy to something, you cannot bind them to silence. You can only incentivise or appeal for their discretion.

I am not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that while you may be technically correct, it would also seem to me that you are misrepresenting an NDA. Think of it as a contract. The company offers as consideration an opportunity to preview some content or product before it is generally available. The reviewer offers as consideration in exchange an agreement not to discuss that content or product until some future date. Penalties for breaching the agreement on either side could be specified in the contract. I don’t see how that couldn’t be legal. Especially when your only argument comes down to freedom of speech, which as we all know only applies to government restrictions on speech. Private companies are not governmental agencies.

Crosbie Fitch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I am dismayed at the iniquitous bargains people would willingly enter into to, surrendering their natural rights if they could, simply in order to satisfy their curiosity.

I’m sure many people believe that NDAs are valid contracts, and to a large extent such a prevalent delusion gives them weight, but they cannot alienate individuals from their rights, nor expose them to financial penalties (solely the preserve of law – not corporations).

People are human beings, not corporations, and corporations are anything but human.

Not that I find it entirely agreeable, do see the recent AppleRuling.pdf.


But the Legislature’s general recognition of a
property-like right in such information cannot blind courts to the more fundamental
judgment, embodied in the state and federal guarantees of expressional freedom, that free
62
and open disclosure of ideas and information serves the public good. When two public
interests collide, it is no answer to simply point to one and ignore the other. This case
involves not a purely private theft of secrets for venal advantage, but a journalistic
disclosure to, in the trial court’s words, “an interested public.” In such a setting,
whatever is given to trade secrets law is taken away from the freedom of speech. In the
abstract, at least, it seems plain that where both cannot be accommodated, it is the
statutory quasi-property right that must give way, not the deeply rooted constitutional
right to share and acquire information.

Kevin says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

but they cannot alienate individuals from their rights

They’re not trying to.

nor expose them to financial penalties (solely the preserve of law – not corporations).

And just what is it that you believe happens when a corporation takes you to court for breach of contract? While it’s not technically the corporation imposing the penalties, it is the corporation who is asking “the law” to impose those financial penalties, and in most cases it is the corporation that will collect those financial penalties.

Not that I find it entirely agreeable, do see the recent AppleRuling.pdf.

I don’t know why you think that Apple case has any bearing on NDAs. An NDA is a contract where you agree not to disclose information in exchange for some consideration, usually early access to said information. The court case that you reference is about someone leaking Apple “trade secrets” to a “journalist” who then reported on those secrets. The “journalist” in question wasn’t under NDA, and while his sources might have been the court agreed that the “journalist” didn’t have to disclose his sources.

Now, if the “journalist” had signed an NDA and then reported on the trade secrets that were revealed under the NDA, you can bet Apple would have owned his ass in court.

You really need a better understanding of what we’re discussing here before you go off on unrelated tangents. It looks silly.

ehrichweiss says:

Re: Re:

If you sign a contract and agree to the terms of that contract then you can be bound by those terms. That’s all an NDA is and they hold up rather well. I signed one with Sony Entertainment at one time to be a developer for the PS2 and it was very clear that if I leaked any of the developer info or anyone employed by me did so, I was liable for many hundreds of thousands of dollars. That’s not the same as going to jail but the moment I break the NDA then they can get other actions against me such as injunctions and gag orders; the moment I defy either of those, I go to jail. I’m not saying I like it but I don’t sign contracts that I don’t agree to all the terms either.

Crosbie Fitch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Corporations can subdue you with the threat of litigation (even if it would be for chewing gum), but despite the fact they can easily cause you considerable costs and hassle, that doesn’t mean they actually have legal sanction to do to you what they’d like you to believe they can do to you.

You may be forgiven for opting for an easy life rather than asserting your rights, but for pity’s sake don’t start believing in the tales of bogey men that your employer uses to frighten you, or that you can sign your soul (or inalienable rights) away to them.

Kevin says:

Re: Re: Re:

If you sign a contract and agree to the terms of that contract then you can be bound by those terms.

Actually, that’s not true. The terms of the contract still have to be legal or else the contract is invalid. For example, I can’t enforce a contract with an attractive young woman where I agreed to pay her $1000 a week to have sex with me because prostitution is illegal. And there are some rights that you cannot give up contractually. My disagreement is that an NDA is not the same thing as giving up your right to exercise free speech.

Anonymous Metal Head says:

Re: Drain Bamage

Ehem.
That’s a terrible generalization.
Perhaps an example of what greed does to rational thought?
But please, do not start a war on musical taste, especially when metal has grown to become a very diversified music style over time.

Though I still think was Metallica’s representatives are doing is ridiculous. And I say this still appreciating their music despite their poor business decisions (well, most of their music).
Next time, I suppose why invite the press at all if you dont want them talking about it?
Or if you have some sort of direction with inviting a silent press, why not just simply save yourself the head ache and have them sign a “Non-disclosure until further notice” contract, perhaps?

Chris (user link) says:

Re: Who?

Really, Metallica had already gone against everything they once stood for by the time they sued Napster, which of course was made even more ridiculous considering that they first gained notoriety by the underground casette tape trading market. Really tho, Metallica died with Cliff Burton (and so should have everyone’s interest in the band), the short hair cuts, the removal of guitar solos from their albums, the lawsuits, they’re just a joke in the metal world.

Melvillain says:

Metallica made my day

When I read this on Wired.com yesterday, it made my day. I can’t believe anyone could be that clueless. The more I thought about it the more it doesn’t make sense. With Mission Metallica the band was supposedly going to let you listen to the album as it was being prepared. Either I misread it or they are promising something they aren’t delivering. Keep it up Metallica. You’re always good for a chuckle.

John (profile) says:

Take down the reviews

I suggest that every reviewer who received a takedown notice should actually take down their review and replace it with the cease & desist letter they received from Metallica.

It won’t take long for the rest of the world to find numerous reviews replaced with “you can’t review our music” notices. Then, instead of reading a review that can be argued about, the reader will be left wondering why Metallica doesn’t want their music to be reviewed.

HellHound says:

Crybabies are not very METAL at all

Since when does a “metal” band care if someone doesn’t like what they’re doing anyway???!!! They should be happy anyone cares to write about them at all or hear what they’re creating, instead of being so petty and concerned that someone might hear their message who hasn’t ponied up. My first Metallica songs were taped off the radio then shared with my friends who later bought records and paid to see these guys play. I will no longer pay these rich crybaby assholes and hope no one buys the new record or goes to see these wuss “teen idol pop divas” any more. Take your place with KISS and Def Leppard who also formerly rocked but became wuss bands. Long live Motorhead!

Overcast says:

I got an idea!! Let’s get real popular because bootleg copies of our stuff gets out and makes us a famous ROCK BAND!!

Then, once we get a lotta money, we’ll squeeze our fams for every dime!

And yeah – since all this, I’ve come to find a lot of new bands – frankly, I just like better period now.

Was so cool getting NIN’s new release from the web. I went out last weekend and picked up an older CD of theirs I always liked.

You never know says:

*Sigh* Like I said before, and this only reinforces what I said. They are only out for the money. If it means baiting a bunch of journalists and bloggers into writting about thier latest and suppoitly greatest albim, then gripping about the reviews. The next step in filling litagation agenst enyone and everyone in hopes of making a bunch of money, then hope the “Strisan Effect sets in and a bunch of star blind fans go out and buy the albims just to see what the uproure was all about!

Rick Murch-Shafer (user link) says:

Stupid, or brilliant?

Has anyone considered that this is just a publicity stunt? They throw the listening party, get the reviews posted, then send cease & desist letters to get publicity for the reviews hoping people might go read them. I would never have know anything about Metalica even having a new album if not seeing it posted here.

Of course I still don’t care ….

Anonymous Coward says:

I was a huge Metallica fan growing up. Now, I am proudly Metallica free since around 2000 when they had me banned from Napster (even though I already owned all their CD’s and had bought several copies of their cassettes throughout my teenage years).

This just shows (once again) how much contempt they really have for their fans.

Anti-Mullet says:

Why I don't listen to Metallica anymore....

Beause I forgot they existed… until this article popped up in my feed reader. Techdirt you should not have given them any exposure. Then they would still be out of sight and out of mind. The only way to stop these guys is to not talk about them anymore. Bloggers, journalists, Radio DJ’s, talking heads on the tube and everyone else, you must stop feeding the monster and it will shrivel up and die. Make a vow to yourself to never again pass along any information regarding this band. Make a promise to yourself and future generations to eliminate this blight from the digital age. Goodbye band that must never be spoken of again… goodbye.
Hush….

bluemeanie says:

Lars…he’s such a pissy crybaby! He’s trying to make more money to buy back the Basquiat and Lichenstein paintings he sold off at auction. Metallic stopped being relevant at the end of the 1990’s. After this incident, I wouldn’t be surprised if they ended up playing the Indian casinos tour with REO Speedwagon and Styx…

Dave says:

Good band, dumb guys

I’m a musician, and at first, I objected to file-sharing, feeling that musicians should be paid for their work. But as time went on, I realized that file-sharing couldn’t be stopped anyway (despite the fantasy desires of the RIAA), that there ARE other ways to make money in this new economy, and that free stuff actually gets people more interested in going to shows, buying CD’s, and other things that do make the musician money.

Yes, it’s true that the musician loses some control, and might have to actually learn some new skills and adapt.

And if an old fart like me can figure this out, why can’t Lars, et al? Does it really matter if they only make 3 million this year instead of 4 million? And even if he were morally right, why piss off 95% of potential customers? Well, it’s clear you don’t need to pass an intelligence test to be in a popular band.

ehrichweiss says:

my review..

They’re has-beens who wouldn’t know metal if it was rammed up Lars Ulrich’s ass.

Just replace “rap” with “metal” here and you’ll find some insight:

Question and answer:
What is a rapper doin when he starts at hardcore, but can’t sell enough records to remain in the record business?
Answer:
He goes pop……
This answer is not set up to diss anybody who starts at pop, or for the rapper’s who started at hardcore, and now makin weakass dance music, cause they couldn’t stay down wit the hardcore.
I just got a question for you:
How does it feel to wake up every mornin, and look in the mirror, and realize, that you’re a fuckin ho?


Ice-T

Bob Mulhouse says:

“It was with some trepidation . . . that I attended the playback of METALLICA’s new album at the HQ of Universal, their UK record company. We were permitted to hear six of the 10 tracks which will ultimately appear on the album — which, a rep from the Q-Prime management company informed us, is referred to colloquially by METALLICA as ‘nine epics and one song’. The sense of occasion was reinforced by the presence of almost the entire editorial teams of the UK’s two biggest metal magazines, glaring at each other over the tea urn.

“Right from the off, it’s a relief to hear that the utterly awful production of ‘St. Anger’ is no more. [Lars] Ulrich has replaced the old dustbin lid from that album with an actual snare drum, and the sound is fresh, clean and resonant (even though the songs are still only rough mixes at this stage). The first song, like the rest of the ‘epics,’ is between six and eight minutes long and begins with a bass intro from low-ender extraordinaire Robert Trujillo. Moving rapidly from riff to riff, the song bursts with energy and ideas: singer and rhythm guitarist James Hetfield barks ‘Luck runs out!’ repeatedly and throws in some twisty, semi-progressive riffs which could have been lifted directly from, their last truly good album, 1988’s ‘…And Justice For All’. Guitarist Kirk Hammett, who was banned from soloing on ‘St. Anguish’ for no adequately explored reason, is on fire, whipping out the melodic, rapid-fire shreds for which he is famous over an extended solo section — almost as if he’s making up for lost time. This is METALLICA’s best song in ages, perhaps since the 1980s.

“The next song has a working title of ‘Flamingo’ and is going to be the first single. Now, METALLICA’s lead singles have been breathtakingly crap since 1995, so it was a relief to hear that ‘Flamingo’ (as it almost definitely will not be called) is a modernised take on their amazing 1988 song ‘One’, all balladry at its front end before a speeded-up metalstorm at the back. Hetfield delivers a clean-picked intro which reminded me of the BEACH BOYS (I know… but I only got to hear it once, all right?) before the body of the song, which is basically like ‘The Unforgiven’ from 1991’s ‘Black Album’. If you’re familiar with the chord progression behind the solo in ‘Am I Evil?’, the ancient DIAMOND HEAD song which METALLICA made their own, you’ll be able to picture the under-solo riffage in this song — all simple, effective major-interval jumps.

“However, let us not forget that this is modern METALLICA — and the next two songs are much less fun. The first, which may be called ‘We Die Hard’ judging by the frequency with which Hetfield barks the phrase, starts boringly but accelerates halfway through and enters slightly proggy territory, all stop-start riff stabs and a clever time signature. The next song is very ‘…And Justice’, a lengthy, unhurried workout which revolves around the line ‘Bow down / Sell your soul to me / I will set you free,’ itself a 1988 line if I ever heard one. Apart from dexterous soloing from Hammett, it’s not great.

“So far, we’ve had two good songs and two dull ones — not a bad track record for new ‘TALLICA, believe me. However, track five is tedious, a combination of the aimless riffery of ‘St. Anger’ and the pointless rock chorusing of ‘Load’, the album which almost finished METALLICA in 1996. ‘Crying, weeping, shedding strife!’ sings Hetfield in that slick ‘Enter Sandman’ manner, over an unthreatening clean midsection which would (and no doubt will) suit VH1 down to the ground.

“At this point the Q-Prime geezer asks us if we want to hear more, and fortunately we say yes — because the final song (and indeed, it is ‘The Song’, the little guy among the nine epics) is great, a genuine slice of thrash metal that starts fast and stays that way. Like a slower, less precise ‘Battery’ (the opening track of 1986’s flawless ‘Master Of Puppets’ album), the song nips in and out, not outstaying its welcome and proving that on some level, METALLICA still have the necessary vitriol to impress their older fans. OK, it reminded me a bit of ‘Dyer’s Eve’, the last song on ‘Justice’, which had a kind of ‘I suppose we’d better do a fast one for the fans’ feel about it — but in 2008, Hetfield and Ulrich delivering any form of thrash metal is not to be sneered at.

“We file out of the listening room, not saying much. This album could be good, or it could be mediocre — too much depends on the other four songs to make a call at this point. I try not to agonize about it, but this matters, damn it. It really does.”

Metallica up YOUR asses! says:

Re: Metallica who?

Ok FUCK…come on, get real. Strip mall openings in 5 years? How about maybe MAYBE when they’re in there 70’s. You worthless faggot, YOU may think that Metallica is in the past, that the world passed them by, but my friend, it is YOU have stood still. 5 years from now, they’ll still be selling out, concert, after concert, arena after arena, night after night! You will be picking up and unemployment check to feed your fat face and buy more of there albums, but I think it be better if you go download for free, cause it won’t put a dent in there sales. You are a worthless, and a nobody. I’ve got money that says you will eat your words, and in another 5 years will post this same ridiculous post, only no one will care enough to respond. Metallica will go on until their deaths. But their music will live on forever. And You? …. I’m not even gonna waste any more breath. Oh and whoever wrote this stupid article (rom the have-they-ever-used-the-internet? dept)…I hope they shut your site down, just cause your worthless….nice try though 😉

Metallica up YOUR asses! says:

Fuck off Metallica Bashers.

You stupid whiny fucks! (and no I don’t mean the band) I mean all you worthless bloggers who are so pissed at Metallica for ordering the removal of those posts. 1) Those were most definitely removed from the label, NOT the band (Warner Bros. is running the whole thing still) and 2) Who really gives a fuck. Has-been this, and has-been that. They still ARE. Last time I checked Metallica has sold out EVERY show, EVERY seat, EVERY time since 1983. Find me a date to prove me wrong and I’ll shut my mouth. Personally, Metallica and myself could give 2 shits less whether or not all the old “fans” come back or all the sorry sap-sucking music pirates who’ve downloaded there music illegally ever respect Metallica again. My thoughts: GO FIND ANOTHER GODDAMN BAND TO BITCH AND WHINE ABOUT! WE DON’T NEED YOU! Music revolution or not, digital music age or what not, YOU WILL NOT STOP METALLICA, BOYCOTT THEM, DISOWN THEM, NEVER BUY A RECORD AGAIN…doesn’t really matter, cause for every “fan” that leaves and says “FUCK YOU METALLICA, YOU OLD NON-CREATIVE DINASOURS WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!” there will be another 10,000 new fans to replace you. R.I.P. Shittalkers!! Metallica for Life.

-Jesse

Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) says:

Re: Fuck off Metallica Bashers.

Funniest troll ever!

For every old fan that leaves there will be 10,000 less fans in the future. When I play my ‘fogey’ rock, my kids might say, ‘Hey, that song is cool!’ To which I will reply, ‘Their first five albums were good but don’t waste your time with their newer stuff. Here are all their earlier songs…(transmits to kid’s 1 petabyte personal media device)…have a good listen son.’ Still, no more money for Metallica. Thanks for all the free music jackasses! P2P/Torrent Forever!

Jonas says:

To be honest, I think they got exactly what they wanted out of this stunt or whatever you want to call it: some publicity they wouldn’t have got otherwise.

I was big fan of theirs from “…and justice for all” and onwards, and still is a fan but not to the same extent as I used to be (the latest album was so bland and boring it could just as well have been released by a band with no name really).

Still, I think they took a gamble and not a big one either. They most likely know they’ve lost some fans along the way. Some because of the Napster thing, some because they don’t like the new direction of the band and some who is somewhere in between (not to mention competition from newer and “cooler” bands). Those long-time fans that still love their music will in all likelihood still buy the album and go to the concerts no matter what kind of behavior Hetfield, Ulrich et.al exhibit off-stage and out of the recording studio (their last concert in my neck of the woods was sold out in 20 minutes flat, just last year IIRC) so I don’t think it is unreasonable for them to assume that their fan-base and the the check-book is mostly not affected by this or their stance on p2p.

Do I, as a long time fan, find this behavior disappointing? Definately. I do not, however, think I’m representative of their fanbase. And according to album sales and ticket sales, I seem to be at least half-right on that account.

The thing is, they have built up such a solid fanbase and reputation over the years that they can afford to trade the increased publicity against the possibility of a probably limited fan backlash.

Further, from what I’ve read and seen – NIN and Radiohead (the poster children of the artists “embracing” p2p and the Internet revolution in terms of music) are rather ambivalent about it. They only differ from Metallica in that they have more or less grudingly accepted that they have no say in the matter and that forces they can not control decides how and when their music is shared (and how people talk about said music).

If you don’t want Metallica’s old-fashioned (or whatever) ideas to succeed here’s a hint: don’t write about them and what they may or may not do right in your opinion. If you do, you just give them exactly what they want: publicity to those who are not die-hard fans (and the die-hard fans do not need to be told a new album is forthcoming or care about whether or not is sucks anyway).

Anonymous Coward says:

Metaliwho????? Didn’t they die along time ago? There are such more talented bands out there now that blow them away! I think they had one or two good albums back in the day, but as for now who gives a BEEP if they make any more money or not! Reading through these comments I seen where someone downloaded the NIN album, well trent has the right idea! Why are all these greedy bastards so money hungry? They have a new this and a new that! I know new artist really don’t make that much money, some of them just break even to do what they love! But these jerks have money running out there BLEEP!!!!! So my advise is grow the BEEP up Metallica, and get a life! Why don’t you take some of your fame and do something good with it! Oh and the reason they don’t want reviews out is because the Album probably suck! Lets look back LOAD RE_LOAD ST> ANGER the list goes on and on!!!!

in the know says:

metallica

all this fuss, and everyone gets it wrong. This was no listening “party” – certain long lead magazines were invited to the band’s record label’s boardroom to hear some unmixed tracks, as they had committed to running features on the band – and it’s hard to write a feature about an album without hearing any of it – right? NO bloggers were invited. no one was asked to sign any “non-diclosure” forms – how insulting would that have been to those journalists? the album isn’t finished i don’t think. it’s not out for months.

Jacone2 says:

Metallica is just a band

Being a long, long time fan. Have seen them 7 times have the tattoo. Met James and Jason at a meet and greet. I can say I’m qualified to comment here. So I’ll just say two things: First of all it’s just music, either you like it or you don’t. All this other shit ie. Metallica suck, they sold their fans out, Napster etc, doesn’t really matter as long as you still like the music. St. Anger was a disappointment but at least they tried something different, even if they missed the mark. I’ll still by the new album because I’m a true fan.
The other thing is why are people who doen’t like Metallica anymore (or ever) commenting at all? Why are you interested in something you don’t like? Seems like a collosal waste of energy to me. Buncha wankers!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

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...