__________________ I've felt the hate rise up in me
Kneel down and clear the stone of leaves
I wander out where you can't see
Inside my shell I wait and bleed....
I think "Trust" is great, and very old school Megadeth. But look at your post. How many of those made it to radio? Even if they all did, 9 or 10 songs over 20 years? They've just been mediocre. True to the game, but not groundbreaking in any aspect other than cover art, IMO.
Metallica just has mass appeal, and it's not a "mainstream or not" arguement. You couldn't have contained a band like Metallica bacj in the mid 80's. They were just too ****ing big. The lyrics were literally dominating. I for one consider myself totally unworthy of listening to "...And Justice For All" on repeat, although I've done it many times. Look.
Who could have thought someone could so eloquently, lyrically define the state of mental instability, being perfectly sane themselves, and make it sound so ****ing REAL? You know? Like Lars said in SKOM, "The only word that comes to mind is..****! FUUUUUUUUUUUCK!"
Lyrics like that just own me. Those lyrics, a sinister look, having the metal world in a stranglehold, and a pair of guitar virtuosos at what is otherwise an all time LOW in rock and roll music, Metallica just pressed their foot down a little harder on the throat of the industry, and followed it up 3 years later with what *I* consider an equally as strong album.
I just don't see Megadeth as contention in any respect, other than in a drinking game between the two, lol.
Nah, they were whining about napster a while ago, because they were pissed off at the time that their music wasn't worth buying, only downloading. I lost all respect for them with that, just showed that they were only about the money.
They are most deffinatley not all about the money, if they were then sureley they would have quit while they were ahead... they have made their fortune its time to give it all up after 24 years...
maybe they just like making music and have the right to protect the music they make, and get credit for it...
No, that's not what happened. That's the reason you want to believe.
Which isn't a good way to go.
Considering Lars has actually told people not to buy their albums before, I'd say they aren't all about the money. They want to get paid for their job, who doesn't? They never did anything wrong.
If their music wasn't worth buying, people downloaded it and still complained coz people are the whiney little bitches, not Metallica.
They never did anything wrong, just bitched too much about something silly. Especially Lars, the biggest ***** of them all. Crying like a whore who just found out she got aids. They'd be getting money either way, live shows are where bands get most of their money. They're just greedy.
What did people complain about? People complained about their shitty music even when downloading it for free? Guess their music is even shittier then I thought.
As for Metallica being bitchy, Mustaine spent his career whining about being second to them. Says alot for your argument.
Right after the fanbase shit on them as Load was released. He said "If you're gonna stop listening to us because of the way we dress or because of our hair, if you're gonna stop listening to us because we changed, then we don't want you listening to our music anyway."
And as anyone who knows, knows, it's where bands lose money also. So imagine a small band paying to put out an album and all it's costs, paying to tour and all that. Then not getting anything back because idiots won't go out and support them, just download? They don't have the kind of money to fight those things, Metallica do. They did and they won. Fred Durst fought FOR Napster, coincidence that he doesn't care if people download his shit as long as he's still relevant? No.
If it's worth your time to download and listen to the whole way through, it's worth buying. Don't like it? Keep the receipt and get a refund. Metallica aren't making money, you're not losing money. At the same time, you're not gaining something for free that you should be paying for and bands aren't getting ripped off. Everyone's happy. Sadly, everyone's also lazy.
It's happening with NIN. People are downloading the album now coz "I preordered it. So it's ok." Then when they finally get the album, they'll put it in and none of it will be new music, because they're impatient c*nts. Then they'll all crucify Trent for "letting us down".
Don't like the music? Complaining about how it sucks? Do us all a favour and stop listening.
"Right after the fanbase shit on them as Load was released. He said "If you're gonna stop listening to us because of the way we dress or because of our hair, if you're gonna stop listening to us because we changed, then we don't want you listening to our music anyway.""
Guess instead of that, they downloaded music for free, either way, same result. Still no reason to *****.
"And as anyone who knows, knows, it's where bands lose money also. So imagine a small band paying to put out an album and all it's costs, paying to tour and all that. Then not getting anything back because idiots won't go out and support them, just download? They don't have the kind of money to fight those things, Metallica do. They did and they won. Fred Durst fought FOR Napster, coincidence that he doesn't care if people download his shit as long as he's still relevant? No."
Napster helped small bands more then it hurt them, it gets them into the publics eye in a fast, and effective way. It's the best way for a small, fincancially poor band to get noticed. Put their music up on napster, or another program, so people can download some of their songs and see if they like them. If they do, people will often buy their albums, see them live, and get them played on the radio or TV.
If it weren't for napster, I'd have never heard of Dredg. I heard they were a good band, so I downloaded a few of their songs, thought they were awesome, went out and bought their CD. This is how a lot of people discovered Dredg. Radio stations weren't playing their music, so the only way to sample their music is to straight out buy their cd blindly, or download some songs. It worked well for them, and they're not the only band that had positive effects occur from people downloading their music for free.
The only people it hurt was shitty, over the hill bands like Metallica. Most of the people who downloaded their music wouldn't have bought their CD's to begin with, so it doesn't matter, they're still not getting the money of most of those people.
Yeah, coz after you work hard to produce an album that you're happy with, the coolest thing a "fan" could do is take it without paying and then ***** about it. If you're a fan, buy it. Then if it sucks to you, get your money back. There's no excuse for acting like a mouldy vagina.
Yeah, I'll agree that the net is an incredible tool for music news, updates, distribution and such. The thing is, people use that to horrid degrees and it damages bands. No offence but calling a station and saying "Play this" doesn't compensate for you downloading something you should have paid for.
Yeah exactly. You did the good thing. Using the net to an advantage and then doing the right thing and supporting the band by purchasing the CDs. My argument is that you shouldn't download an album of a band that is quite clearly known, just to *****. In this case, if you like Metallica, buy the album. Don't download it, continue listening to it and whine, because you are losing absolutely nothing. Metallica are losing money. Of course they don't need to worry about record sales but it's still wrong, and it shouldn't happen. If you wanna hear the album, pay for it. If you think it sucks, take it back, get your money and never listen to it again. Don't see the big deal.
Nice and all, but I'm way over here with my point. Join me.
As I said above, if you wanna hear Metallica's album. Buy it. Not a huge deal. If it sucks, you can refund it. Nothing is lost, nothing is stolen.
"Yeah, coz after you work hard to produce an album that you're happy with, the coolest thing a "fan" could do is take it without paying and then ***** about it. If you're a fan, buy it. Then if it sucks to you, get your money back. There's no excuse for acting like a mouldy vagina."
That's the thing, most of these people obviously weren't fans to begin with, they probably said "oh, new metallica, i'll download it and give it a try" then they downloaded it and didn't like it, as such, they didn't buy the music afterwards. Had metallica made good music people would have turned around and bought it, rather then saying it's shitty.
"Nice and all, but I'm way over here with my point. Join me.
As I said above, if you wanna hear Metallica's album. Buy it. Not a huge deal. If it sucks, you can refund it. Nothing is lost, nothing is stolen."
Time is lost, it would take a considerable amount of time to go to the store, buy a cd blindly, listen to it, and then take it back because you didn't like it. Makes more sense just click a few buttons and download some of their songs to decide whether their cd is actually worth buying or not. Also, there are a lot of stores (here in the states at least) that have this "if it's open you can't get a full refund" policy. So it makes it even more of a pain in the ass to sample music by blindly buying cd's, unfortunately..
Bottom line is, people will always, ALWAYS figure out a way to trade music for free, withouth actually buying cd's. This is never going to change. Had Metallica made good music, people would have downloaded their songs and bought their music after hearing it, the fact that people bitched about how shitty some songs are that they downloaded for free only backs up my opinion that Metallica = shitty music, free or not.
If it's worth your time to download and listen to, it's worth buying. You aren't losing money if you don't like it, because you can get it back. You know as well as I do that the majority of downloaders mentalities is "Well........I have it now.......what's the point in paying for it?" Which is where it all goes wrong. People wouldn't have bought it either way, because some people don't give a shit whether albums are great or mediocre, they won't pay for them. So that's why paying for them IS important.
So people making music, spending money to make music and working hard to make music, have to suffer because most people won't get off their fat asses to go to the record store? That's absolutely ridiculous. You're living in a fantasy world if you think people always download albums and then rush out to buy the CD, that is a rarity. People download, love it, then think...."well I could go pay money to have what I already have....why?" To do so is wrong. Why buy it? Because it's decent and right, moreover, it's respectful.
Again, wrong.
You are operating under the assumption that people would have gone and bought the music anyway. I know about 20 people who listen to Dredg, own all the material.....downloaded. They love the music. What happened to your theory? I thought good downloads equated to people buying the album as a result? False. People bitched because they downloaded the album, hated it, kept listening and kept bitching. The worst thing is, half of those actually go on to like the album and still not buy it.
Buy the album, then refund if you don't like it. Simple.
"So people making music, spending money to make music and working hard to make music, have to suffer because most people won't get off their fat asses to go to the record store? That's absolutely ridiculous. You're living in a fantasy world if you think people always download albums and then rush out to buy the CD, that is a rarity. People download, love it, then think...."well I could go pay money to have what I already have....why?" To do so is wrong. Why buy it? Because it's decent and right, moreover, it's respectful."
All the people I know personally do buy cd's if they like the music they've downloaded, more people do it then you think. I'm not denying there will always be the people who will refuse too, whether they like it or not, all I'm saying is that they aren't the vast majority.
As I said, here in the states most stores have a policy where if you open a cd, you can't return it for money. And even so, you know as well as I do, people are lazy, they won't go buy a cd then return it just because it's the right thing to do. It's a waste of time, and, here in the states, money, since we can't get a full refund if it's opened.
"Again, wrong.
You are operating under the assumption that people would have gone and bought the music anyway. I know about 20 people who listen to Dredg, own all the material.....downloaded. They love the music. What happened to your theory? I thought good downloads equated to people buying the album as a result? False. People bitched because they downloaded the album, hated it, kept listening and kept bitching. The worst thing is, half of those actually go on to like the album and still not buy it.
Buy the album, then refund if you don't like it. Simple."
All I know is I know a good number of people who love dredg and own their cd's, and have gone to their live show, after having downloaded their music initially. As I said, there will always be people who are too cheap to buy music, regaurdless of whether they like it. The thing is, no one is ever going to stop this from happening, as I said, people will always find ways to get music for free if they don't want to pay for it.
Also, the people didn't ***** about dredg's music after downloading it for free, this is because dredg is good, metallica has been shitty for years now, they were great at one time, now they're just aging rockers trying to hold onto their glory and trying to keep the money coming in.
Yeah but people suck anyway, and I'm sure we agree there.
Secondly, you cannot blame Metallica for people not buying their album. They control what they put out there, not who buys it. It's not about crappy music, because as we've established it could be Dredg or Tool, people still won't buy it. Although Tool have never been leaked.
Not only is that a misconception about Metallica, but you're being extremely ignorant if you think just because Metallica put out music that some people don't like, they deserve to be ripped off. If you download something from free and you don't like it, the most you have the right to be doing is saying that you're disappointed with it. I'm sick of everyone acting like the either had a great album owed to them, or that they lost alot of money.
You downloaded and stole, pretty much, an album. You didn't like it, so don't listen to the damn thing. You dislike Metallica, yes we get it. Shut up. "Oh man this song sucks. Oh no, what have they done. Infact I'm gonna listen to it repeatedly. Hey wait...I kinda like these songs now." "Buying the album?" "Nah."
"Secondly, you cannot blame Metallica for people not buying their album. They control what they put out there, not who buys it. It's not about crappy music, because as we've established it could be Dredg or Tool, people still won't buy it. Although Tool have never been leaked."
of course I can blame metallica for people not buying their music. Who else is to blame? It's perfectly reasonable to blame the artist for poor sales. People who make bad music are soley to blame for poor sales. They just used the napster thing as an excuse for shitty sales of their crappy music. Chances are, their CD wouldn't have sold well anyways, because, yes, it was shitty. Just like I can blame a shitty film maker for people not seeing his movie, or a shitty sports team for people not going to go see them play. It's entirely their fault. The napster thing is just a theorized excuse that has no factuality behind it. (Oh, it's napster that's to blame for our bad sales!, we can't prove that, but it's true!) All we know for sure is that their album sold poorly, it's their fault. During this time when napster was huge, there were numerous other musicians who sold millions of albums, because people liked their music, why didn't napster destroy their sales? Because their music was good, and people liked it, as such, a lot of people purchased their music. Good music will always sell, people will always buy it, no matter what.
"Not only is that a misconception about Metallica, but you're being extremely ignorant if you think just because Metallica put out music that some people don't like, they deserve to be ripped off. If you download something from free and you don't like it, the most you have the right to be doing is saying that you're disappointed with it. I'm sick of everyone acting like the either had a great album owed to them, or that they lost alot of money."
Nah, I don't think metallica deserve to get their music stolen, I don't think anyone deserves that, which is why I never really was into downloading music, I enjoyed buying cd's, the only time I'd download music is if it's from a band I don't really know that well, and that I've only heard of, as such, I'll download some of their songs, and if they're good, buy their cd, if they suck, oh well, I gave them a shot and they failed.
the way they bitched about it really annoyed me. it's like those pussy athletes who complain about only getting 20 million dollars a season because they want 30 million a season. They should shut up and just be happy they're getting paid at all to do what they "love". They got rich off of making music, they're the last band that should complain about people downloading their crappy music, their still making millions of dollars, people still know it's their music, and people will still see them live. Be happy you're living the dream of so many people, if you want your music to sell well, make good music.
__________________
Last edited by BackFire on Apr 15th, 2005 at 02:58 AM
KMC Community Forums
Apr 11th, 2005 08:30 PM
i think you got it the wrong way round BF!
