Comments on: Comments on 6114

Post number 6114

honkzilla — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 10:50:23 -0800

But tell us how you really feel.
James Hetfield in Playboy: "[Metallica fans sided with Napster] Because they're lazy bastards and they want everything for free. I like playing music because it's a good living and I get satisfaction from it. But I can't feed my family with satisfaction.''

Lars Ulrich chimes in: "If you'd stop being a Metallica fan because I won't give you my music for free, then fuck you. I don't want you to be a Metallica fan."

I suppose it's a good thing they're on the verge of a break-up.

By: Loudmax

Loudmax — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 11:08:03 -0800

then f*ck you What's up with leaving letters out like this? If they don't want profanity in their article, they should remove the whole word, not just a letter so you have to figure it out for yourself. Is anyone out there offended by FUCK but not by F*CK ?

By: corpse

corpse — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 11:16:15 -0800

I'm sure james is struggling to feed his family. Damn it would be hard to live on his salary.

By: Hackworth

Hackworth — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 11:21:53 -0800

Hmm, just to drop names (;D), I actually met Kirk Hammet at club delux in the haight a couple of weeks ago, and I asked him about napster (i had to), and his take on it seemed to be that he didn't like that fact that Napster as a company had something to gain from letting people get their music for free, rather than holding it against the users (or at least that's what I got from our 5 min conversation in a loud, crowded bar). I wonder if his views are so different form the rest of the group, and maybe that's why we haven't heard much from him? If that's the case, then I'm not surprised that they're close to a break-up.

By: harmful

harmful — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 11:26:04 -0800

I generally detest throwing around phrases like selling out, but since when do heavy metal musicians use corpspeak like "intellectual property"?

By: chicobangs

chicobangs — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 11:48:05 -0800

Since they sell 80 million units, that's when. As sellouts, they've done jes' fine, thanky. So is it just me, or do they sound like tired old farts who hate each others' guts and more than anything just need some time off? I'm not just talking about Jason, who sounds like he's about to do just that. Lars and James are both just crotchety bitter-sounding old f*cks who don't seem to be having any fun anymore. Pardon my fuckin' French.

By: cCranium

cCranium — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 12:00:30 -0800

BWAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAHAAAHA gaspAAAHAAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAAHAAHAAAAAHAAAHAAAHAHAAAHgaspAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAHAAHA: Hetfield: ``I've gotten in plenty of arguments with fans who just wanted to 'discuss' it. This poor girl in Atlanta, I made her cry. She felt money was evil. Why don't you go live in Canada or some socialist country?'' Oh, Christ that's good. I should go buy a CD just to thank the stupid bastard for giving me a good laugh.

By: jragon

jragon — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 12:03:24 -0800

I did not enjoy the last quote of the article, seeing as I'm trying to eat lunch right now. Blech

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 12:07:51 -0800

Is anyone out there offended by FUCK but not by F*CK ? No, but for poor saps stuck behind filtering software, it's a nice courtesy, so they don't get their computer locked up. At least, that's the only good reason I know of.

By: revbrian

revbrian — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 12:10:09 -0800

I certainly hope metallica can manage to keep their heads above water with the financial strain they must be under. Perhaps we can start a canned food drive? This is a great example of why most real metalheads never considered metallica as anything but a joke.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 12:11:37 -0800

Class...all class...

By: tiaka

tiaka — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 12:22:53 -0800

metalheads? hmmm....

By: Dreama

Dreama — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 12:48:38 -0800

I generally detest throwing around phrases like selling out, but since when do heavy metal musicians use corpspeak like "intellectual property"? Since they grew brains. Why is it so hard to imagine that musicians of any variety might actually have a legit interest in such things?

By: das_2099

das_2099 — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:03:35 -0800

i think this sums it up quite nicely

By: frykitty

frykitty — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:07:39 -0800

I keep hearing this "boo-hoo, poor Metallica" schtick, but what that says is once you've earned a certain amount of money, you lose the right to be paid for your work. Sure, they could have gone about it another way, but they sure as hell have the right to to be paid, and to defend that right, no matter how rich they are.

By: norm

norm — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:14:13 -0800

That assumes they're not getting paid. Or have all of their revenue streams dried up?

By: sad_otter

sad_otter — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:24:00 -0800

well, they aren't getting paid by those using napster to steal/give away their music. what's with all the scorn for those who are simply asking to be paid for their work? sure metallica aren't the most diplomatic bunch, but it's hard to argue with their basic point.

By: harmful

harmful — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:29:45 -0800

I have no problems with artists wanting to be paid for their work. I'm just not going to take them seriously if they sound like a press release from a hidebound industry that appears unwilling to deviate from its Established Revenue Model in the face of a clear demand for digital music.

By: das_2099

das_2099 — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:36:51 -0800

sad_otter, you are right. If they are too stupid to realize how incredibly easy it is to write off the comparatively small amount of money lost to downloading (compared to their current earnings and worth) rather than alienating a fan base that , let's be honest, doesn't want to hear about intellectual property, then by all means, let them. I mean, within the article itself, Ulrich says "If you'd stop being a Metallica fan because I won't give you my music for free, then f*ck you. I don't want you to be a Metallica fan.'' AND "So it becomes about 'these greedy rock stars.' But understand, 80 million records later, I don't know what the f*ck to do with all the money I have. The real issue, for me, is choice. I want to choose what happens to my music.'' These guys are not smart. But that is not the issue. The issue is that they made it, and if they want to insist they get paid for it, they have the right to do so. It is just damned funny to listen to these morons.

By: poodle

poodle — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:46:35 -0800

Metallica stinks like rotten meat...

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:50:47 -0800

Metallica sucks like asthmatic fellatio!

By: varmint

varmint — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:58:51 -0800

I'm with harmful. I mean, since when has the record industry been concerned about artists being adequately compensated for their work? Any revenue loss that artists are experiencing from Napster pales in comparison to the money they've lost due to bad faith and manipulative contracts. If these boys were really concerned about artists getting paid, it seems there are a lot of more useful things they could be doing with their time, rather than litigating against a company that represents only the tip of a giant digital iceberg (Gee, how's that for a mixed metaphor?). Lars started sounding like a record industry shill a long time ago.

By: chicobangs

chicobangs — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 14:15:52 -0800

They're clearly not thinking past the current step. Does anyone know if Metallica's sales went up or down between when Napster got popular and they handed out their injunctions? And then how'd they do after they delivered the names list?

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 14:19:46 -0800

If their sales have gone down, it's likely becoz their last 3-4 albums have been insipid BS.

By: tobyslater

tobyslater — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 16:01:04 -0800

Look, I agree that Napster seems to be building a business by aggregating the most free content in a legally questionable way and it's not the done thing. But does EMusic, Listen.com or any other legitimate site provide anything near the service that Napster does? No. The record companies consistently fail in their duty to enable digital access to 'their' music and personally I am glad that MP3.com and Napster have been daring enough to shake things up a little. I believe the courts need to set some compulsory royalty rates to kick-start the online music industry as, I believe, they did with radio in its early days. Finally, I do hate this idea that everything in life has its price- it's a nasty concept which Metallica in particular seem to subscribe to. I just don't believe that great artists make great art just for money. I can't picture Van Gogh or Da Vinci creating soul-stirring paintings or world-changing inventions purely to buy a loaf of bread. I for one cannot make my music that way; on those weeks when I haven't had quite enough cash to pay all the bills I don't suddenly stop being able to write songs. Quite the opposite, in fact: I think there's a lot of evidence to suggest that great musicians (eg Prince) have been artistically hampered by their own enormous fiscal success.

By: Succa

Succa — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 16:16:55 -0800

I dunno. I don't really have a lot of pity for whiny Napster users who feel that they're being short-changed by artists not supporting the service. Napster is a privilege, not a right. Napster is also illegal for what most people use it for, and the fact that artists like Metallica don't like people stealing their music should come as a shock to nobody. I'm not supporting either side, I'm just saying, they have a right to complain.

By: Hackworth

Hackworth — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 17:31:16 -0800

Well, at any rate, these days metallica.really.fuckingsucks.

By: fiery

fiery — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 17:43:58 -0800

I liked the Canada quote! That was genius! Ooh boy i'm gonna jump on a canadian committee right now to change the national currency to mp3's. Minimum wage? Why thats 7 mp3's an hour and if you get fired, your last payment will all be METALLICA. Gosh if it weren't for stupid ppl who would we laugh at? Art for arts sake, and if you can make a living at it...GREAT!!! But do it because you live for it not to make a living. This has been posted before, but for those who missed it... http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010208.html

By: Optamystic

Optamystic — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 17:56:41 -0800

I just bought the magazine, so that I could read the entire interview. (And for no other reason than that, thankyouverymuch). Having read it, all I can say is: I can't recommend it highly enough. Seriously. Buy this magazine. Read this interview. When you finish laughing at these four morons, read it again. It's funnier the second time.

By: mw

mw — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:19:34 -0800

I admire Metallica for standing up for their rights. I also don't think the other side does its cause any good by the kind of "argument" demonstrated above.

By: fiery

fiery — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:43:33 -0800

I don't think that people should be cheated of a right to make a living from their 'intellectual property'. I do however think that METALLICA sucks and is stupid. My opinion. I'm entitled to it. I also believe that there is a myriad of opportunities presented by digital media distribution (free and otherwise) which has not been appreciated by many artists and studios. Its not a matter of right/wrong or us/them, its about a new age in media with huge potential and the myopic view through which this new age has been viewed.

By: fooljay

fooljay — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 19:25:13 -0800

All I know is that my DSL line has been smoldering for the last three weeks and my hard-drive is filled like the inbox of pardon.me@whitehouse.gov.

By: josh

josh — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 20:35:24 -0800

I for one am tired of hearing that wanting to make money means not being an 'artist' -- and that being an artist means you must necessarily not care about money. It's a heinous kind of double standard when well-to-do dot-commers tell musicians that it's not proper for them as artists to want money for their work! It's a ridiculous, antiquarian statement and suggests a concept of art with no rational basis and no place in our modern world. Art is not "that which is produced for free" -- it is something great and valuable, and the fact that our society has evolved to a point where people can pay for the art they enjoy is a good, not a bad thing. If you don't want to pay for Metallica's celebrity, then don't buy their t-shirts, posters, plush toys, etc. But people with paying jobs shouldn't be telling musicians to shove it in my opinion.

By: crushed

crushed — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:02:30 -0800

We all had some pretty slutty moments. I don't think there's anybody in this band who hasn't had crabs a couple of times, or the occasional drip-d*ck. EWWW! Not the crabs or drip-dick comments, just the thought of any members of Metallica ever having sex. Ew. Ew. Ew. I like playing music because it's a good living and I get satisfaction from it. But I can't feed my family with satisfaction. Um, how about feeding them with all the money you've made in the past decade or so? Or did you spend that all on lawsuits against the fans who gave you said money? If you don't want to pay for Metallica's celebrity, then don't buy their t-shirts, posters, plush toys, etc. Actually most bands make their money on t-shirts and the like sold at concerts. The record companies take most of the money earned on CD sales. Yes, they've got the right to complain, sue, etc. But if you're upset about not getting paid then you do not alienate and practically attack the people who make you rich. James made some girl cry because she wanted to discuss Napster and he decided instead to get into an argument with her. They're telling their audience to fuck off, literally. They sued Victoria's Secret over the name of a lipstick. (I can't find the link) And yet we're supposed to believe that they are not stupid and greedy assholes. Yeah. Right.

By: shauna

shauna — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 23:52:34 -0800

They sued Victoria's Secret over the name of a lipstick. (I can't find the link) Here's a big list of articles about it. The whole thing was pretty damned silly on both their parts. I have a VS charge card and when they first sent out promo advertising for the "new metallica lipstick!" I remember thinking, now why on earth would VS think its customers would buy anything that even vaguely reminded them of Metallica-the-band? The demographics are more than a little different, for the most part. I'd have loved to have been in that marketing meeting. But Metallica-the-band assuming VS was selling more lipstick because of the name association (intentional or not) was just a major exercise in self-importance. I know that I wouldn't have bought the lipstick, no matter how much I loved the color, simply because every time I put it on I'd be thinking, "I have Metallica all over my lips. Ewwww!"

By: crushed

crushed — Fri, 02 Mar 2001 04:23:23 -0800

Hmm...I suppose it would have made sense to look for it on a search engine as well as my bookmarks and history. Heh. Sorry for the (hopefully) temporary lack of common sense. ::shrinks into a corner, feeling sheepish::

By: solistrato

solistrato — Fri, 02 Mar 2001 17:18:15 -0800

I can't picture Van Gogh or Da Vinci creating soul-stirring paintings or world-changing inventions purely to buy a loaf of bread. You're kidding, right? All Vincent could do, besides paint, was harangue his brother Theo as to why his paintings weren't selling.

By: Mars Saxman

Mars Saxman — Fri, 02 Mar 2001 18:25:01 -0800

Oh, for christ's sake. "Intellectual property" is pure legal fiat. Copyright law is just a mechanism which allows publishers a pseudo-temporary monopoly on whatever it is they're publishing. The idea is to encourage people with money to invest that money in getting books and whatnot to market, thereby enriching the cultural life of the nation as a whole. This system is no longer enriching the cultural life of the nation, so let's hurry up and replace it with a better one already. The idea that there is any morality in this arrangement is ludicrous. Sharing copyrighted music with your friends via napster is about as immoral as walking across a deserted street without using the crosswalk, and talking about it like it's some kind of crime gives away the issue before we can even start talking about it. (Sorry, I haven't gotten a good copyright rant out lately, and this was a convenient opportunity.)

By: gtr

gtr — Fri, 02 Mar 2001 23:43:33 -0800

This is a great example of why most real metalheads never considered metallica as anything but a joke. Um, this topic is so over done by now, so I don't have much to add, but this statement is simply not correct. When killem all came out in 84, they were not a joke, but a thankful alternative to motley crew and the ilk. This makes it all the more pitiful that they have become such a joke today.

By: fullerine

fullerine — Sat, 03 Mar 2001 03:49:24 -0800

A mangled quote from the only true rock stars "The music industry is now bigger than the steel industry. When did we start making music to be bigger than the steel industry?"

By: holgate

holgate — Sat, 03 Mar 2001 04:07:42 -0800

From Alistair Cooke last night: the hair stylists' lobby is bigger than the steel industry. Welcome to Absurdia.

By: chicobangs

chicobangs — Sat, 03 Mar 2001 17:23:25 -0800

"When I said we were bigger then the steel industry, I wasn't saying that we were better or greater, or comparing us with the Steel Industry as a product or the Industrial Marketplace as a thing or whatever it is. I just said what I said and it was wrong. Or it was taken wrong. And now it's all this." Thanks, fullerine, for quoting a band I only got into after finding them on Napster and of whom I have bought three CDs.

By: muppetboy

muppetboy — Sat, 03 Mar 2001 22:06:55 -0800

"Is anyone out there offended by FUCK but not by F*CK ?" Oooooh. I assumed they meant "feck". Now I'm very offended. ;-)

By: aaron

aaron — Sun, 04 Mar 2001 22:34:19 -0800

DRINK! FECK! ARSE!