Metallica: 'iTunes and Social Networks Destroyed Music'

"It's destroyed the motivation to go out there and make the best record," Kirk Hammett explains.

Ultimate Guitar

Although drummer Lars Ulrich declared himself a big supporter of Spotify streaming service, his Metallica bandmate Kirk Hammett recently bashed both streaming and social networks, labeling them as key reasons for the music's demise. "There haven't been a lot of really, really great bands that have shown that kind of promise, you know," the guitarist told R7. "I think it's a concern. Because of things like iTunes and streaming and social networking, it's destroyed music. It's destroyed the motivation to go out there and really make the best record possible. It's a shame." Before touching on the given subject, Kirk discussed the next generation of festival headliners, singling out Muse and "maybe Queens of the Stone Age." In related news, Ulrich hinted at a possibility of Metallica going on a joint tour with U2 and Green Day. "I was told in the wee morning hours following this outing that members of U2, Green Day and Metallica agreed to tour together," he told MTV News. "We haven't talked about it since, but speaking for myself I'd be very up for that." When it comes to the band's new album, Lars named 2015 as a tentative release year, stressing that the group doesn't indent to succumb to fan pressure and rush the record for the sake of earlier release. "We're going to make another record, but like I said before, we don't really feel this kind of ... what's the word? I guess 'responsibility' is probably the right word," he told Kerrang! magazine. "We don't feel this inherent responsibility to just churn out records whenever people want them. [Adopts a sarcastic voice] 'I'm sorry! Let me slap myself on the wrists and go make a record for you!' We'll get 'round to it again."

252 comments sorted by best / new / date

    I'm sick of all these rock-dinosaurs saying this same shit. If you need millions of dollars as a motivation to make music you're not an artist. The age of the millionaire rock god has passed and only the truly passionate will remain.
    @murtoll Absolutely agree. The business model that made a lot of these artists rich is what's destroying music. Digital modelling and social networks make it possible for those of us who weren't born in the right place at the right time to put our own music out and get it heard, even if it is to a small audience.
    Great point. Some of us were dumb enough to practice 8 hours a day--thinking that talent would be enough for us to make a living playing music--instead of learning how to play Wall Street. Nowadays, at least, we can have our music heard by thousands. There is joy in that!
    Great use of sarcasm! I feel the same way about my mad thumb-wrestling skills.
    THIS! A million times this. These 'millionaire rock gods' aren't complaining about the quality of music being made. They're complaining about the fact that it's not earning them millions anymore.
    Kenny Kendall
    What are your credentials in this area? I have a B.A. from The University of South Florida's School of Business. I majored in Marketing. The business model that made bands like Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Aerosmith, KISS, Van Halen, AC/DC, Pink Floyd, Queen, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Rainbow, Whitesnake, Heart, Motley Crue, Metallica and Guns 'n Roses a lot of money isn't destroying music. It made it possible for bands to tour worldwide so that the people could go to see their favorite bands play and it made it possible for entrepreneurs to make money whether they were people who owned or worked for the venues where bands played, or the stores where the bands' albums were sold, or the radio stations that played the music these bands created, or made the equipment these bands needed for touring, or the recording studios where the bands were recorded, or the magazines that wrote about the bands, and the list goes on and on. It's a business model that didn't just make the musicians rich; it either directly or indirectly led to the creation of all sorts of different jobs in the music related businesses I've listed above. The business model was not a destroyer of wealth; it was a creator of wealth. Then the people who were the destroyers of wealth came along - the people who were and are involved in the illegal piracy of music which from the highest levels of piracy all the way down to the individual people who illegally download music because they have no conscience and believe they should be able to take and enjoy the music that bands create without paying any money for the music they download instead of legally purchase. I am a musician I have invested thousands of hours into learning my craft and invested thousands of dollars into the equipment I need to perform my music. I am not wiling to work for free. You wouldn't expect any professional who creates a product and/or performs a service to work for you for free or to give you products they have spent time and effort to create and tell you that you can just have all you want for free would you?
    I believe his comments have less to do with making money than they do with the necessity of writing a great record. Decades ago, musicians had to make something of great substance for there to be any chance in them going anywhere. They had the radio, MTV, and word of mouth, for the most part, and if you were just another nobody with a mediocre album or song, nobody would ever speak your name. While I don't agree completely with his statement, I understand the point he's trying to make. Yes, the technological age has made it easy for closet musicians to get out there, but it's almost made it too easy by flooding the market with a never ending stream of crap. There's also the point to be made against social media, which is the younger generations of today cannot be bother (for the most part) to listen anything beyond the lowest common denominator, and what music receives the largest marketing push? Simplistic, rudimentary, crap, which in turn is magnified by social media, which EVERY kid eats up.
    No. If anything the reverse is true. Once upon a time you could make a crappy album with a single great song and have people buy it for that one song. Now no one is going to buy the album unless every song on it is worthwhile. Sorry to say but Kirk has it completely backwards.
    None of these idiots buy albums anymore. If anything, the reverse of what YOu said is true. It seems there is no more importance to making a quality album now because of how easy it is to just pick and choose what you want off it and download one or two songs. Whether or not you liked an artist's entire album back in the day was irrelevant. The album was the project as a whole. You buy the project. Yeah you could go buy a single at Sam Goody but, that would have just been the main radio release song. Now you can pick apart any album, it's not right. Albums were meant to be taken in their entirety. The download process has bastardized that. Minivirus2 has said it best. While the "new way" has made it easier for more artists to get their music out there, it has also opened the door for mediocrity to become mainstream. There are no new Van Halens, Aerosmiths, etc... because it seems there's less pickiness when it comes to supporting music. This is the fault of what Hammet is talking about.
    None of these 'idiots' buy albums any more because it's not worthwhile spending $15 US on a CD when you're only going to enjoy 2-3 songs on it. Maybe it was irrelevant whether or not you liked an artist's entire album 'back in the day' but it's completely relevant now, and if a musician believes in the value of a complete album he or she'd better make sure that every song is worth being bought individually. I have no idea how you arrived at "less pickiness" as a conclusion from that proposition.
    Say what you want, but the quality of music coming out during the age of the "millionaire rock god" was much better than the bland hipster crap we are getting today. I would say the motivation to make music in order to make money is valid as long as you also care about the music you are making. I have never understood the hardcore stance that wanting to profit from your craft so you never have to work crap jobs again is somehow the equivalent of selling out or in your case, not being "passionate". If they weren't passionate about music, they would have stopped making it as soon as they earned enough money to live off of for the rest of their lives without working. It's the same idiots over and over always crying: "Oh, this band already makes millions, they should be giving away their music for free, man! They should do their shows for free, man! They're sell outs man, they're posers! They're only in it for the money!" You pseudo hippies are all the same. Fact is if these bands were really sell outs, they would have stopped making music a long time ago when they made their millions. Show some respect and get off your broke ass high horse.
    What a bunch of crap. There was just as much garbage music "back in the day" as there is now.
    Indeed. Why was music so good back in the day? Because nobody talks about all the music back then that was completely awful. Just like how in 40 years people will say 'music was great back in my day' because they will have forgotten about the bad music!
    @rmack4341 "Say what you want, but the quality of music coming out during the age of the "millionaire rock god" was much better than the bland hipster crap we are getting today." Well that's subjective, based on tastes so impossible to argue it either way. And who said anything about music having to be free? The point I was trying to make is that the music has one of the fastest changing industries in the world. The business model that worked 30 years is obsolete today and a lot of artists seem to be struggling to accept this and adapt to it. (Btw paid to see Metallica a few months ago when they were in town, was awesome).
    I never accused anyone of selling out or said they should give their music away, nor did I say that music today is better than it was in their day. So either you're replying to the wrong comment or you're projecting like a mother****er. "Say what you want, but the quality of music coming out during the age of the "millionaire rock god" was much better than the bland hipster crap we are getting today." Don't try to pass opinion off as fact. Metallica sucks. All their "good" music sounds the same and when they try to do something different they show how truly out of their depth they are outside the metal scene.
    Whether Metallica sucks or not shouldn't matter to your ruined it by stating that you think they suck.
    murtoll: " If you need millions of dollars as a motivation to make music you're not an artist." You said that. Isn't that essentially insulting any artist who wants to gain a large profit from their work? I also liked how you told me not to try to pass opinion off as fact, right before explaining why "Metallica sucks". The pot..... the kettle.... etc... And as far as your hipster question, seems to me that one definition is almost impossible because they are so self contradicting . If you want my personal OPINION (happy now? I'm making it clear this is just an opinion and not fact, for the people who are too dumb to decipher), the definition of hipster is no freaking balls. Bands like Fun. Bands that will never make anyone stop and say, "Holy crap, this is important, this is amazing, etc..." It's mediocre music at best to put on in the background of a f***ing Starbucks. Atleast GeriatricNinja's response was intelligent and actually made me think of my original statement. Murtol, I think you read every other line. Think harder. Better sit down though.
    @rmack4341 There's a big difference between making music with the intention of becoming rich and making music for the love of it while hoping to get some money back from it
    I don't know, I've always felt you can do both. I think you can put your heart and soul into a record and really care about it while still hoping it will somehow make you rich, and striving to make that happen. I even think it's okay to let your sound maybe "evolve" a little in order to make that more of a possibility. As long as you still like your own product. It's when someone changes their sound or style to something they don't even like or feel passionate about in order to profit that I would take issue with.
    My own opinion here: I like some of today's music and I like a lot of old music. Neither is better, just some is more relevant to others than it is to me. Personally I am all for the advancement of music so that it creates something new so I respect artists with new sounds more than I do those emulating the 70's/80's/90's etc.
    Dude, there is MUCH more good stuff in the old music(up to the first half of the 90s) than in the newer stuff (music of later 90s up to now). It wasn't all whiny. It wasn't all depressed. It wasn't something not really music(for example, rap) passed off as music. There was NO autotune back then. The artists couldn't even REALLY lip-sync(at least up to late 70s). Good musicianship wasn't being thrown out in mainstream music on such a rate as we saw with the rise of grunge and nu metal. I know that there is a place for simple stuff, and i also know, that there are various NEW bands that show good musicianship. I admit that there is some crap in the "old" music, and that there is some good stuff in today's music. But there is a LOT more good stuff in the "old" music than in the new. Consider me an *******, if you want, but that's not just my opinion. That's a FACT.
    Well yeah... who would of thought that in the last 2013 years and more there has been more good music than in the last 10 years... /facepalm
    Oh yeah, nice work throwing out the uber-fashinable blanket-insult: "hipster". Would you be so kind as to give me a definition?
    Haha replied at the same time, didn't see eyour comment about opinion vs fact with the same quote
    Mr Winters
    "ut the quality of music coming out during the age of the "millionaire rock god" was much better than the bland hipster crap we are getting today" Yeah right. Only people who don't even bother to look for good bands say that.
    List some of these good bands, friend.
    Based off of 2013 alone? Shai Hulud, Altar of Plagues, Arsis, Within the Ruins, Carcass, the list goes on and on. So many bands out there are making music better then ever, and with social media sites and streaming services, it makes them easier then ever to find.
    None of those are new bands, sure they've released new albums, but they're not new by any means.
    Don't even bother man, the average UGer is going to throw any bad you suggest that isn't Pink Floyd out the window
    "Yeah right. Only people who don't even bother to look for good bands say that." Only an ignorant fool could that. Imho.
    I agree about the profit motive. Whether you want to make money or could care less doesn't matter. If you like the outcome that should be it. But saying that music was "better" during the millionaire era is a completely subjective statement. Ballads and basic pop songs were huge sellers in the past and the only reason there's not some big revolution in music is because the internet has allowed people to find their own niches making for several but smaller scale revolutions in those niches.
    So stop listening to the bland hipster crap, and find some new music that you like. It's all out there, you can't expect to be spoon-fed everything.
    This is exactly what I keep saying. Goes the same for designers, writers and other creative fields. Deserved medal.
    Actually, plenty of musicians even today are making millions. A7X, Mumford, the killers etc.
    I think they refer to the spirit of music, like "I am going with my friends to the store to buy the new album and we are going to listen to it at my place, awesome!!!" and that kind of stuff. iTunes and social networks and internet in general has indeed destroyed the spirit in that sense. There are both positives and negatives on evolution though.
    The problem with passion is that no-one else will necessarily ever hear about it. Even if you get lucky and your stuff 'trends' it won't be long before the internet is looking for the next big thing and you're history.
    Can UG go a day without posting a story about either something Dave Mustaine has said or something Metallica has said about the internet?
    "Metallica slams Itunes and social networks"
    Okay mate it doesn't say that anywhere.
    READ THE TITLE. Bravo, sir. You just lost 78 points.
    78 pts what is this a game? Also, the title doesn't say "METALLICA SLAMS" furthermore the title isn't a quote by a bands interview. Kirk has said some trash, and that interview is being associated with METALLICA'S opinion where it's only Kirks opinion, so no sir, Metallica have said nothing, and Metallica has slammed nothing.
    Epi g-310
    Good lord, you people, it's a running joke. UG used to write titles like "(Band/Person) slams (thing)" all the time, and now the joke is that whenever there's an article about somebody criticizing something else, the title should be "So and so slams..." Clam ur tits.
    But he's actually saying that iTunes and streaming destroyed the "album" concept, not music altogether... In that, he's kinda right, why bother making an album with 12 good songs when people will only buy, stream 1 or 2 of them?
    Well he also said that it has destroyed the need to make the best record possible, but I think that's false in this scenario. If an artist wants everyone to buy the whole album, he now has to make sure every song is worth buying so that people don't just buy one or two songs.
    Thank you! I have a hard time understanding why people struggle so much with this simple concept.
    Henry Rollins says the exact opposite.
    First time this guy talks sense to me, and I can't agree more/
    God forbid Kirk could have a differing opinion. This website is about speaking your mind no matter what opinion you hold. Respect should be given to both sides. I wonder how many people actually listened/watched/read the full interview with Kirk
    Of course Rollins supports a musician not becoming huge. It keeps his net worth at 12 Million Dollars.
    I disagree. The whole internet and tech explosion thing made it easier for talented people to get global exposure without being in the US or the UK and needing to catch the eye of a label to make a name for themselves. Kirk is a "dinosaur", he got in it in the 80's and it's harder for him to get the good in this thing I guess. I bet we'll be hearing some sweet music in a couple of years from now unknown dudes.
    Yeah, I've discovered a fair amount of non-US/UK bands due to recommendations from sites like Metal Injection or Metal Archives or threads on UG or Bandcamp. It's easier than ever to find a band from (for example) Israel or Shanghai.
    "It's destroyed the motivation to go out there and really make the best record possible." He says nothing about "global exposure". He only talks about making the "best record possible". Two completely different things.
    I was counterpointing what he said. He was talking essentially that it's easier to put music out with no pressure and that might result in sub-part music and I mentioned the positive aspect of it.
    Kenny Kendall
    I believe he's talking about how it's destroying the incentive to work as hard as you can because there is so little money in doing it. You can by a single song for 99 cents now. I remember going to buy 45 rpm singles back in the 70's for more money than 99 cents! Tell me what other industry you can think of where the price for buying something has actually decreased over the last 35 years? Think of the rate of inflation over the last 35 years. It's roughly 400%. A house that cost $100,000 in 1978 probably would cost you more than $400,000 today. Gasoline prices have gone up much more than 400%. Car prices, for a car of comparable quality have risen probably less than 400% but still have risen considerably, maybe 250%. But if the price of buying a single was maybe $1.09 or $1.19 in 1978 then it should cost about $3 to $4 today Of course that would include a random "B side" but it would not be a song you get to choose. It would be a random song that the record company would choose and it usually would be a song unlikely to get played on the radio or be a hit song, since the potential hits would be saved for other single offerings from the record company. If an album back then cost $6.99, then it should reasonable cost somewhere around $18 to $25 today. Where is the incentive to create the best album possible though, when people are just going to pick and choose a few songs from the album to buy on MP3? How many times have you bought an album and with repeated listenings, discovered something great about a song that you wouldn't have bought as a single upon your first or second listening of that song? Sometimes music, especially complex music takes multiple listenings to really sink in and be fully enjoyed. Where is the incentive to create that when people aren't buying full albums anymore though because ITunes and such have made it possible to just pick and choose to buy any song off an album as a single? What it is also doing is it's causing kids to fail to develop the attention span to listen to an album from beginning to end.. Now there are many kids who literally are unable to listen to an entire album all the way through, even if it's an album they like a lot. ITunes and all the things Kirk Hammett is speaking out against are contributing to the musical "dumbing down" of our children.
    It does kill the desire to make the best record possible, because bands can be "discovered" for anything. Shitty musicians rise to the top, much like Rebecca Black, because they can put out a catchy song, and then make a million dollars off it. It has nothing to do with money, which, when a lot of people see Metallica, they automatically think of.
    Rebecca Black isn't the best example since she's famous for being bad.
    That really just proves his point. She made alot of money on an incompetent video. Textbook example if you ask me.
    "It does kill the desire to make the best record possible, because bands can be "discovered" for anything. " Yeah, but not necessarily. Some today's musicians DO have that dedication.
    The opportunity for global exposure was limited, all the way up to the first internet connections. You really had to impress everyone and make them keep listening, while making refreshing music and staying on top of the trend. And that's just to get the label to give you a contract. Today, you only need to google and YouTube alot to find a bunch of bands that otherwise wouldn't have been good enough for mass promotion. Rather than having to impress the powers that be and have a good following, these unknown artists can just publish it on the internet, no consequences. You can imagine, I hope, that with such lower demands comes lesser dedication to the mass appeal of the product. From another point of view, music today references personal taste much more than what sounds good to everyone. That's the biggest difference between the past and the present, and IMO is most responsible for 'ruining' music.
    Good thoughts, man. It's easier to get yourself heard today, but today's circumstances can also make you less dedicated to put out REALLY good stuff.
    I don't totally agree with Kirk, but at least as a band they each have their own individual thoughts about things, unlike new bands in which everyone pretends to agree on everything.
    There's two sides to every coin.. Kirk looks at this situation from the artistic aspect of music.. Not how those same services have also propagated music into the mainstream.. Well, he's right as rain.. Fuck the other side of that coin! I'd rather go for quality over quantity..
    There is a plethora of quality music being made today, both artistically and for fun. You just have to look.
    It's easier for most people to say all music sucks now and not bother... Sad state of affairs when we have an absolute abundance of amazing music. Don't let music videos and radio tell you what's happening now, it's not even scratching the surface.
    Yeah, I agree.. Media will only popularize music that will get them a quick buck.. Not the beautiful music that takes a few listens to appreciate.. They think (and are most probably right) that the mainstream listeners can't comprehend the beauty of actual, painstakingly crafted music..
    On a side note: I was born in '95, so I might be wrong about this, But during Metallica's prime time, they themselves were 'mainstream' artists.. And Kirk is in fact, referring to popular music with his comments.. Just a thought.
    Im so sick of hearing these whiny ass motherf's! Go away Metallica.....just go away!
    I have discovered so much new music by using Spotify over the past 6 or so months. Surely this can only be a good thing?
    its destroyed the motivation???? weird, i dont recall any moments when i was writing music and i thought "ah shit, iTunes exists. welp, dont see a point in really trying anymore". maybe i just dont give a shit about the money
    I do like Metallica a lot, but I wish a lot of these really famous musicians along with other celebrities, would stop bashing the industries that made them millionaires. Any of 'em hurting for money? Just saying.
    That's just an excuse, there's always another reason to create amazing art, you can't blame the state of the media. There are plenty of starving musicians creating wonderful universes. Your just angry that your band turned to shit
    "It's destroyed the motivation to go out there and really make the best record possible" - that explains Metallica's career. Except that iTunes and Social Networking sites didn't exist in 1991
    Sammy Mantis
    I actually agree to some extent. Yes, social networking has made it possible for any average Joe to get their music out there and give it a chance to be heard...But that's the thing, everybody on the planet with a guitar and a computer now has a ****ing album/song out on the internet. The whole music scene just seems so over saturated. Countless bands just fighting to be discovered and heard...It's gotten to the point where it's overwhelming. I guess having access to too much music is not a bad problem to have, but I'm still not convinced that it's a good thing overall.
    Anybody who thinks that music (as in actual music, not the industry) is currently in a bad state really need to realize that Kesha, Nikki Minaj, Korn, Blink 182, or whatever popular artist they may hate does not speak for all of modern music. With very little effort and the internet you could find dozens of great bands, yet so many ignorant people just look at the Top 40, decide that's all the 21st century has to offer, and proclaim "I WAS BORN IN THE WRONG GENERATION!" I think that music gets progressively better and better and that there has been a myriad of great releases this year. Objectively speaking, with iTunes, social networking, and the internet in general, it is easier than ever to both discover and release music.
    Also an over-excessive glorification of the past. Thinking that if they were born decades ago every person and every radio would be playing Led Zeppelin, Queen, The Who, etc. on loop forever.
    And the worst part is when you tell those ignorant people to dig a little to find some good bands, they instantly bash anything with "LOL gay hipster crap", probably without even listening it, as evidenced by a lot of comments here. There's just no way to win with these guys.
    Is it me, or is Metallica just a bunch of whiners lately?
    No. Its called doing PRESS for their recent movie, which is why they're in the news on UG constantly, they do interviews and get asked questions that everyone else would normally overlook, then UG the "tmz" of "rock" news takes it and reposts it here, for you and everyone else to bitch and moan about. Who's the whiner again?
    Still them, I guess. Press is one thing, showing good sides is another. Personally, I'd rather read an article about what band members, dunno, eat for breakfast, than another whiny bunch of bullshit 'bout how the World has become degenerated by iTunes, how the sales has gone low because of piracy, and so on, and so on. If You're really an artist and want to shine, give people some reason to believe You're dedicated for what You're doing and actually DO something, not complain about everything that endangers Your position in the music industry.
    Here's my opinion on why music is in a bad state right now. Lack of creativity being number 1, and the industry caring more about stars being sex symbols than talent. That and if money is your goal, unfortunately new rock musicians won't find as much there as say pop, hip hop, and country.
    At least in the eighties, the sex symbols made good's al but dat dere lovin.
    That's arguable. A lot of people hated the mainstream 80s. Anyways money has increasingly been the goal ever since a music industry ever developed several decades ago. But it doesn't mean everyone was money driven.
    Rob K.
    Music is lacking creativity right now? Are you actually serious? People are finally making something else than what is straight forward pop (By pop I also mean pop- rock/metal), because they actually have the chance to do so. You're clearly just not looking hard enough. Years ago, if your music wasn't profitable, you didn't have the chance to distribute it because it cost way more than it does now. In the modern world you can just make what you want in your OWN HOUSE, the very place you can distribute it online. And I think that is awesome, everyone can express themselves the way they want, it isn't so much about making a profit anymore, it is about doing what you like to do. The variety of music you can find online is just overwhelming. Sex symbols have always been on the television and radio and will most probably always be, the game hasn't changed, we're just animals that deep inside love that kind of stimulus and that urge will drive the top wave of the industry by providing a full package of music and sex appeal.
    Correction: iTunes ruined the music INDUSTRY. It didn't ruin the MUSIC. That makes no sense.
    U2, Green Day and Metallica? That's the weirdest line-up I've seen since I saw Type O Negative and Hatebreed... and Kirk, I am in an unknown band, and poor as shit, but my motivation to try and make a classic record remains intact. The (arguably) shitty state of music just inspires me to push the envelope even farther!
    I would say the bands out there that are continuously and currently successful would disagree. Social media is not killing music, making the same shitty album over and over again is. When other bands are killin it out there doing exactly what you are doing maybe the problem is you.
    Nope, if anything it's shifted the playing field to smaller bands and people who are willing to go DIY.
    I agree that streaming might have taken something away from the industry, it can't be good that we are basically living in a world where the only product a musician can sell is touring and t-shirts. It would probably be better if records were their prime source of income, it's a pretty good incentive to stay productive, and to me, the albums are the most interesting part of any band. But i think i live in a different world than the big name artists, i think there's plenty of new and interesting bands out there and i don't see this slumb everyone is talking about. Unless they mean cool bands that are also huge.
    Selling albums has never really been a decent source of income from bands. They've always had to resort to selling merch to get cash. What buying an album effectively does is tell a label that there are x amount of people interested in this band so they know who to put them on tour with, for how long, and where on the bill they are.
    If there's more music available, doesn't that encourage artists to make music that will stand out from the crowd? I think any of the big names may be feeling the hurt from people finally being able to listen to something other than the mainstream stuff (whether or not it is good) but smaller artists have benefited a great deal form iTunes and social media.
    I'm not sure if singling out Queens of the Stone as a next-generation festival headliner is a bad thing.. QOTSA is a phenomenal band!
    Projecting much? Motivation is subjective. Maybe Kirk is the one with the problem.
    Aww poor Kirk. Guess now he can't afford his golden toilet plated with diamonds. Who the hell is he to complain? I'm sure he and his family are financially secure for the rest of their lives. If he's complaining because he wants more money he should just quit. He should leave the crying to his overused wah pedal.
    I kinda get what Kirk's saying, I mean you can record something in your garage, then instantly post it online in whatever quality you want, but at the same time, the passionate do that same thing because of the internet's freedom and lack of limitation. It's a double edged sword and I doubt we'll find a good balance any time soon.
    I dont agree on this coz it helped in many ways. not all country can go out and find a record and buy it(coz you cant find the record in that country). with the technology and internet, a band's fanbase grows. it went global,reaching more people..and more people can support and buy em easily. of course there's also a downside to this and exploitation. i cant even get some of my fav bands' record at the store in my country!
    So I heard King Nothing on the radio the other day for first time in years...great song!! I forgot about some of the gems. I admire that they speak their mind. In no way did he say there are no great bands, he just simply stated that there's not a lot of incentive to make great records. Many singles are available on itunes 6 months in advance and by the time the record comes out you know half the songs as singles. Even when A7x came out I put it on a usb and it put the album in alphabetical order for my first listen, ruined the flow of the album.
    Your motivation should be to prove that you can make the best record possible and push the limits.
    I would argue that the quality of records have not declined over time. They only take different forms through different outlets.
    Correlation does not equal causation. I don't believe the Internet is to blame, has he ever considered that he's getting old and tired?
    And yet they still alow their music to be sold on iTunes... Well... If you think it's bad for the industry then why do you support it by supplying it?
    If streaming and iTunes have destroyed Kirk's motivation, then his motivation must be entirely monetary. I hope I never end up like this.
    Load and Reload destroyed music.
    There should be some kind of Poo-Award for the most downvoted Comment on a UG-Article.
    they should get rid of the votes altogether. the phenomenon of having something you say visibly approved/ridiculed by a large group of strangers is pretty startling to say the least
    I bet sooner or later some kid will kill himself because of downvotes. But yeah, I'm growing tired of seeing these ridiculous one-liner posts all the time. You know, kids hoping to get a "medal". Oh well. I guess it gets people posting, and that's all UG cares about!
    Just because they're not thrash metal albums, doesn't mean they destroyed music. They're brilliant albums in my eyes and the only Metallica albums currently rocking my mp3 player, the melodies are to die for.
    Didnt know there were so many Metallica cock sucking fanbois on this site. Reload, Load and St Anger are awful albums
    So they are "Metallica cock sucking fanbois" because they like some albums you don't? How old are you? Just a little reminder, you're not the judge of what's good and what's not.
    'cock sucking fanbois' He has 2 albums of theirs, how can he possibly be a fanboy?
    Load and Reload were damn good.. well Load was anyway.. terribly underappreciated and one of my favorites from Metallica. St. Anger and Lulu on the other hand....
    Lulu's the only one that is pure shit, I listened to it once through and couldn't wait for it to be over, St. Anger has a few good songs.
    St. Angers only real problems are the snare and how cut and pasted the songs are, they drag on too long because of that but if all of the songs where 3-5 minutes max it'd be great. If you want proof, listen to the edited version of Some Kind of Monster that goes for 4 minutes or so...A lot better. (And for the snare, listen to the rehearsals they did)
    I felt St Anger lacked production value and good song structure... plus the songs dragged on with no solos and much poorer songwriting compared to other albums, which is a shame because it had potential. Purify and the Unnamed Feeling imo are the only songs that come to mind that were halfway decent.
    I liked the production on St. Anger, well besides the snare. Take away that and you've got an incredibly raw and energetic record.
    Definitely this. The song writing isn't that good compared to other stuff from their career, but it's not terrible, and I'm personally not at all bothered by the lack of guitar solos.
    gbrooks2, I'm with you. Can't believe how many down votes you got for speaking the truth about Load of Sh*t and them reloading it.
    hey man, I am with you on the say what is on your mind gig. who gives a shit what contrasting points of view say. PC is for candyasses.Say what you mean and be true. I have spent mucho deniro over the years following the band and the music, and they have dropped terds lately. Thinketh a lil highly of themselves too,liberal pricks. Get back to your roots,spend some time with the people that pay you,quit acting like the Kardashians
    I really think it's not for you to tell musicians what to do. Why don't you start your own OldMetallica tribute band for your own satisfaction?
    Carl Hungus
    Thank you so much for saying that. Sure its on overblown cynical statement but there is a small nugget of truth. Those two albums did not destroy music as a whole, just Metallica's, and heralded a new era of the lighter, blander, more pop rock radio friendly entity that they had become.
    As much as i hate Load/Reload and St. Anger, they weren't that bad, go home dude.
    Load and Reload pwned. Why do people want Metallica to make another thrash album? It's good but it's repetitive as ****.
    punkorama dsv
    It seems these metallica guys don't realize that many of the people rocking at their ****in' expensive shows know their music thanks to the internet.
    Kirk has lost his mind. If anything, the internet has made people want to put out better records because their music can now reach a broader audience. I can't tell you how many interviews I've read/watched where people have said they are thankful that social media and streaming services exist.
    Correction: "iTunes and social networking destroyed the music industry " Sounds much less menacing now. Actually it sounds like good news.