Metallica Kills Early Reviews of Upcoming Album
Blue_Nose @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:23 am
Oh, Metallica, why can't you get it right? The band seemed to have learned somewhat from the dark days of the Napster debacle by offering fans online access to pre-release material and in-studio video footage, but now it has apparently unleashed another potentially damaging fiasco upon itself by forcing bloggers to take down reviews of their upcoming album.
Metallica representatives played the album for The Quietus contributor "Bob Mulhouse" in London last Wednesday, after he did what one would expect: he posted a review on his blog. They did, after all, invite him to listen to it, knowing that he reviewed music online. Soon thereafter, the band's management had the review expunged from the internet, along with other early reviews that were a result of the same listening party.
"Metallica held an album listening party for selected music journalists in London this Wednesday past," Quietus editor Luke Turner told Blinded by the Hype (via Idolator). "One of the writers was kind enough to write a piece about the album which, if you were lucky enough to read it before it was taken down, was full of praise about a return to form. At no point was the writer ask[ed] to sign a non-disclosure agreement. The Quietus and other websites ran pieces on the album, but were quickly contacted by Metallica's management via a third party and told to remove the articles."
Let me get this straight... Metallica held a listening party for music reviewers and was surprised when some of them wrote reviews? That has to be a public relations first.
Update: Some sources say that Metallica's representatives requested that the reviews were taken down because the listening party heard an early mix of the album. It's still unclear why Metallica's management didn't require the reviewers to sign non-disclosure agreements if they didn't want them to write about it.
"The Quietus kept our article up the longest and, as no non-disclosure agreement had been signed, [was] not prepared to remove it merely due to the demands of Metallica's management," Turner continued. "We only eventually removed the article earlier today to protect the professional interests of the writer concerned (the piece was written anonymously)."
Ironically, the offending review wasn't even negative: "This album could be good, or it could be mediocre – too much depends on the other four songs to make a call at this point."
Or, it won't matter because Metallica's foot is even bigger than its mouth.
Metallica representatives played the album for The Quietus contributor "Bob Mulhouse" in London last Wednesday, after he did what one would expect: he posted a review on his blog. They did, after all, invite him to listen to it, knowing that he reviewed music online. Soon thereafter, the band's management had the review expunged from the internet, along with other early reviews that were a result of the same listening party.
"Metallica held an album listening party for selected music journalists in London this Wednesday past," Quietus editor Luke Turner told Blinded by the Hype (via Idolator). "One of the writers was kind enough to write a piece about the album which, if you were lucky enough to read it before it was taken down, was full of praise about a return to form. At no point was the writer ask[ed] to sign a non-disclosure agreement. The Quietus and other websites ran pieces on the album, but were quickly contacted by Metallica's management via a third party and told to remove the articles."
Let me get this straight... Metallica held a listening party for music reviewers and was surprised when some of them wrote reviews? That has to be a public relations first.
Update: Some sources say that Metallica's representatives requested that the reviews were taken down because the listening party heard an early mix of the album. It's still unclear why Metallica's management didn't require the reviewers to sign non-disclosure agreements if they didn't want them to write about it.
"The Quietus kept our article up the longest and, as no non-disclosure agreement had been signed, [was] not prepared to remove it merely due to the demands of Metallica's management," Turner continued. "We only eventually removed the article earlier today to protect the professional interests of the writer concerned (the piece was written anonymously)."
Ironically, the offending review wasn't even negative: "This album could be good, or it could be mediocre – too much depends on the other four songs to make a call at this point."
Or, it won't matter because Metallica's foot is even bigger than its mouth.
Hey Metallica, there's this hot new trend making its rounds these days; people are calling it "not being fucking retarded", you should check it out.
canuckns @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 11:06 am
I gave up on Metallica a long time ago. Nice to see nothing has changed with these assahts.
Scape @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 11:14 am
What a bunch of morons. No wonder ticketmaster can have such a monopoly with clowns like those for artists who don't have the sense to see they are being played for fools because they are blind by their own greed and massive egos.
xerxes @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 11:28 am
You could almost understand their reaction if it was a shit review, but it wasn't; it was a good review. The reviewer was right about a return to form for Metallica in more ways than one.
Zipperfish @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:14 pm
Ever since the Napster fiasco and (even worse) their cover of "Whiskey in the Jar", I've referred to them as "The Band Formerly Known as Metallica"
hurley_108 @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:18 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Ever since the Napster fiasco and (even worse) their cover of "Whiskey in the Jar", I've referred to them as "The Band Formerly Known as Metallica"
That was a cover? Jeez, their best song and they didn't even write it themselves...
Robair @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:24 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Ever since the Napster fiasco and (even worse) their cover of "Whiskey in the Jar", I've referred to them as "The Band Formerly Known as Metallica"
You didn't like the cover, or just felt they shouldn't have??
Zipperfish @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:44 pm
hurley_108 hurley_108:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Ever since the Napster fiasco and (even worse) their cover of "Whiskey in the Jar", I've referred to them as "The Band Formerly Known as Metallica"
That was a cover? Jeez, their best song and they didn't even write it themselves...
Worse--it was a cover of a cover. They kind of did teh Thin Lizzy version. But Metallica did it soooo slowwwwww it was painful.
CrazyCanuck007 @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:46 pm
another reason to get their stuff free on-line....they don't deserve my money....
DrCaleb @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:42 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Ever since the Napster fiasco and (even worse) their cover of "Whiskey in the Jar", I've referred to them as "The Band Formerly Known as Metallica"
As soon as a band does a 'cover' album (which that was) I always refer to them as 'has-beens'.
Metallica died in a bus crash, as far as I'm concerned.
xerxes @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:45 pm
The rest of the covers on Garage Inc. were quite good though.
hurley_108 @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:54 pm
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Ever since the Napster fiasco and (even worse) their cover of "Whiskey in the Jar", I've referred to them as "The Band Formerly Known as Metallica"
As soon as a band does a 'cover' album (which that was) I always refer to them as 'has-beens'.
Metallica died in a bus crash, as far as I'm concerned.
The Blue Man Group in their Complex Rock Tour arrange performances as a "how to" manual of sorts about how to do rock concerts. They do these "rock concert movements" like rock concert movment number one: the basic head bob. There are s lot of other good bits too, like building up a repertoire of choreographed dance moves in order to deflect attention from shortcomings in other areas like singing or instrument playing. But they also do a cover segment introducing it by saying that this will "create the illusion that you are still humble, and serve as a pre-eptive strike against anyone who has noticed what a callous and delusional ass you have become."
romanP @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:55 pm
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Ever since the Napster fiasco and (even worse) their cover of "Whiskey in the Jar", I've referred to them as "The Band Formerly Known as Metallica"
As soon as a band does a 'cover' album (which that was) I always refer to them as 'has-beens'.
Or a "greatest hits" album. You know a band has run out of steam when they decide to just make an album of songs they already recorded.
Metallica is just a bunch of retarded assholes.
Zipperfish @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:26 pm
They suffe the fate of many bands. They make their name on the basis of being completely anti-establishment and are so good at it that they wake up one eday to find that they are now The Establishment.
Tricks @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:38 pm
I love metallica's old stuff, regardless of how they act, if there new album is good, I'm going to buy it. I don't refuse to listen to the beatles or Paul McCartney because he was an asshat out east.