You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Me_Wise_Magic
- Rep: 70
Re: Metallica Joins Spotify, Buries Hatchet With Napster Nemesis
All I can say it's about time. There was a ton of Metallica tunes that I wanted to add to my playlist and they only showed cover versions and that Rock Hall live performance. Quickly finding some tracks to add and jam to later on tonight. MASTER OF PUPPETS, HERE I COME!! 
- metallex78
- Rep: 194
Re: Metallica Joins Spotify, Buries Hatchet With Napster Nemesis
I love that Lars keeps pointing out that it was NEVER about money, but always about control of their own Metallica music.
It still shits me to this day, that so many people say Metallica are greedy.
I guess it's easy to label them as greedy, just because they happened to be hugely successful. Metallica have ALWAYS been one of the most giving and fan-friendly bands.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Metallica Joins Spotify, Buries Hatchet With Napster Nemesis
Yeah...my understanding is lars cracked it when he saw songs that he'd not even released yet on napster....it's not unreasonable.
Sean Parker liked to decry labels and the industry for ripping off consumers, but time will remember him as a man who, just like the industry he attacked, stole from artists to make himself rich.
Now we live in a world where there's no motivation for established artists to do anything but play GH packages in vegas and recorded music art is all but irrelevant. Thanks Sean.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Metallica Joins Spotify, Buries Hatchet With Napster Nemesis
The moral argument? That not paying artists by downloading music is right?
And don't tell me about how record labels already give fuck all money to artists....at least they got something...which is more than they got with napster.
And before you guys tell me about how touring pays for everything explain to me how people like Desmond Child will be paid?
That's like me causing a nike slave labourer to not get his $2 a month and saying it's ok to do that cos Nike are already fucking him over 
- metallex78
- Rep: 194
Re: Metallica Joins Spotify, Buries Hatchet With Napster Nemesis
In other words...
They were wrong
Napster and the moral argument won all these years later. You're welcome.
Right, so Metallica were wrong, in letting another company that had nothing to do with them, distribute their music for free? 
And consumers taking an artists music without paying for it is the right "moral" thing?
I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.... 
Re: Metallica Joins Spotify, Buries Hatchet With Napster Nemesis
Free use is horseshit. But so is Metallica's excuse. They're full of goddamn shit and have been since 1999. I remember that period very well, because I was apart of that generation that first discovered internet downloading.
It's ALWAYS about protecting profit. Everything in life comes down to it.
Metallica lost their argument is the ultimate end game. To stay in the game with everyone else, and not look like total dickheads.
If you would've told 15-year old me in 1999 that Metallica would eventually, willingly, do this... i'd of called you crazy. We at the time were arguing this was the way of the future, and that they needed to get on board or they'd be left behind. Instead they did what you expect from the business -- Sued. It turned them instant heel in the business. Nobody wanted to back them, because they felt it was financial suicide, and fans hated their guts, especially Lars. I do think it's ironic in hind sight, no new Metallica output happened during that period, and the band internally was falling to pieces.
Ultimately those of us, like myself, that saw all of this as a business model, and a smart one at that, knew Metallica had to get their fucking head and ass wired together on this. They didn't, until now, or at least in the past few years.
In the end... we've been vindicated.
- metallex78
- Rep: 194
Re: Metallica Joins Spotify, Buries Hatchet With Napster Nemesis
It's ALWAYS about protecting profit. Everything in life comes down to it.
And why shouldn't it be?
Napster provided a way to share music files illegally without the artist gaining ANYTHING from it, and you think it's morally the right thing, because artists shouldn't be gaining profit from THEIR own product...?
I agree that Metallica went the wrong way about it, but I don't think Napster was exactly the business model back in 1999 that something like Spotify is in 2012.
And I agree with all the stuff monkey wrote is his post. I don't think the music industry is in a better place because of free downloads.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Metallica Joins Spotify, Buries Hatchet With Napster Nemesis
The problem is it's not a good business model for most people.
Perhaps a pre-existing band the size of Metallica can fund it's own recordings, use them as a loss-leader by giving them away for free, and recoup the cost by the huge sums they make on tour. But:
1. If the only income stream is live music - how do you compensate songwriters who write songs for other people. Jovi will keep playing "Livin on a Prayer" to stadiums of people making millions, Alice Cooper will bust out "Poison", Ricky Martin will be playing "She Bangs" - but Desmond Child will be homeless and working at wallmart because all the fans torrent the music for free thinking that when they go see Jovi they'll compensate "the artist" that way. Songwriters need mechanical royalties to survive.
2. Bands like NIN that give stuff away all benefited from millions of dollars of marketing in their formative years, maybe you can give stuff away and live off your reputation once you have one...but it's pretty hard to get started without investment....and the net result of this model is no record companies investing....how are kids today going to record the black album? It's just not going to happen cos funding music is like throwing away $.
