Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I have been mulling this Metallica thing. I have to start by saying that the purpose of this thread is not to convince anyone they fit at Bonnaroo, as noted below, but to provide some interesting nuggets of info to bounce around your brain.
I have to say that I agree they do not seem a logical fit for Bonnaroo. I have to admit I like their old stuff. First time I saw them was in 1986 or 87 in a small theater in Phoenix (stopped seeing them after And Justice for All tour many years ago...).
However, in thinking about everyones' postings on the issue of them playing Bonnaroo, I did remember some interesting (and ironic) things:
1. Metallica went through what most of the jam and indie bands we like have because they had to go out and play and build a fan base before getting big because at one time they had no radio airplay or mtv videos. People only knew of them through word of mouth. No Internet then.
2. They have always allowed taping.
3. Memebers have "sat in" with bands are different as Blues Traveler and Rage Against the Machine.
4. As noted in another thread, bands have covered them at Bonnaroo, including moe. and Umphrey's McGee. In fact, Umphrey's covered Metallica's Search and Destroy on Thurday night.
That being said, again, I understand everyone's frustration, but they are similar to a lot of the bands we all love. While I haven't decided if I am going to Bonnaroo this year, it is not because of the line up. The best part of festivals is that there is always something to do other than see a band you do not want to see. If I do go, don't know whether I will try to catch any of Metallica, but it would be awsome if Jake Cinnegar from Umphrey's or someone similar sat in and jammed with them.....
Post by billybluenose on Feb 11, 2008 0:36:56 GMT -5
It is ironic that Metallica is notorious for contributing to the shutting down of Napster and other music-share sites yet gained their initial following by encouraging fans to dub copies of their first demo and share their music with friends.
Music is free as long as there's no money to be made.
F*ck you, Lars Ulrich.
I've just decided: No Bonnaroo for me this year.
Instead, I'll postpone my vacation by a week and fill my ears at AthFest instead.
Last Edit: Feb 11, 2008 0:42:42 GMT -5 by billybluenose - Back to Top
The man makes a valid point however. I give ya karma.
Also, what are we debating here? Their music or what they do off the stage? If we are going to rag on them for the napster thing than rag on all of our other favorite artists that arent so perfect off the stage. Some names like Trey come to mind...
I don't listen to metallica and hated the napster situation but im going to the show and experience it anyways.
We goto Bonnaroo for the music, there is too much music to try to think about anything nonmusic for me.
Post by candyflippedaround on Feb 11, 2008 1:00:36 GMT -5
theville said:
The man makes a valid point however. I give ya karma.
Also, what are we debating here? Their music or what they do off the stage? If we are going to rag on them for the napster thing than rag on all of our other favorite artists that arent so perfect off the stage. Some names like Trey come to mind...
I don't listen to metallica and hated the napster situation but im going to the show and experience it anyways.
We goto Bonnaroo for the music, there is too much music to try to think about anything nonmusic for me.
cant rag on trey for bad habits, we all have them.
And dopeshow, thanks for the correction on Seek and Destroy. I was tired and apparently typed in the name of an Iggy and the Stooges song....
I still think irony rather than coincidence. I guess the difference is that they need to be compared with bigger jam or indie bands given how big they became. The grassroots thing works across genres.
How come no one ever mentions that after the Napster thing, Metallica did some pretty cool stuff for their fans...
Example...if you bought St. Anger when it came out, it was specially priced, and came with a feature length dvd on the recording sessions plus access to download 3 complete live shows for no charge...
How come no one ever mentions that after the Napster thing, Metallica did some pretty cool stuff for their fans...
Example...if you bought St. Anger when it came out, it was specially priced, and came with a feature length dvd on the recording sessions plus access to download 3 complete live shows for no charge...
That's pretty fan friendly if you ask me...
it also came free of charge with the guilt and anger of having purchased the worst album ever made by Metallica ;D
i think every musician would like to make money off of their albums. If they don't, then they are forced to do commercials, in which case, you guys would really give them hell. (i know they don't actually HAVE to do commercials, im just making a point.) And metallica/napster thing wasn't just about metallica trying to get their money. they were trying to get money to all the musicians.
and another thing...No musician will be playing at bonnaroo for free this year. they're all getting paid. i hate those a$$hole musicians and their whole "pay me to play music so i can pay my bills" attitude.
can someone give me some karma, im like 2 in the hole.
Last Edit: Feb 11, 2008 11:58:12 GMT -5 by billybluenose - Back to Top
Post by blackmocco on Feb 11, 2008 16:04:47 GMT -5
billybluenose said:
It is ironic that Metallica is notorious for contributing to the shutting down of Napster and other music-share sites yet gained their initial following by encouraging fans to dub copies of their first demo and share their music with friends.
Music is free as long as there's no money to be made.
F*ck you, Lars Ulrich.
I've just decided: No Bonnaroo for me this year.
Instead, I'll postpone my vacation by a week and fill my ears at AthFest instead.
I've yet to understand the sense of self-entitlement that pervades today's culture. Music isn't free. It never has been. It's created by someone and that person deserves to make some money from it, even Metallica. If you poured your heart into a piece of art and then walked down the street to find people selling xeroxes of it, you wouldn't be angry? Get a clue. Stealing is stealing.
Irony is the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning.
Yes and no. That's a pretty post modern view of irony.
Irony in the classical sense is best exemplified in Oedipus Rex where Oedipus sets out to find his family and, in the process, ends up destroying it through murder and incest, all of which are unintended.
Whereas, irony in the sense that you're talking about is very much intentional, classical and what I would consider true irony is absolutely unintentional and largely derives its pathos from the idea that the fates conspire to destroy man despite his best intentions...
That is to say, Metallica playing Bonnaroo does not qualify as irony on any level at all.
Post by blankaflip on Feb 11, 2008 17:29:17 GMT -5
blackmocco said:
billybluenose said:
It is ironic that Metallica is notorious for contributing to the shutting down of Napster and other music-share sites yet gained their initial following by encouraging fans to dub copies of their first demo and share their music with friends.
Music is free as long as there's no money to be made.
F*ck you, Lars Ulrich.
I've just decided: No Bonnaroo for me this year.
Instead, I'll postpone my vacation by a week and fill my ears at AthFest instead.
I've yet to understand the sense of self-entitlement that pervades today's culture. Music isn't free. It never has been. It's created by someone and that person deserves to make some money from it, even Metallica. If you poured your heart into a piece of art and then walked down the street to find people selling xeroxes of it, you wouldn't be angry? Get a clue. Stealing is stealing.
GREAT point!! Songwriting has been a business since the late 1800s . It was originally sold through sheet music, since technology didn't allow audio to be played back until the 1900s. If people went around hand copying the notes back then, it would for sure be stealing. No different now.
PEOPLE ALSO FORGET THAT THE BAND DOESN'T GET ALL THE MONEY FROM ALBUMS. In fact, the artist's cut of a record is the smallest percentage. The record company, packaging people, CD manufacterers, marketers, and engineers all add up to make a larger cut than the performer. Lars was standing up for ALL the people who come together to make records.
I have to disagree with you guys. Copyright is a fundamentally false notion created by men who didn't think up ideas to profit off them long after their originators have passed on. This, of course, is not always the case, but it mostly is.
Honestly, it's great artists make money off music, but as an artist myself, I think intellectual property is a bullshit idea made up by people who think they can own an idea. If you were to truly prosecute people for stealing art, all artists would be the first to go to prison. Read any great book, watch any great movie, listen to any great album by any great artist, and the fingerprints of those that came before him/her will be all over it.
You want to own an idea. Keep it to yourself. Otherwise deal with how people use your art and shut the fuck up.
Last Edit: Feb 11, 2008 17:44:00 GMT -5 by billybluenose - Back to Top
Post by BonnarooDetective on Feb 11, 2008 19:43:37 GMT -5
Isn't it ironic, that a threat titled "Irony with a capital I," which sought to start a discussion about Metallica, actually produced a discussion about the proper usage or irony?
I have to disagree with you guys. Copyright is a fundamentally false notion created by men who didn't think up ideas to profit off them long after their originators have passed on. This, of course, is not always the case, but it mostly is.
Honestly, it's great artists make money off music, but as an artist myself, I think intellectual property is a bullshit idea made up by people who think they can own an idea. If you were to truly prosecute people for stealing art, all artists would be the first to go to prison. Read any great book, watch any great movie, listen to any great album by any great artist, and the fingerprints of those that came before him/her will be all over it.
You want to own an idea. Keep it to yourself. Otherwise deal with how people use your art and shut the quack up.
And I have to disagree it with you... assuming I understand what you're saying. Art isn't simply an idea. It's a specific manifestation of an idea through labor; which generally requires some level of skill; which itself is the result of some form of study.
Copyright isn't about owning an idea. I mean, you're right in that there is a seemingly limited number of archetypes which almost all art is derived from. However, Copyright can help to protect against the exploitation of the labor the artist puts into a specific work.
I'm having trouble following the flow of this thread, but if your comment was an attempt to justify piracy then, well, it's a poor attempt at that.
There is no justification for stealing another persons' work. People are moved by art. People will pay for emotional stimuli such as art. We tend to put the artist up on a pedastool; and whether it's right or wrong, that's the reality of the situation.
And people will exploit that. People will take credit for others' works to receive that praise - be it in monetary form or simple acknowledgement. The biggest problem I have with piracy is that it trivializes music. It reduces it down to some fleeting form of entertainment and portrays musicians as nothing more than robots who's sole purpose is to entertain us.
I'm sure I just added to the clutter of this thread; as I'm still don't think I have any idea what's going on here
And I have to disagree it with you... assuming I understand what you're saying. Art isn't simply an idea. It's a specific manifestation of an idea through labor; which generally requires some level of skill; which itself is the result of some form of study.
But once you put it out into the public, it's not yours anymore. You made it. You don't own it.
ethic said:
Copyright isn't about owning an idea. I mean, you're right in that there is a seemingly limited number of archetypes which almost all art is derived from. However, Copyright can help to protect against the exploitation of the labor the artist puts into a specific work.
Copyright IS ownership though, and as such can be sold. The idea of copyright and the actual practice are two different things completely. In practice, it allows men with means to buy not only artistic patronage, but to profit off of it financially. Patronage becomes a means of making a living and therefore becomes tied to profit. Which is frankly why so much art sucks right now.
ethic said:
I'm having trouble following the flow of this thread, but if your comment was an attempt to justify piracy then, well, it's a poor attempt at that.
I would also say that the justifications for fighting piracy reek of hypocrisy when they come mostly from those who have exploited the fruit of the artists' labor for so long.
ethic said:
There is no justification for stealing another persons' work. People are moved by art. People will pay for emotional stimuli such as art. We tend to put the artist up on a pedastool; and whether it's right or wrong, that's the reality of the situation.
And people will exploit that. People will take credit for others' works to receive that praise - be it in monetary form or simple acknowledgement. The biggest problem I have with piracy is that it trivializes music. It reduces it down to some fleeting form of entertainment and portrays musicians as nothing more than robots who's sole purpose is to entertain us.
And if you're a musician that believes that take the giant stick out of your ass and go fucking play live gigs and get a side job like 99% of the musicians out there.
Honestly, artists are exploited by corporations more than they are by people stealing their music. I would argue there are more musicians making ACTUAL money today than there were 50 years ago. It's just there aren't as many middle men exploiting them.
Great artist are great thieves. You steal ideas. You make them your own. You learn by copying the masters. This is the process. Thieves cannot say to other thieves your stealing is wrong and mine is right. Can Bob Dylan really look his fans in the face and say your stealing money out of my pocket when he's stealing tunes from Woody Guthrie?
Honestly, I have no problem with people taking advantage of bad laws and business practices to earn a living. I just think the bullshit cloud is vaporizing and the music industry will be much, much healthier for it.
Piracy has made things better. It will make things better. The cream will always rise to the top.
^^^Agreed. Perhaps if we want to continue the discussion, another thread should be started. For the moment, I really don't have anything else to say on the topic.
And Metallica playing Bonnaroo still is not ironic...
;D
