Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I noticed d-man's sig whilst browsing this forum and a dormant hatred awoke in me. That's right, I fucking hate Metallica. Fuck those arrogant, greedy pricks. They sue their fans for downloading their music. Since their sales dropped around the time that napster came into existence, they figured that must be the reason. It's not. The real reason is that, ever since about '98, with the release of their Garbage, Inc., they have sucked massive balls. They passed their prime about ten years ago and have since begun suing their fans to draw attention away from that fact. But if anyone actually downloaded their newer garbage and listened to it, they might realize that. They've made billions of dollars over the past 20 years and they think that's just not quite enough. I remember in an interview earlier this year, James Hetfield said, "We have to be able to feed our children." Well, excuse me, Mr. Hetfield, but unless you are feeding your kids a daily diet of Porsche 911s and solid gold dildos, I'm sure you will have no problem getting by. And I hardly think supporting Lars' fine art addiction qualifies as feeding his children. Besides, record labels only pay the artist about 1% of record sales and run off with the rest of it. Most of the artists' income comes from merchandising and concert sales, and Metallica's concerts start at about $125 a pop (at least that's how much it was last time they were here) and they usually sell out. So where the fuck does their trouble feeding their children come in? My way of thinking is, if I wasn't even considering buying their piece of shit album anyway, how does downloading it take away any money? But then again, I wouldn't even bother downloading their piece of shit album, because it would be a waste of time, and as they say, time is money, so I'd be wasting about the same amount of money as I would if I bought the fucking thing.

Also, this site has some interesting insight that connects James Hetfield's hair to Metallica's goodness: http://www.tarsierjungle.net/hetfield/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,699 Posts
metallica from several years ago ruled. there was none better in my opinion. master of puppets is one of the greatest cd's ever made. i got to see them live in 97, i think, and they even set a dude on fire and had him run across the stage. awesome live show.

but everything you said is right on. they have certainly went down hill fast. i haven't bothered to even download anything of their's. any group that talks so much shit on their fans deserves to play to empty houses. the people that do show up, do so to hear the old stuff, atleast that is why we went.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
29,365 Posts
Sales dropped because of their latest releases were shit compared to their earlier ones.
Garage Inc. was a re-issue from the mid 80's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,935 Posts
Metallica sued because one of their songs leaked out on to the net, before it was even finished. (I Disapear, from the MI:2 soundtrack). I would be pissed too.

As far as released stuff goes, they could care less. Just look at sites like metallicavault.com. They give away awesome shows for free. And as far as the fans go, they treat them like kings. Just watch any video on MetOnTour.com, and see how much they hang out with the fans. It's all one big clique basically.

Besides that, I still think they kick ass. They're one of the top concert draws in the world for a reason.

PS: Garage Inc wasn't a reissue. The first CD had covers they never did before, and the second CD contained the original Garage Days Re-Revisted tracks, the Motorhead tracks from the Hero of the Day single, and some extra covers that were featured as bonus tracks on previous albums and singles.

Tons more to say...I'm just gonna wait for more people to reply.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,006 Posts
St. Anger was a pile of shit and Garage Inc. was a cover album, but apart from that Metallica pretty much started the Metal revolution (with exception to Black Sabbath who were technically the first metal band) with excellent albums such as Master of Puppets, The Black Album and Re-load (to a lesser extent). I do not agree with their previous fight against Napster but from a musical standpoint, they were probably one of the greatest metal bands of all time and i don't think its fair that people piss on them just cause they had 1 bad album and disliked Napster.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,935 Posts
Blame St. Anger on Lars. He didn't want solos. Besides that, I liked St. Anger. It took a while, but it grew on me. The Unnamed Feeling is probably my favorite song from the album.

Bob and Kirk fought with Lars to put solos in, but Lars wants to be 'trendy' I guess.

I think it's all up to how the next album does to see where Metallica is going. They'll be a full band when this album is released, and hopefully Lars will release that the fans want solos. As well, Trujillo should be able to contribute a lot, since he's a good bass player.

And another thing to back up the fact that they don't care about released stuff being traded... they dropped the lawsuits themselves. They (LARS ;)) probably realised that in the end the band was suffering more than benefiting. Do you see them suing Kazaa or w/e file sharing programs that are out there now? Nope. Hell, they even encourage fans to bring in recording equipment so they can record live concerts and trade with other people and shit. Pretty cool if you ask me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,006 Posts
^ i always wondered why St. Anger had no solos on it. Thanks D-Man, now i can bitch directly at Lars and not Metallica for my dislike of St. Anger.

Whats this bullshit about "suing their fans" ? I know they sued Napster but i don't remember them "suing fans".....can someone explain this crap to me ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
I agree that their old stuff was good, but like most other bands, they have really degenerated over the years, mostly due to Lars being a royal fucking douche. Lars is also the reason they have been so fucking lawsuit-happy in the past few years, so I guess I can lay most of the blame on Lars, but I also have to put some on the others for not bitch-slapping his dumbass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,935 Posts
The fan thing, they didn't sue any fans. You probably heard about a list of names though. Napster gave Metallica a list of names of people that had their accounts deleted for swapping Metallica songs. Didn't really work though, because people would just spell file names wrong and still share them.

As far as the lawsuit happy thing goes...All I know of is the Napster thing, and like two suits against perfume/make up companies for calling their product "Metallica." (which makes sense, I would sue to if someone used by name for a perfume, that's gay)

And then there were the hoax lawsuits...like this one band from Alberta or something said Metallica was suing him for using the E and F chords...that was obvioulsly bogus.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
29,365 Posts
D-Man said:
PS: Garage Inc wasn't a reissue.
Sorry for not being technical. I meant Garage Days which was first released in the late 80's, and was re-issued in the Garage Inc CD package.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,035 Posts
D-Man said:
As far as the lawsuit happy thing goes...All I know of is the Napster thing, and like two suits against perfume/make up companies for calling their product "Metallica." (which makes sense, I would sue to if someone used by name for a perfume, that's gay)
I understand them suing Napster and stuff. That's obvious. But one thing I didn't agree with was when they got all pissy about a popular make-up company naming a nail polish color "Metalica". Come on...just because they named their band Metallica doesn't mean no one else can ever use the word.(Don't get into copyrights...it still makes no sense) I mean, it's just the word metallic, with an A at the end. It's not like its a very original word. I dunno...I just thought it was lame trying to take legal action over a make-up company producing a nail polish color called Metallica.:rolleyes:
 

·
The Old Man
Joined
·
2,046 Posts
Kaneanite said:
I understand them suing Napster and stuff. That's obvious. But one thing I didn't agree with was when they got all pissy about a popular make-up company naming a nail polish color "Metalica". Come on...just because they named their band Metallica doesn't mean no one else can ever use the word.(Don't get into copyrights...it still makes no sense) I mean, it's just the word metallic, with an A at the end. It's not like its a very original word. I dunno...I just thought it was lame trying to take legal action over a make-up company producing a nail polish color called Metallica.:rolleyes:
C'mon, be honest now...you felt less feminine wearing a colour named after a heavy metal band didn't you?
:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
They sued a canadian band whose name was MetallicUGH! which was probably named that because they bet on whether or not they would sue them over it. I wish I could've got in on that action.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,935 Posts
I've never heard of that one. I know they did sue a Canadian band that called themselves "Metallica," though. They even said on the radio they know they could get sued for it, and when they did get sued, they acted all bitchy and stuff.

Most of these lawsuits aren't even over money aways, just over the rights to the name. It's not like they're gaining money or anything.

And you better be sorry Rajah. VERY SORRY.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top