Metallica Says It's Sorry About Review Takedowns; Blames Management
from the always-management's-fault dept
Mathew Ingram alerts us to the news that the band Metallica has responded on its own website to the controversy over representatives from the band demanding reviews of the band’s latest album get taken offline. The band’s response is basically to blame its management company:
We were informed that someone at Q Prime (our managers) had made the error of asking a few publications to take down reviews of the rough mixes from the new record that were posted on their sites. Our response was “WHY?!!! Why take down mostly positive reviews of the new material and prevent people from getting psyched about the next record. . . that makes no sense to us!” So after a few rounds of managerial ear spank and sentencing everyone at Q Prime to 20 push-ups each, we figured why not take matters into our own hands and just post the links here on our site.
And, with that, they linked to the reviews. While plausible, the whole thing sounds sketchy at this point. It seems like a weak cop-out to say “oh, it was our managers’ fault” when the band has had so much controversy concerning how it has interacted with the internet community. Besides, even this response rings hollow. The band only seemed concerned that the management team took down “mostly positive reviews,” not the fact that it took down reviews. It’s nice that they have now linked to the reviews, but the fact that this happened in the first place still seems like a problem.
Filed Under: apologies, internet, metallica, reviews, takedowns
Comments on “Metallica Says It's Sorry About Review Takedowns; Blames Management”
…and lets face it, if someone on Youtube had posted several of the songs they’d (Metallica) be running after Youtube themselves and not the one who uploaded it.
Not impressed in the least.
Lawsuits RIAA and the obvious
“Our response was “WHY?!!! Why take down mostly positive reviews of the new material and prevent people from getting psyched about the next record. . . that makes no sense to us!”
Now if they could only draw other sane conclusions, i don’t know like….. Why sue them and force them to give up ownership of our material when clearly people get “psyched” about getting the next song, to the point they buy our other merchandise and come to see us in concert, THAT doesn’t make sense either guys. Think about it. The more places it is, the more copies that exist and have the chance of being spread THE BETTER FOR YOU MORONS !!
My $0.02
Re: Lawsuits RIAA and the obvious
Metallica are the beneficiaries of the old system in which they became superstars and fabulously wealthy. I can understand their reluctance to give up a tit that has given them so much but at some point they need to realize they simply look like doddering assholes.
Playing the Devil's advocate...
It could be that sentence could be restated as, “why take down reviews of new material, most of which happen to be positive, and prevent…”
Full disclosure: I don’t listen to Metallica, never have, so I don’t much care one way or the other.
Re: Playing the Devil's advocate...
Ah, the voice of reason…
Like I said on the original article SCREW METALLICA. Don’t worry guys no one is psyched to hear the next POS you put out. I’m going back to listen to my downloaded copy of Ride The Lightning now.
6=half dozen
Metallica was my go-to music back when I was an Appalachian road warrior, right next to Rage Against the Machine.
I cut them both off over Napster, and this weak sauce will not bring me back.
If Metallica public-domained their entire prior body of work alongside the new album, I’d think about buying it. Maybe.
Seems a bit suspicious on this end
“Besides, even this response rings hollow. The band only seemed concerned that the management team took down “mostly positive reviews,” not the fact that it took down reviews.”
Doesn’t that seem blatantly biased? It’s a fact that most of the reviews were “mostly positive”. Why is stating that fact somehow detrimental to their argument? Are you just hopping on the “Angry at Metallica” bandwagon just to cater to the whining internet horde? Come on Mike, you’re bigger than that.
You, if anyone, seem more concerned with stating something with masked and, quite frankly, petty motives.
Re: Seems a bit suspicious on this end
I think his point is that it’s really only Half an apology, because… they’re only apologizing for taking down the positive reviews, and screw the negative reviews, anyone who doesn’t like us, has no sympathy from us. The alternative would be to allow anyone to comment how they truly feel, and the provided media would allow viewers of both positive and negative reviews, Judge For Themselves. Rather they apologize to half of the crowd and make it seem like they had an epiphany.
Re: Re: Seems a bit suspicious on this end
They never once said that they didn’t want negative reviews.
There weren’t any really negative reviews to begin with. They were stating that factually. And, if you cared to read further:
While we occasionally enjoy reading the various comments, rumors, speculation, reviews, gossip and all the good that the internet brings, rarely do we feel the desire/need to respond to the “blogosphere” . . . hey, everyone is entitled to have their thoughts and opinions, right? However, once we re-surfaced on Tuesday after a few weeks on tour in Europe, we were informed that someone at Q Prime (our managers) had made the error of asking a few publications to take down reviews of the rough mixes from the new record that were posted on their sites. Our response was “WHY?!!! Why take down mostly positive reviews of the new material and prevent people from getting psyched about the next record. . . that makes no sense to us!” So after a few rounds of managerial ear spank and sentencing everyone at Q Prime to 20 push-ups each, we figured why not take matters into our own hands and just post the links here on our site. Kerrang, Metal Hammer, The Quietus.
You see, we have maintained an “in the press” section here on Metallica.com for many years now, posting links to reviews of shows, album and DVD releases, and various other tidbits we’ve come across while surfing around. Some good, some not so good, but we put ’em all up . . . sort of the same way we treat our message boards on this site . . . welcoming all feedback.
So in the spirit of keeping this section current, we’ve put as many of the reviews of the rough mixes of the new record up here as we could find. If we missed any, let us know . . . and in the meantime, we’re always adding, so peruse at your leisure.
They SAID “reviews” without the “mostly good” suffix.
They welcome negative reviews.
And here I was thinking that taking things out of context and reporting blatant bias was for Fox News…
Re: Re: Re: Seems a bit suspicious on this end
I still don’t buy the appology. I think someone pointed out just how horrible PR that was, reminded them of Napster, then suggested shifting the blame.
Re: Re: Re:2 Seems a bit suspicious on this end
I don’t buy the apology either. That doesn’t mean I get to make up what they said, that’s my point in this.
While their apology does seem forced at best, saying that they are not welcoming negative feedback is just a false statement when it’s clear the opposite is true. Also stating that they only welcomed -some- of the reviews is also false (since the last paragraph in their press release concerns adding more reviews to the list). However genuine that may be is up for debate, but taking someone out of context just to make a point is asinine.
Taking what someone says out of context, no matter how demonized they may be (or however much you may despise them), makes any point you were trying to make invalid. That’s my argument.
Re: Re: Re:3 Seems a bit suspicious on this end
While their apology does seem forced at best, saying that they are not welcoming negative feedback is just a false statement when it’s clear the opposite is true. Also stating that they only welcomed -some- of the reviews is also false
I did NOT say that they only welcomed positive reviews. I said that they seemed upset about the fact that it was *good* reviews taken down, rather than the fact that reviews were taken down.
Re: Re: Re:3 Seems a bit suspicious on this end
If that’s your point then you need to point out where they’ve been misquoted.
Re: Seems a bit suspicious on this end
Mom, for the last time, would you knock it off already? Your cover is blown and everyone knows it’s you and Pop writing all those good things about us online.
Re: Re: Seems a bit suspicious on this end
Actually, in that Metallica comedy, I mean documentary, even Lars’ dad says their new stuff sucks!
Seriously though, if they would just write a few songs over 60 bpm they would instantly redeem themselves… i miss battery… sniff sniff
I don’t think there’s any way they come out looking good. Either it’s all a publicity stunt (do something stupid then apologize to keep your name in the news) or else it’s a sign of how far behind the times they are (hint, it’s the twenty-FIRST century).
Did they fire them ?
Nope ?
Then nothing came of it.
Anyone who ever liked Metallica in the first place is a complete retard. Yes, I mean you.
Re: Re:
Nice try, troll.
Re: Re:
Wow, you sure showed me.
No offense, but “And Justice for all” is in my opinion the best Metal album ever made, when I first heard “One”, it changed my life and my musical preferences forever!!
Of course, when i heard “St Anger”, I tore up my 150 dollars worth of Metallica tickets and tossed them out the window. Not to mention the whole Napster fiasco before it. As mad as I am about what they’ve become, they are forever immortalized as Metal gods for what they did to the Metal scene, and as such they get my respect.
And I think they are actually trying to get back down from their high horse and connect with their audience again like old times, so give them the benefit of the doubt and stop whining eveytime you hear their name, ok?
Who or what is Metallica?
Weren’t they famous a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time ago? Or is that a brand name for some sort of car polish?
No names? Just an anonymous “someone”? And why haven’t Q Prime’s other clients been having this problem with them? Sounds like a bunch of bull to me.
Really?
Put your hands up, all those who seriously believe people who make claims to the effect that after listening to Metallica and buying their albums for years, they all of a sudden stopped short after the Napster debacle. Come right out and admit it guys, you downloaded their stuff back then (when they were good), and you listen to it even now (possibly behind closed doors so as not to look uncool, but still…) Why make grandiose claims to the effect that ever since the day Napster died, you’ve never ever listened to Metallica since. Yeah right!
Re: Really?
Actually out of spite for the napster thing i make sure to d/l everything i can from Metallica, and listen to it all the time, and i give it to my friends when they ask too.
An artist’s management works for the artist, not the other way around. Does anyone really think the management would take any action without permission? And even if they did, it’s still the artist’s fault for hiring the idiots in the first place.
I think you guys are being a little nitpicky. Obviously, that’s on Metallica for being such idiots. I do agree that the apology seems a little lukewarm, not to mention, it sounds like Lars wrote it himself. It just goes to prove they don’t get it and never will. The damage is done boys.
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOO to see how many people loving metallica around the world they are an ideology and you just stay behind them and behind the life and criticize and judge though you cant just compose one of their note i bet everyone who open his mouth wiiiidely ” can you give like metallica MUSIC or build like metallica career ? ” so dont waste your time on writing nothing .
Good Business
ugg hihg boots for womens