Introduction / Full Disclosure / Disclaimer : I do not personally know, nor have I ever met Lars Ulrich of Metallica. I have seen Metallica perform three times in person, including when I was working promotions as a separate independent entity with a radio show called "Loud and Local" on 94 WYSP in the mid to late 90's. WYSP was a Philadelphia based FM Music Radio Station (now Sports Radio) which did promotions and help host Metallica's 1997 free concert in Philadelphia called the "Million Decibel March." Within this post, I also mention Trans World Entertainment Corp. I worked in retail management for the company years ago when it was called Trans World Music Corp. The following post is my own personal opinion and does not reflect the opinion of any mention companies, management, staff, persons within this post nor do I speak on behalf of OriginalMusicReviews.BlogSpot.com. If you want to be pissed at someone for what I have written, be pissed at me and nobody else.
That being said; (there you go Joel) I want to publicly apologize for some things I said about Lars Ulrich about 13 years ago. The things I said were wrong and I piled on with other people which was reflective in the media and I believe in part, may have negatively effected the recording industry and music business as a whole. The comments may have helped lead the music industry on a downward spiral which in part effects the music composers of today. I also want to admit how stupid and wrong I was for my thought process many years ago.
So that you can understand why I write this with egg on my face, let me explain what I am apologising about.
For those of you reading this who are twenty five years of age or younger, let me rewind the music news back to about 1999. It was a time before social networking sites took off. MySpace was launched in 2003, Facebook in 2004, Twitter 2006. The internet was new and undiscovered territory to most people. It was mostly used at that time for correspondence (email) and file sharing.
There were companies who were set up to allow files to be "shared" for free between music fans. These free sites still are the internet's version of a hippie commune of music. Everyone gives and takes music and movies freely from each other with no strings attached (except maybe also sharing a virus or two). Most of these users believe that they have no responsibility to the creators of the entertainment.
From 1999 - 2001 Napster was one of the larger companies at the time (per Wikipedia : 26.4 Million users by 2001) who offered this free service. Musicians, Record Companies, Distribution Companies and Music Stores who made a living selling CDs, started loosing revenue because some people would rather take music for free off of the web than buy it. Besides loosing money, unreleased songs from Madonna, Metallica, and others also appeared on sites like Napster.
A wise A&R agent told me once that Music is like fruit. Once it is picked it has a limited shelf life. After all, how popular can a new song be, if it is titled "Disco Duck" and it is written and recorded in 2013? The piracy of unreleased music being released early, not only stole money from the record company and the artist but it caused havoc with planning release dates, promotion, air play and even touring.
In 2000, the band Metallica took a stand and went to court in an attempt to put to end the practice of people obtaining their art without paying for it. Metallica's drummer Lars Ulrich was at the forefront of the fight between those who worked and created the art and those who took the art with out paying for it. This battle started in the courts and it also appeared in front of a Congressional Hearing on July 11, 2000 .
So that you can understand why I write this with egg on my face, let me explain what I am apologising about.
For those of you reading this who are twenty five years of age or younger, let me rewind the music news back to about 1999. It was a time before social networking sites took off. MySpace was launched in 2003, Facebook in 2004, Twitter 2006. The internet was new and undiscovered territory to most people. It was mostly used at that time for correspondence (email) and file sharing.
There were companies who were set up to allow files to be "shared" for free between music fans. These free sites still are the internet's version of a hippie commune of music. Everyone gives and takes music and movies freely from each other with no strings attached (except maybe also sharing a virus or two). Most of these users believe that they have no responsibility to the creators of the entertainment.
From 1999 - 2001 Napster was one of the larger companies at the time (per Wikipedia : 26.4 Million users by 2001) who offered this free service. Musicians, Record Companies, Distribution Companies and Music Stores who made a living selling CDs, started loosing revenue because some people would rather take music for free off of the web than buy it. Besides loosing money, unreleased songs from Madonna, Metallica, and others also appeared on sites like Napster.
A wise A&R agent told me once that Music is like fruit. Once it is picked it has a limited shelf life. After all, how popular can a new song be, if it is titled "Disco Duck" and it is written and recorded in 2013? The piracy of unreleased music being released early, not only stole money from the record company and the artist but it caused havoc with planning release dates, promotion, air play and even touring.
In 2000, the band Metallica took a stand and went to court in an attempt to put to end the practice of people obtaining their art without paying for it. Metallica's drummer Lars Ulrich was at the forefront of the fight between those who worked and created the art and those who took the art with out paying for it. This battle started in the courts and it also appeared in front of a Congressional Hearing on July 11, 2000 .
During that hearing, Napster's CEO Hank Barry said "Napster was helping and not hurting the recording industry and artists." He also said that studies show that "Napster users buy more records."
At the time, I thought that Mr. Barry statement made sense. If someone downloads a song or an album and they like it, they will buy the song or album. After reviewing his statement and my thoughts recently, I realized something . . . . . what a bunch of BULL !! Why would someone spend money to buy something, when they already have it for free?
Look, if you are an original music artist who writes and records your own music and you want to give your original music away for free, GOD Bless You. If you do not wish to sell your music, nobody should make you sell it.
On the flip side of the coin, if you are an original music artist who writes and records your own music and want to charge 99 cents to download your song or $10 for a CD or $50,000 to preform live, nobody should make you give away your art for free.
At the same Congressional hearing, Lars Ulrich said: "Just like a carpenter who crafts a table gets to decide whether he wants to keep it, sell it, or give it away..." "Shouldn't we have the same options?" "We should decide what happens to our music."
Beside Metallica, Dr. Dre and several other original artists, a number of record companies, and the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) all filed lawsuits which led to the termination Napster accounts which "shared" the original artists music. After a huge battle both in the courts and in the public, in 2001 Napster reached a settlement with Metallica and Dr. Dre. The settlement required that Napster filter and block all of the music being "shared" from any artist that did not want their music to be shared. Soon after, Napster was then forced to file for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and would resurrect itself years later as a pay sight.
At the time, I thought that Mr. Barry statement made sense. If someone downloads a song or an album and they like it, they will buy the song or album. After reviewing his statement and my thoughts recently, I realized something . . . . . what a bunch of BULL !! Why would someone spend money to buy something, when they already have it for free?
Look, if you are an original music artist who writes and records your own music and you want to give your original music away for free, GOD Bless You. If you do not wish to sell your music, nobody should make you sell it.
On the flip side of the coin, if you are an original music artist who writes and records your own music and want to charge 99 cents to download your song or $10 for a CD or $50,000 to preform live, nobody should make you give away your art for free.
At the same Congressional hearing, Lars Ulrich said: "Just like a carpenter who crafts a table gets to decide whether he wants to keep it, sell it, or give it away..." "Shouldn't we have the same options?" "We should decide what happens to our music." Beside Metallica, Dr. Dre and several other original artists, a number of record companies, and the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) all filed lawsuits which led to the termination Napster accounts which "shared" the original artists music. After a huge battle both in the courts and in the public, in 2001 Napster reached a settlement with Metallica and Dr. Dre. The settlement required that Napster filter and block all of the music being "shared" from any artist that did not want their music to be shared. Soon after, Napster was then forced to file for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and would resurrect itself years later as a pay sight.
The Napster fight was over, the courts may have spoken, but the general public spoke louder with a negative backlash toward all those who oppose Napster.
Lars became the poster child with a target on his head. Their were articles, books, late night TV comedy bits, and spoofs of Metallica songs blasting the band for being against those who "share" Metallica's music with others for free. There were even a few animation cartoons depicting Lars, his band mates, and other original music artists as being dumb, greedy and out of touch to the common person. Many people, myself included, believed this propaganda and sided with Napster.
I had discussions with people within the fringe of the music industry, and with other music fans. At that time, I flat out blasted Lars Ulrich for being a greedy bastard who was a slave to the music industry. In my mind at the time (I must have been out of it), I thought here was a rich man stopping poor music fans from sharing their favorite music. I was too stupid to realize that it wasn't the fan's music... it was the original musicians who wrote and recorded the music. The people downloading the music were stealing from those who created it.
This subject is not about rich vs poor. It is about right vs wrong. What about a musician who can barely afford $8 guitar strings. If the musician wants to sell his art, regardless of his income, why should he not be angry when others "shared" their music for free?
After the Napster fight, a negative stigma laid upon anyone in the recording music industry who even spoke about sharing music. It is my opinion that because of the backlash, the music industry generally became silent when it came to sharing music for free. Nobody wanted to be attacked publicly (and privately) the way Lars and others were attacked and made fun of as greedy and selfish. Lars became the poster child of those who hated the music industry as a whole.
Now, fast forward to today. Because many music fans are too cheep to spend $10.00 (US Dollars) for a CD that they really want, music stores like Trans World Entertainment Corp (Record Town, Tape World, Coconuts) and Tower Records have closed stores or have gone out of business altogether. You can count the distribution companies who are successfully still doing business, on one hand. The worst part of this issue is how it hurts today's new original artist. Record companies have cut staff or have gone out of business. Who is willing to take a risk and sign a new artist, only to have 1/2 of their music "shared" for free instead of being bought.
I recently saw an interview with Fritz and the Tantrums on a recent Guitar Center Sessions. As an artist, Fritz and the Tantrums was cheering about selling 150,000 units. They also seem to imply that more than that amount must own their music because on tour they were selling out venues which hold thousands (now touring w/ Bruno Mars). After hearing this, a light bulb went off in my head. Free music "shares" / downloads not only hurt the recording industry back in 1999, it hurts the newer original artist of today.
Lars became the poster child with a target on his head. Their were articles, books, late night TV comedy bits, and spoofs of Metallica songs blasting the band for being against those who "share" Metallica's music with others for free. There were even a few animation cartoons depicting Lars, his band mates, and other original music artists as being dumb, greedy and out of touch to the common person. Many people, myself included, believed this propaganda and sided with Napster.
I had discussions with people within the fringe of the music industry, and with other music fans. At that time, I flat out blasted Lars Ulrich for being a greedy bastard who was a slave to the music industry. In my mind at the time (I must have been out of it), I thought here was a rich man stopping poor music fans from sharing their favorite music. I was too stupid to realize that it wasn't the fan's music... it was the original musicians who wrote and recorded the music. The people downloading the music were stealing from those who created it.
This subject is not about rich vs poor. It is about right vs wrong. What about a musician who can barely afford $8 guitar strings. If the musician wants to sell his art, regardless of his income, why should he not be angry when others "shared" their music for free?
After the Napster fight, a negative stigma laid upon anyone in the recording music industry who even spoke about sharing music. It is my opinion that because of the backlash, the music industry generally became silent when it came to sharing music for free. Nobody wanted to be attacked publicly (and privately) the way Lars and others were attacked and made fun of as greedy and selfish. Lars became the poster child of those who hated the music industry as a whole.
Now, fast forward to today. Because many music fans are too cheep to spend $10.00 (US Dollars) for a CD that they really want, music stores like Trans World Entertainment Corp (Record Town, Tape World, Coconuts) and Tower Records have closed stores or have gone out of business altogether. You can count the distribution companies who are successfully still doing business, on one hand. The worst part of this issue is how it hurts today's new original artist. Record companies have cut staff or have gone out of business. Who is willing to take a risk and sign a new artist, only to have 1/2 of their music "shared" for free instead of being bought.
I recently saw an interview with Fritz and the Tantrums on a recent Guitar Center Sessions. As an artist, Fritz and the Tantrums was cheering about selling 150,000 units. They also seem to imply that more than that amount must own their music because on tour they were selling out venues which hold thousands (now touring w/ Bruno Mars). After hearing this, a light bulb went off in my head. Free music "shares" / downloads not only hurt the recording industry back in 1999, it hurts the newer original artist of today.
Hard working bands like Saint Caine (now touring w/ God Smack), or even some unsigned bands are having challenges with selling their new music. To sell music on the web seems harder than it was to get a distribution deal as an independent artist years ago. I recently spoke to one original artist who told me he is happy to get whatever he can. He told me some people pay $10 for his work but he is happy to get $3.
Nobody had the balls before or after Lars Ulrich stepped in front of the Cameras, in front of the Courts, in front of Congress and in front of fans like myself to say what is right: Artist and the Music Industry should be compensated for their work. The truth be spoken, it is fair to have someone pay to experience art. If you don't want to pay, don't get the music.
The Pandora box of free downloading of music, has long ago busted open and still today many people see nothing wrong with taking what they did not create or pay for.
Anyone who enjoys music, should have a personal responsibility to respect all artists who wish to be paid for their work. It is my opinion that free file "sharing" music which should be bought, has in part contributed to the decline of the modern day recording industry. Some may say it is a greedy machine, but it's demise hurts us all. New original unsigned and independent artist and music fans especially.
Mr. Lars Ulrich, I apologize to you, for my negative words about your character, many years ago. I now do agree with your statement before Members of Congress. "Just like a carpenter who crafts a table gets to decide whether he wants to keep it, sell it, or give it away." "...We should decide what happens to our music." You were right then and you are right now. I was wrong and I am sorry. I also owe your band $20.
-Alex
ORIGINAL MUSIC REVIEWS
"Like" Facebook.com/Original-Music-Reviews
"Follow" Twitter.com/OriginalMusicRe
"Reviews" OriginalMusicReviews.BlogSpot.com
"Comment" Below