I believe back then they thought suing Napster was the best possible course of action. I don't really mind them doing so and can understand their motives. These days 90% of MP3 files are shared on torrents and can be downloaded for free, which is not really good for small bands wanting to earn some money off their work.

22?

That's one place my collection hasn't stretched out into... early metallica - I really should check some of their early stuff out, considering everyone most definitely regards their earliest stuff their heyday...

Oh yes, had they stopped after "...And Justice For All" they would have been a damn near perfect metal band in my opinion. However that has not been the case.

There is a difference between fanbase and musicians. Fanbase 'rejuvenates' itself, new kids start listening to the old stuff and expect all of the albums to sound the same. Musicians don't. They age and with maturity they tend to look for different styles..and guess what, if it happens to a rock/metal band, they'll get critisized, called sellouts/washouts etc..

I think it depends. There are some bands who change a lot and still manage to retain their fans. The key is making sure that you are still making good music as you change.

Yeah but the definition of "good music" is very subjective. As I said, I really liked Load/Reload especially what James did with the vocals ie. the arrangments etc. but some people hated it plain and simple and trashed it all over the internet.

Same could be said about St. Anger. Some people like the raw sound some people were like, wtf?

I don't think you can keep all of your fanbase unless you're not willing to take any chances and play it safe and even that doesn't guarantee a success.

i like Metallica allot and the fact that they sewed Napster dose not affect me in anyway shape or form i don't care about that all i car about is the music and how good it is.

I perosnally wasn'tr a big fan of Metallica but St. Anger was the first of their albums I paid attention to in a big way - I liked the whole rpemise of the albums lyrical concepts, and the new sound was raw and refreshing in my opinion... and for some reason I have a deep and affecting love of albums that piss off a band's die hard fanbase.... i dunno what it is... I guess I am just a bastard underneath it all.... hahahahahaha

the only good song from that album was envisable kid i thought. the most anoying part of the album was the drums they were just terrible

The "ping" to the drum sound was a bit distracting, I have to agree - if they could hacve mixed that down, it would have been a good thing...


Also they shouldn't have been as nazi as they were with the whole no guitar solos thing... quite a few of the songs on St. Anger would have definitely been augmented by a good, slammin' guitar solo...

Actually, there's a Youtube video of Lars explaining the drum sound on St. Anger. He basically loosened up the snare drum wires and that was it.

Thats probably the first time anyone's ever done that. I take back all the bad things I said about him. What a creative genius.:D

It's an effect that works pretty well in places and it works well on St. Anger too - it just gets a bit repetetive after listening to it for as while - perhaps i need to distract my ears from that sound when I listen.....

honestly, i'm with the first post in here. I mean i respect metallica on some level but at the same time, they represent everything i hate about music. They are corporate sell-outs. I mean I'm a bit of an extremist because i don't think any artist should be looking to make more than a liveable wage off of their music. Of course, musicians becoming wealthy comes with the larger labels and any degree of higher popularity which can be understood. But, when a band is worth near the hundred million dollar mark (if not more) and is leading a front against peer to peer networking or refusing to play shows due to low ticket sales, the band becomes just low and greedy.

Honestly, i think metallica makes music that is watered down and boring. I would rather play a metallica album than "rock-a-bye-baby," which makes it easy for me to say this stuff. But still, even if you like Metallica can't you at least admit what outright douchebags they are?

Money is not what is important here! Their music is copyrighted. Therefore it is illegal to download for free. If a band feels strongly about that it should make no difference whether they are millionaires or struggling to make ends meet. I download so again, I'm not trying to be Mr. High and Mighty but what Lars Ulrich did was sue what he saw as the source of millions of people being able to download HIS music for free without his permission and set the ball rolling for Napster being closed down/restricted. Most people hate Lars Ulrich because he took away something they could use to download music so that they didnt have to put their hand in their pocket. Boo hoo.

And gigs often get cancelled due to low ticket sales.

I guess Im just struggling to see the connections between those two examples and "sell outs".

of course they are sell outs, they care more about making money than making music. there is an entire movement "musicians for p2p sharing" that supports torrenting, limewire etc. because it is about getting music out there not making money and besides how much does an artist make off of their record sales? like 5%? and Metallica is going to get thier panties in a bunch over 5% or 10% of sales? they.are.sell.outs.

First of all I didnt say that Metallica were sell outs. Read again. And for the interests of fairness I also didnt say that they werent.

What I did say however is you still havent really explained WHY Metallica are sell outs. They sold out because they tried to stop their music being illegally traded?

Hey, can you come work for me for free? I think you already have enough money.

i don't see the problem people make out of p2p sharing. most people will buy a cd if they like it. i have downloaded a lot of music but i still go out and buy the cds of bands i like. i have found a bunch of bands that if i didn't find it online i probably would have never even heard of. i don't see anyting wrong with it. if you only dl and never buy a cd well you probably wouldn't have bought the cd anyways even if you didn't dl music.

metallica are huge sellouts. there are differing opinions on the matter but you can't honestly tell me that they are in it for the music and not money. they put out 4 great albums and have ridden that train into the ground making mediocre music at best since then. yes they sue napster but they also went after the end users as well, their fans. i don't believe any of the fans got sued but they were banned from sites. they then produce some kind of monster which they might as well of called metallica's reality show. they are an overrated band by far and in my opinion are sellouts because they are driven by money.

Why would they be in it for the money? According to people in this thread they have so much money that they don't need any more.

lol you got a point there

I dont agree with everything you say on this matter but I thank the Lord that you actually backed your opinion up with something.

I dont think SKOM made them sell outs. I understand a lot of people do not like the content but the idea itself I dont think makes them sell outs. Its a documentary, it happens.

St. Anger is the best example I can find if you're going to call Metallica sell outs. You could look at the content of the record as being directed towards popular trends and the aim being to capatlise on the current market? I'm not saying that is fact but theres an argument to be had there.

Some bands find themselves in sudden positions of popularity that in turn brings in a lot of money. Some bands enjoy making money. To sell out though you have to sell your principles down the river in favour of making money which is why I have never and will never agree with those who claim the whole Napster dispute makes Metallica sell outs. If you want to claim something else they have done makes them sell outs then go for it, you may have a point.

for me it's just a combination of everything they've done over the last decade that pisses me off about them. people have to many meanings for the word sell out to make a valid point as to why they are sell outs.

they went from making great albums to what, doing covers, adding a symphony, st. anger, and yet they are still held on such a high pedastal i think is what annoys me most about them. pretty much lars just pisses me off.

as far as some kind of monster. i don't know if i agree entirely with it being a documentary. i enjoy most documentaries but when you bring in a therapist to resolve issues and the whole dave mustaine thing it just reminds me of all the stupid drama in reality shows these days. in my opinion that drama should have been left out. leave that for a behind the music.

just on a side note. i don't claim to be a big metallica fan. i'm 29 so the first album i even bought of there's was the black album i think. i was more into pantera at that time as far as metal goes. i will also say that i do have all of their albums as there is at least one or two on each album that i do actually like. but i do think they are extremely overrated.

Hmm, but Metallica had the film crew follow them around for quite a long period of time so everything that happened in that time (hiring the therapist, meeting with Mustaine) was captured on film. Its still a documentary.

Their music has certainly suffered over the years. Load was average at best, Reload was disappointing, Garage Inc was un-neccessary and St. Anger was ****. Personally I thought S&M was absolutely beautiful.

Their newer stuff may have won them a few younger fans but if Metallica are still "held on such a high pededstal" I would say its because of their older stuff really.

How would you define the term 'sell out'?

Are they really put up on a high pedestal? Everyone I talk to either thinks they haven't done anything worthwhile in about twenty years or just flat out thinks they suck.

Garage, Inc was merely a compilation of their many covers that hark back to their earliest days rehearsing and I think it's a great compilation and I don't think it was un-necessary at all. Many fans at this point of release had never even heard the B side of Creeping Death 12" for example.

I know it's not a huge point concerning the bands progress but it's an album I love TBH.

Isn't it supposed to be the follow up to Garage Days Re-Revisited?

Really? I guess it did offer up some of the older stuff, maybe to fans who didnt know anything pre Black album too but I guess I have a habit of delving into B sides which may explain my indifference when it comes to B sides/demo compilations.

No. Garage Inc is an accumalation of every cover they had done until that point.

Oh. So does it have all of Garage Days Re-Revisited on it then?

I know we are digressing slowly but Metallica were always at their best on an organic level. The more thought that went in the more they lost their appeal. It's a simple cover but this is how great they were at covers:

It sure does.

Politics aside, musically; metallica are boring. I watched their last video, 'the day that never comes' and I have to say it was painful to sit through. It's just pure egotistical nonsense - ridiculously long (not to mention boring) guitar interludes, the unnecessary outburst of heaviness in the middle of the song and not to mention the 'epic' video... no thank you!

My least favourite over-rated band - alongside the Red Hot Chili Peppers...

They ARE boring. They werent boring. Metallica are wholly instrumental in Metal becoming mainstream. Good or bad. actually-bad lol

You pretty much just summed up all of my feelings about Metallica.

I have only a passing interest in them, mainly because I thought St. Anger stood out as a different album, and i actually thought it took a bit of guts to actually put that album out there...

... To hear that they went "back to their roots" on their most recent album, though kinda makes me feel like they dulled down any promise of reinvention St. Anger could have been offering...
...shame about that...

I always did think they copped a bit too much stick for defending their intellectual property.

I kind of always felt like the first wave of rampant mp3 dowloading, Napster etc, was as much a story of greedy fans who wanted music for free as one about greedy record companies...
Ya see, that dude holding that guitar that you supposedly admire... he needs to eat. Now he is making the music you love full time and promoting it, but you don't wanna give him or her a red cent for the works he / she is producing. There is something inherently wrong with that economic model, ya know?

I'm not sure how many red cents he was getting anyway.

I think musicians are making more money now that we have more access.

I can think of a handful of bands that wouldn't have had anything if the hit parader of idiot grunge bands were still out there willing to suck corporate **** for 3 seconds of fame.

"hey wanna pretend your childhood sucked and wear teenagers clothes until we send you back to AutoZone?"

The internet will deliver us from awful.

Indeed, it's the red cents that are more valuable,l not the boring copper colored ones...hehehehehe...


Yes I realise I just tore my own terminology up - God I need sleep...

.... and beer...