Jump to content
News
Reviews
Discussons
Activity
Create New...
Close

Metallica Must Keep Touring to Make Ends Meet

FAPTurbo

By FAPTurbo
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

FAPTurbo Newbie

FAPTurbo

Posted
Posted

http://vancouver.24h...wenn-story.html

Metallica are under pressure to keep touring continuously as they no longer receive regular royalty cheques to sustain them during their time off, according to guitarist Kirk Hammett.

The rocker admits all his bandmates would like to take a break to spend time with their families, but the band has to continue working to keep the money rolling in.

He tells Rolling Stone magazine, "The cycles of taking two years off don't exist anymore. We were able to do that because we had record royalties coming in consistently. Now you put out an album, and you have a windfall maybe once or twice but not the way it used to be - a cheque every three months.

"We've been a live band, we've had to get out there and play, play, play... nowadays that was the area we wanted to kind of lay back on a little bit, and kind of enjoy our families and things. But, you know, it is what it is, and we can't change that."

I guess you could say they`re having trouble putting food on the table.

ZL-1 Newbie

ZL-1

Posted
Posted
I've learned one of the few absolute truths of life from direct observation; the statement 'money is a little tight right now' (or the like) is ALWAYS relative.

This.

These guys are, individually, probably worth around USD 100 million (except for Rob who entered the band just a few years ago). Metallica actually sued Elektra to gain full control over the band's music (and with that ended up having an excellent contract, royalties-wise). The fact is that record sales are down sharply compard to 10 or 20 years ago, digital distribution is something that doesn't net a band as many USD per song/album sold, and so the BIG money now is indeed in touring.

Also, if the band was a little more productive in creating new music, the issue would be somewhat mitigated.

Blake Noble Newbie

Blake Noble

Posted
Posted (edited)

My sympathy for Metallica has pretty much run dry.

Surely no one here thinks that the slow collapse of the record industry has caught Metallica by surprise. They were given a very early glimpse of what the present day had in store for them over a decade ago, with the whole Napster freak show.

Hammett, Ulrich, and the rest of Metallica had the chance to be proactive thirteen years ago. Instead, they chose to be reactive because they knew and feared what Napster and other file sharing networks meant for their future.

I understand that the lawsuit was born out of the band being unhappy that some (then) unfinished work had appeared on Napster, but even still. The band didn't just sue to have that one song taken down; they sued to have the whole service taken down. They were given a prime opportunity to adopt a new way of connecting with their fans, the people who supported them and allowed them to become one of the biggest names in the record industry. But what did they do? They pissed that away, determined to hold on to the old way of doing business because they were afraid that they would have to abandon their decadent, money-laden pop star lifestyles.

post-8523-0-20301300-1338394344_thumb.jp

Did Metallica's lawsuit Napster change anything? Of course not. When Napster went down, those users just shifted to Kaazaa and then to Limewire, still downloading free music and not giving a flying fu#k about the band's bitching and whining.

So, do I care about Metallica's money problems? Nope. There's no sympathy here. That band hasn't been a relevant act since 1987 anyway. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that the entire band died in that bus wreck with Cliff Burton. Yes, I mean that literally and not metaphorically. The Metallica we've known since 1987 is comprised of three look-a-likes and a revolving door of lame bass players.

Edited by black-knight
  • Agree 1
ZL-1 Newbie

ZL-1

Posted
Posted (edited)

I guess you could say they`re having trouble putting food on the table.

putting food on the table.

the table.

>:/

I AM THE TABLE!!! :roflmao:

Edited by ZL-1
FUTURE_OF_GM Newbie

FUTURE_OF_GM

Posted
Posted (edited)

First of all, this article (which is based on the band's latest Rolling Stone spread) is pure bull$h!...

There is absolutely NO way MetallicA is feeling a cash crunch.

If they were TRULY facing hard times, they wouldn't be FINANCING a festival with their own money, FINANCING a new 3D movie with their own money, and MAINTAINING a giant headquarters that employs many people in the heart of SanFran

MetallicA has ALWAYS been a "live band" and have ALWAYS stated that they enjoy touring much more than recording.... Which I'm cool with because their live sh*t is SOOO much better than their studio stuff (They haven't played more than 3 Load/Reload/St. Anger songs in almost 7 years)

Hammett, Ulrich, and the rest of Metallica had the chance to be proactive thirteen years ago. Instead, they chose to be reactive because they knew and feared what Napster and other file sharing networks meant for their future.

O RLY? You think starting a whole website that's SOLELY devoted to SELLING flac files of EVERY live recording you do is being reactive instead of proactive? (www.livemetallica.com)

Lars is a VERY smart business man (actually it's pretty scary how damn accurate his predictions are) and he certainly knows how to make money.

I understand that the lawsuit was born out of the band being unhappy that some (then) unfinished work had appeared on Napster, but even still. The band didn't just sue to have that one song taken down; they sued to have the whole service taken down. They were given a prime opportunity to adopt a new way of connecting with their fans, the people who supported them and allowed them to become one of the biggest names in the record industry. But what did they do? They pissed that away, determined to hold on to the old way of doing business because they were afraid that they would have to abandon their decadent, money-laden pop star lifestyles.

Free file sharing is wrong then and it's wrong now.... There is absolutely NO reason why artists shouldn't be compensated for their work. And it's interesting to see the ever growing roster of bands that have come out in support of MetallicA's stance now that the record industry is on its knees.

So, do I care about Metallica's money problems? Nope. There's no sympathy here. That band hasn't been a relevant act since 1987 anyway. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that the entire band died in that bus wreck with Cliff Burton. Yes, I mean that literally and not metaphorically. The Metallica we've known since 1987 is comprised of three look-a-likes and a revolving door of lame bass players.

LMFAO. I think that's probably the stupidest thing I've heard all year. 2009's Death Magnetic set WORLDWIDE records in sales and success. And bear in mind 1) This is a record from a band which hadn't put out new material in 6 years. 2) This is a record from a band that PUBLICLY broke up and PUBLICLY acted like a bunch of spoiled jackasses. 3) This is a record from a heavy metal band that has been in the game 30 years (long enough for most of the demographic to have been born long after their initial success. And 4) this is a record that was released in the midst of a collapsing record industry and a global economic crisis.

Saying you don't like/respect the band is one thing (and I get that) But saying they're not relevant is just ridiculous.

And BTW, what's wrong with the Lou Reed album? (besides Lou Reed himself)

It's funny how closed minded metal heads are... "Yeah man, F**k the world! We're different!" until somebody messys up their day and "sells out" or (god forbid) becomes a little diverse. Then it's the incessant bitching we've heard since RIDE THE LIGHTNING..

And if money is indeed tight (which I highly doubt) maybe thy should get off their asses and put out more than one record every 5-6 years.

All that said, you guys can look for me this June at Orion Music and More (www.buyaticketf@#ker.com) when I cash in my $600 MetClub VIP tickets for the experience of a lifetime!

Edited by FUTURE_OF_GM
Blake Noble Newbie

Blake Noble

Posted
Posted (edited)

First of all, this article (which is based on the band's latest Rolling Stone spread) is pure bull$h!...

That would be true if those quotes didn't come straight from Hammett's mouth.

There is absolutely NO way MetallicA is feeling a cash crunch.

If they were TRULY facing hard times, they wouldn't be FINANCING a festival with their own money, FINANCING a new 3D movie with their own money, and MAINTAINING a giant headquarters that employs many people in the heart of SanFran

MetallicA has ALWAYS been a "live band" and have ALWAYS stated that they enjoy touring much more than recording.... Which I'm cool with because their live sh*t is SOOO much better than their studio stuff (They haven't played more than 3 Load/Reload/St. Anger songs in almost 7 years)

No one is saying that the band is going broke. But let's put down the glass full of Kool-Aid for a second and face the music. They're not raking in big royalty checks from record sales anymore. The consumer — i.e. their fanbase — has spoken as a majority here; their buisness model quite frankly sucks. They're sort of inept at this whole new-age record buisness thing and they're feeling the burn from it. They're not even willing to seriously try it out.

O RLY? You think starting a whole website that's SOLELY devoted to SELLING flac files of EVERY live recording you do is being reactive instead of proactive? (www.livemetallica.com)

Uh, yeah. It would be proactive if they did that before or in 1999 or 2000 when they were first learning of the popularity of file sharing networks. Not in 2004 after the fact the band realized that their lawsuit against Napster was horribly ineffective.

The site seems to be more or less an answer to fans buying and trading around those stupid bootleg CDs of live recordings that used to be everywhere. That was an issue that ran rampant in the 1990s, not today, and I think someone buying bootleg recordings is worse than piracy.

Also, Live Metallica.com is a very under utlized resource. Why restrict the site to live downloads? Why not allow the band's entire studio catalog to appear there as well, or at least redirect you to a iTunes link?

Yeah, I know you can buy CDs from Metallica's main website, but who in the hell is going to pay $18 bucks for a new copy of Ride the Lightning when, for example, my local Wal-Mart has recently been throwing it in a clearance bin for $5 bucks? How's that for stupid? Metallica fans should boycott for being so blatantly ripped off.

I can't honestly say the band is paying close attention to what other well-established acts are doing, either. Plenty of other well-established acts — acts who also may not enjoy a large cash cache like Metallica does — are pretty much going solo when it comes to recording, distributing and promoting their new records. Plenty of bands are also offering whatever single they release to promote their new record as a free download.

And, although they weren't overwhelming successes, Nine Inch Nails' "The Slip" and "Ghosts I-IV" managed to turn a small profit and they were both even available for free download in some form — in the case of "The Slip" the full album could be downloaded for free with no strings attached.

Radiohead also released "In Rainbows" in a similar fashion before NIN's "Ghosts" and "The Slip" and managed to regain some of the money they invested into making the album back. And although it wasn't officially available for free, their release for "The King of Limbs" was a solid financial success and the band didn't have to resort to charging outrageous prices for the mp3 versions. A DRM-free digital copy of "The King of Limbs" only cost about 2 GPB more than, say, an issue of "Top Gear" magazine (so, about a dollar or two less than "TG" magazine for us here in the States). The physical versions of Radiohead's latest record were also quite content rich for the price and came with both CD and vinyl pressings.

I'm not saying I'm a big fan of either band; I especially moved on from NIN and that genre of music some time ago. But NIN and Radiohead are certainly experimenting with different buisness models that could very well set standards for younger, up and coming bands. The great thing is that the sales of the albums I mentioned above directly supported each band. No one in marketing got a slice, no one at corporate got a slice, no one cleaning the bathroom at the recording studio got a slice. NIN and Radiohead fans seemed to understand that. That's not to mention that, when the fans actually bought the physical copy of the record they were also rewarded with solid content, bonus features, and very cool packaging.

So yeah. You know, I don't see Metallica taking charge here.

Lars is a VERY smart business man (actually it's pretty scary how damn accurate his predictions are) and he certainly knows how to make money.

Yeah, if he were smart, he'd be paying attention to how other acts are actually trying to improve the situation and rewarding their fanbase. See above. If he's such a smart buisness man, he would be trying to think of a fresh, new buisiness model that would make Radiohead's more or less obsolete. Instead, he's charging at least 1.5 times the regular price of a new copy of "Ride The Lightning" on Metallica's website.

Edited by black-knight
Blake Noble Newbie

Blake Noble

Posted
Posted (edited)

Free file sharing is wrong then and it's wrong now.... There is absolutely NO reason why artists shouldn't be compensated for their work.

No one is saying that. Look at the example I gave earlier of Radiohead's "The King of Limbs". The band charged for it, people understood they were being charged a fair price and that their money directly supported the band, and look what happened. The band sold almost 400,000 copies of that album through their website alone and it only took two months.

And it's interesting to see the ever growing roster of bands that have come out in support of MetallicA's stance now that the record industry is on its knees.

I don't exactly hear other bands saying they want to charge $18 bucks for their records and rip-off fans.

LMFAO. I think that's probably the stupidest thing I've heard all year. 2009's Death Magnetic set WORLDWIDE records in sales and success. And bear in mind 1) This is a record from a band which hadn't put out new material in 6 years. 2) This is a record from a band that PUBLICLY broke up and PUBLICLY acted like a bunch of spoiled jackasses. 3) This is a record from a heavy metal band that has been in the game 30 years (long enough for most of the demographic to have been born long after their initial success. And 4) this is a record that was released in the midst of a collapsing record industry and a global economic crisis.

Saying you don't like/respect the band is one thing (and I get that) But saying they're not relevant is just ridiculous.

Hi! I'm Hyperbole and Sarcasm. I don't believe we've met.

As for "Death Magnetic", it was an hour of four old fat guys treading water. Yawn. Just because something sells well, doesn't mean it's anything spectacular. Like Toyota, for example.

It is pretty much true that they really are growing irrelevant from a buisness standpoint, though. The new record industry is preparing to leave them behind in the dust. Just you watch.

I'll also go on the record here and say the first three Metallica albums were brilliant and I'm a fan of what the band used to be. I still have some small shred of respect left for the musicians they are now (that doesn't mean I care when they bitch about money). But the band that wrote "Kill 'Em All," "Ride The Lightning", and "Master of Puppets" seriously is long gone and isn't coming back.

And BTW, what's wrong with the Lou Reed album? (besides Lou Reed himself)

Everything.

I mean, look at your own signature for God's sake. "I am the table?" I wrote better lyrics than that in 7th grade. Hetfield should've let Lou Reed write Lou Reed's own lyrics, if you get my drift.

And Lou Reed is fine on his own.

It's funny how closed minded metal heads are... "Yeah man, F**k the world! We're different!" until somebody messys up their day and "sells out" or (god forbid) becomes a little diverse. Then it's the incessant bitching we've heard since RIDE THE LIGHTNING..

I don't claim to be a metal head. My sensabilities are more in tune with older rock bands from the late '60s and '70s and, even still, that doesn't mean I limit myself to listening to just that sort of music from that specific time frame nor do many of my favorite bands and artists meet that criteria. The music I write isn't exactly treading that particular body of water, either. I'll listen to anything from any genre as long as its good. I'm just as prone to listen to Merle Haggard or David Allen Coe as I am to listen to Queen or Black Sabbath.

Anyway, the stuff that Metallica wrote after '87? Yeah, it's nothing spectacular. Why? Because it seems as if the band lost sight of what they were doing and how they identified themselves. I understand Burton's death may have played a role in that, but even still. When Bon Scott died, you didn't see AC/DC questioning what in the hell they were doing (just questioning how to move on more than anything).

"... And Justice For All" was pretty mediocre if you move past the challenge of how lengthy the songs were and it lacked a certain punch that was there on "Lightning" and "Puppets". "The Black Album" has to be one of the messiest, most confused sounding records I've had the misfortune of wading through. "Load" and "Reload" were Metallica basically trying to play Kyuss tribute songs. "St. Anger"? Let's not go there.

Bands and artists experiment and diversify for various reasons, yes. I most certainly understand that. But it's only truly successful when that band manages to make the end result, well, sound like them if that makes any sense. Consistency is the key word. Fans and other musicians alike aren't very receptive when you're just all over the board, trying to be a jack of all trades while not bothering to master any of them and not offering up your own spin on things.

Look at Mastodon's new record "The Hunter". They've certainly experimented and changed some of their approach to how they write music — the tempos on many songs are slightly slower and the structures are more "poppy" rather than "proggy". But you really don't hear fans complaining because it still sounds like Mastodon. The guitar tones are still there, the vocals are similar to previous albums, the guitar skill i.e. the riffs are still there, the drumming is still techinical.

When Metallica "slowed things down" it didn't sound like Metallica. The difference between "Master of Puppets" and "The Black Album" is horrifically stark. Even the difference between "... And Justice For All" and "Puppets" is glaring and those two albums were released only about two years apart.

Edited by black-knight
FUTURE_OF_GM Newbie

FUTURE_OF_GM

Posted
Posted

That would be true if those quotes didn't come straight from Hammett's mouth.

Indeed he did say those words... However, this piece is blown way out of context on quotes he made for the Rolling Stone spread.

No one is saying that the band is going broke. But let's put down the glass full of Kool-Aid for a second and face the music. They're not raking in big royalty checks from record sales anymore. The consumer — i.e. their fanbase — has spoken as a majority here; their buisness model quite frankly sucks. They're sort of inept at this whole new-age record buisness thing and they're feeling the burn from it. They're not even willing to seriously try it out.

That's exactly what this article is implying.... And, if it isn't fact, why even talk $h! and why fix what ain't broke?

MetallicA recently ended their record deal, and Lars keeps saying they'll do something revolutionary for the next release. I'd probably bit my tongue before I started making gross misjudgments about how 'those old codgers are just outdated'

Uh, yeah. It would be proactive if they did that before or in 1999 or 2000 when they were first learning of the popularity of file sharing networks. Not in 2004 after the fact the band realized that their lawsuit against Napster was horribly ineffective.

Oh give me a break! The friggin' band BROKE UP right after the Napster case and didn't even exist during much of the time you're talking about. St. Anger dropped in 2003 and LiveMet launched in 2004... *weak argument*

The site seems to be more or less an answer to fans buying and trading around those stupid bootleg CDs of live recordings that used to be everywhere. That was an issue that ran rampant in the 1990s, not today, and I think someone buying bootleg recordings is worse than piracy.

Once again... MetallicA is and always has been a live/bootleg band first and foremost (to their hardcore fans). How is this NOT catering DIRECTLY to their core fanbase again?

Also, Live Metallica.com is a very under utlized resource. Why restrict the site to live downloads? Why not allow the band's entire studio catalog to appear there as well, or at least redirect you to a iTunes link?

Again I ask: WHY? iTunes is doing a fine job selling their music for them... Why finance the overhead to compete with that?

Yeah, I know you can buy CDs from Metallica's main website, but who in the hell is going to pay $18 bucks for a new copy of Ride the Lightning when, for example, my local Wal-Mart has recently been throwing it in a clearance bin for $5 bucks? How's that for stupid? Metallica fans should boycott for being so blatantly ripped off.

People who don't have ACCESS to a Wal-Mart (i.e. MetallicA's HUGE international fanbase... The fact that they're charging (and apparently getting) $18 per CD is a TESTAMENT to the band's (Lars) money making ability.

I can't honestly say the band is paying close attention to what other well-established acts are doing, either. Plenty of other well-established acts — acts who also may not enjoy a large cash cache like Metallica does — are pretty much going solo when it comes to recording, distributing and promoting their new records. Plenty of bands are also offering whatever single they release to promote their new record as a free download.

Firstly: who cares what other bands are doing? You do realize WHO we're talking about right? This is METALLICA... One of the most popular and best selling acts of all-time (Second ONLY to the --wretched-- Beatles in sales) They don't NEED to pay attention to what other bands are doing. They could make a damn country album and it's sell like hotcakes... They have a DEDICATED fanbase that buys pretty much anything they do.

Secondly: Reference the end of their record deal and their remarks again.

That's not to mention that, when the fans actually bought the physical copy of the record they were also rewarded with solid content, bonus features, and very cool packaging.

You mean, kinda like St. Anger which included a DVD and LiveMet access.... Or Coffin Magnetic which included a ton of stuff as well?

Yeah, if he were smart, he'd be paying attention to how other acts are actually trying to improve the situation and rewarding their fanbase. See above. If he's such a smart buisness man, he would be trying to think of a fresh, new buisiness model that would make Radiohead's more or less obsolete. Instead, he's charging at least 1.5 times the regular price of a new copy of "Ride The Lightning" on Metallica's website.

Again.... See above. And again, how is making a ton of markup on CDs bad business again?

No one is saying that.

That's the root of EVERY one of these conversations (countless) that I've had...

"MetallicA was greedy...." MetallicA sucks..." "MetallicA lost..."

YES, MetallicA was VERY greedy. I'm a diehard fan, but I could've never dealt with the jackasses I saw in Some Kind of Monster. HOWEVER, what's wrong is wrong.

FUTURE_OF_GM Newbie

FUTURE_OF_GM

Posted
Posted
Look at the example I gave earlier of Radiohead's "The King of Limbs". The band charged for it, people understood they were being charged a fair price and that their money directly supported the band, and look what happened. The band sold almost 400,000 copies of that album through their website alone and it only took two months.

Really dude?

First off, MetallicA sold 490,000 copies of Death Magnetic in THREE DAYS using your 'out-of-touch' business sense.

Secondly, do you REALLY think most people would look at a new MetallicA CD and say: "Oh, I feel better about buying this because it's padding James Hetfield and Lars Ulrichs pockets." YEAH RIGHT! This isn't some wook haven like Radiohead... It's a bad that most 'common' people loathe....

I don't exactly hear other bands saying they want to charge $18 bucks for their records and rip-off fans.

Neither do I, and that's why I didn't say I did. Again, many bands have come out in support of Lars stance against file sharing/Napster.

As for "Death Magnetic", it was an hour of four old fat guys treading water. Yawn. Just because something sells well, doesn't mean it's anything spectacular. Like Toyota, for example.

1) That's completely subjective.... 2) I'll agree that, while it's an excellent album, it's too refined and over thought And 3) But who can blame them?!?! GOD FORBID THEY NOT TRY TO MAKE AN ALBUM THAT DOESN'T APPEAL TO PISSED OFF FANS. *rolleyes*

Toyota might not be everyone's tastes, but arguing that they're irrelevant is ridiculous... In fact, they're the company that set the standard for eveyone in the modern era (sound familiar?)

It is pretty much true that they really are growing irrelevant from a buisness standpoint, though. The new record industry is preparing to leave them behind in the dust. Just you watch.

What record industry? Oh, and tell that 'irrelevant' speech to the tons of bands that want to open fo them and the tons of festivals that want to book them to headline.

I'll also go on the record here and say the first three Metallica albums were brilliant and I'm a fan of what the band used to be. I still have some small shred of respect left for the musicians they are now (that doesn't mean I care when they bitch about money). But the band that wrote "Kill 'Em All," "Ride The Lightning", and "Master of Puppets" seriously is long gone and isn't coming back.

Again... Subjective. (And yes, that band is long gone because Cliff is dead)

I mean, look at your own signature for God's sake. "I am the table?" I wrote better lyrics than that in 7th grade. Hetfield should've let Lou Reed write Lou Reed's own lyrics, if you get my drift.

And Lou Reed is fine on his own.

1) You have to admit, the signature is freakin' hilarious :)

2) The album is PAINFUL for me to listen too

3) And the reason is because Lou Reed suck ass. (which, BTW since this was a Lou Reed project that MetallicA participated in, I'm pretty sure Reed wrote those lines)

4) THAT SAID, I understand why the band did it... The album actually is morbidly haunting (if you pretend an talented vocalist is actually reciting Reed's lines) and GEE GOLLY, isn't it just nice to see a big band THINKING OUTSIDE OF THE BOX these days instead of being a $h!ty pop sensation or one of those annoying 'indie' abominations that everyone *thinks* is so innovative?

"... And Justice For All" was pretty mediocre if you move past the challenge of how lengthy the songs were and it lacked a certain punch that was there on "Lightning" and "Puppets". "The Black Album" has to be one of the messiest, most confused sounding records I've had the misfortune of wading through. "Load" and "Reload" were Metallica basically trying to play Kyuss tribute songs. "St. Anger"? Let's not go there.

AJFA is a masterpiece (my favorite album) and has inspired MANY metal bands. TBA was an excellent album (although probably one of my least favorite) and still serves as a MONUMENTAL success. Load and ReLoad possess some of the darkest (and best) lyrics I've ever heard, capitalize on MetallicAs UNMATCHED ability to set atmosphere and tone and, unlike ANY other record I've ever heard, feature unique flavors and sounds on almost every one of their songs. And St. Anger would've been a raging success had it been put out by a run of the mill metal band. I LOVE the raw style of St. Anger.

See, that's the cool thing about MetallicA (and it's very unique) virtually ALL of their albums have a different vibe and different influences. Again, why is this diversity a bad thing?

Bands and artists experiment and diversify for various reasons, yes. I most certainly understand that. But it's only truly successful when that band manages to make the end result, well, sound like them if that makes any sense. Consistency is the key word. Fans and other musicians alike aren't very receptive when you're just all over the board, trying to be a jack of all trades while not bothering to master any of them and not offering up your own spin on things.

You HONESTLY can't tell the "MetallicA sound" 5 seconds into a song... I remember hearing AJFA for the first time (I had only heard TBA and the Loads up to that point) I INSTANTLY knew that guitar sound was MetallicA. Hetfield's riffing is unique enough in its own right to set them apart. That's not even counting the raspy vocals HE pioneered (that EVERY metal singer tries to hit now) or their classic guitar harmony.

Look at Mastodon's new record "The Hunter". They've certainly experimented and changed some of their approach to how they write music — the tempos on many songs are slightly slower and the structures are more "poppy" rather than "proggy". But you really don't hear fans complaining because it still sounds like Mastodon. The guitar tones are still there, the vocals are similar to previous albums, the guitar skill i.e. the riffs are still there, the drumming is still techinical.

Mastodon's fans aren't anything like MetallicA fans (especially the 'betrayed' lot) .... and Mastodon sucks regardless. (Sorry, couldn't resist)

When Metallica "slowed things down" it didn't sound like Metallica. The difference between "Master of Puppets" and "The Black Album" is horrifically stark. Even the difference between "... And Justice For All" and "Puppets" is glaring and those two albums were released only about two years apart.

You can't listen to Death Magnetic and hear those early records?

What it boils down to is EVERYONE seems to have an issue with MetallicA... And the band is cool with that. James has OPENLY said "If you don't like what we do, don't buy our $h!." They're be plenty of hardcore fans (like me) to always support the band.

Tried to split that up into multiple posts, but the board combined it.

ZL-1 Newbie

ZL-1

Posted
Posted

So much angry. You'd think someone posted a link to the most annoying website on the internet or something.

:lol:
occupant Newbie

occupant

Posted
Posted

Yeah, uh, dude...

"The Black Album" has to be one of the messiest, most confused sounding records I've had the misfortune of wading through.

You just lost all possible credibility with me after that statement. I won't be commenting further, but I might send a friend of mine in here to sort you out.

Blake Noble Newbie

Blake Noble

Posted
Posted

Yeah, uh, dude...

"The Black Album" has to be one of the messiest, most confused sounding records I've had the misfortune of wading through.

You just lost all possible credibility with me after that statement. I won't be commenting further, but I might send a friend of mine in here to sort you out.

I'll get around to FOG's novella later, but before I do let me just say that I think this post is absolutely hilarious.

Now for more official business. In accordance with internet rules and regulations, I must inform you that before you bring in a friend, aquantance or accompliance to assist you in your handling of the emotional distress (known as "butthurt" in online lingo) you're experiencing from the traumatizing statement I made on Friday, you must fill out and send in the appropriate form. Please don't forget to file a copy for your records.

butthurt_report_form.jpg

  • Agree 1
balthazar

balthazar

Posted
Posted

Didn't Metallica cease to be relevant around 1999 or so?

>>"World Magnetic Tour was a 2008/2009/2010 concert tour in support of the group's 9th studio album, Death Magnetic, released in September 2008.

It ended up being the most successful by Metallica, grossing roughly $417.2 million..."<<

I guess not. :rolleyes:

Blake Noble Newbie

Blake Noble

Posted
Posted

Indeed he did say those words... However, this piece is blown way out of context on quotes he made for the Rolling Stone spread.

Blown way out of context? How? Is it because 24 Hours didn't throw in this Hammett quote?

We have to go out and play shows, and we're totally fine with that.

Okay, so he's fine with touring. Still doesn't change the fact he complained about getting skimpy royalty checks and basically said the band has to tour in order to bring in big revenue. Not that the latter statement is a big shocker anyway; it's a known fact bands make more money from shows than record sales. Also, the way he said "have to" in that statement makes it seem as if he's not really enjoying it too much even still.

That's exactly what this article is implying.... And, if it isn't fact, why even talk $h! and why fix what ain't broke?

No it isn't. Read it again.

MetallicA recently ended their record deal, and Lars keeps saying they'll do something revolutionary for the next release. I'd probably bit my tongue before I started making gross misjudgments about how 'those old codgers are just outdated'

Hah. I guess we'll see, but unless Ulrich decides to take a bold step and start up a download service — something where you pay $10 a month/$120 a year and download (not just stream) as much of the band's standard catalog to keep as your connection's bandwidth will allow for free thereafter — I fail to see how the band will top what other bands are already doing. If they do decide to release their next studio album through the internet, it'll be nice to see them finally get on the boat before it sets sail. It would've only taken them 13 years.

Oh give me a break! The friggin' band BROKE UP right after the Napster case and didn't even exist during much of the time you're talking about. St. Anger dropped in 2003 and LiveMet launched in 2004... *weak argument*

The band didn't offically break up after 2001. Newstead left and the rest of the band went on a short hiatus from the studio while they sorted through their personal issues.

Sure, they may have been questioning their future then, but that doesn't qualify as a Beatles-style break-up, sorry. No one left in the band officially decided to go their separate ways, and no one started up solo projects. They pretty much directly went into the studio like they planned to before Newstead quit after Hetfield came out of rehab and they worked out their differences as a band. Their downtime barely lasted a year and, yes, they still technically existed post-Napster.

Blake Noble Newbie

Blake Noble

Posted
Posted (edited)

Once again... MetallicA is and always has been a live/bootleg band first and foremost (to their hardcore fans). How is this NOT catering DIRECTLY to their core fanbase again?


You're missing the point. The days of obscure labels turning out bootleg albums like this ...

"<ahttp://static.rateyourmusic.com/album_images/90255a1fbafde5a146943184279d0a9a/744569.jpg" />

... are long gone. I get that hardcore Metallica fans value that sort of thing and it might make sense to offer "official bootlegs" to them, but it's not an end-all-be-all solution to their "problems" and starting up LiveMetallica.com surely wasn't a proactive decision.


Again I ask: WHY? iTunes is doing a fine job selling their music for them... Why finance the overhead to compete with that?


Because it would mean the band would eventually enjoy a more direct flow of cash and they would wind up giving iTunes less money. You do know iTunes gets a cut from every album they sell, right? On top of the other guys at the studio and corporate who get a slice of the pie? It isn't for free.

So, that ostensibly means that: 1.) the band can enjoy healthier royalty checks; 2.) the band quits bitching about not making as much money from record sales; 3.) we don't have to have disucssions like this in the future.



People who don't have ACCESS to a Wal-Mart (i.e. MetallicA's HUGE international fanbase... The fact that they're charging (and apparently getting) $18 per CD is a TESTAMENT to the band's (Lars) money making ability.


It's cheaper on eBay, new or used. Smart international fans will either buy there or, if they live in a first world country, their local big-box or mom-n-pop record store where the prices will be about a minimum of $3 dollars cheaper.

It's either that or buy it used or pirate it. The latter two in no way benefit the band.

Considering the current status of the record industry, charging $18 bucks for a standard CD only encourages fans and listeners to buy or download the music by other means through other outlets elsewhere. Again, that doesn't do the band any favors.


Firstly: who cares what other bands are doing? You do realize WHO we're talking about right? This is METALLICA... One of the most popular and best selling acts of all-time (Second ONLY to the --wretched-- Beatles in sales) They don't NEED to pay attention to what other bands are doing. They could make a damn country album and it's sell like hotcakes... They have a DEDICATED fanbase that buys pretty much anything they do.

Secondly: Reference the end of their record deal and their remarks again.


Metallica must care after all since, like you more or less said, they may release their next studio album through the internet.

It's funny. If that does happen, I can almost see Ulrich trying to take credit for starting it like how Romney tried to take credit for the auto bailout ...

The Beatles are "wretched", huh? Would you like them better if they sounded like this?



Okay, I seriously didn't mean that as a cheap shot or anything. I just wanted to bring up Beatallica somewhere in this thread and being the opportunist that I am, well ...



You mean, kinda like St. Anger which included a DVD and LiveMet access.... Or Coffin Magnetic which included a ton of stuff as well?


A live DVD isn't enough and any Joe Schmoe can access LiveMetallica.com and purchase downloads there. How about throwing in some bonus studio tracks exclusive to the physical version of the album, extensive artwork, and user-interactive packaging for starters? And selling that for $10.99 as your standard physical release?

You'll also have to excuse me for not keeping close tabs on the release of "Death Magnetic". I see where the band did try to introduce different packages for the album including the coffin boxset you're referring to, but those were offered to members of the Metallica fan club only. Which explains why I had no idea it even existed in the first place.

I'll be fair and say the thinking was in the right place, but the band screwed up by not eventually offering them to customers who don't want to cough up the dough to be in the Metallica fan club. Offering the fan club a first crack at buying a copy is cool, sure. Keeping "outsiders" away from that chance permanently isn't cool. Now it looks like you're just trying to sell a membership, not an album. Edited by black-knight
SAmadei Newbie

SAmadei

Posted
Posted

Firstly: who cares what other bands are doing? You do realize WHO we're talking about right? This is METALLICA... One of the most popular and best selling acts of all-time (Second ONLY to the --wretched-- Beatles in sales) They don't NEED to pay attention to what other bands are doing. They could make a damn country album and it's sell like hotcakes... They have a DEDICATED fanbase that buys pretty much anything they do.

Second to the Beatles? Not even close.

This list is from Wiki and excludes some MAJOR solo acts... like Elvis, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Elton John, even Phil Collins who seem to have outsold Metallica.

1. Beatles 1 billion claimed 250 million certified

2. Led Zeppelin 300 million claimed 133 million certified

3. Queen 300 million claimed 90 million certified

4. ABBA 300 million claimed 54 million certified

5. Pink Floyd 250 million claimed 110 million certified

6. AC/DC 200 million claimed 99 million certified

7. Rolling Stones 200 million claimed 89 million certified

8. Bee Gees 200 million claimed 63 certified

9. U2 150 claimed 98 million certified

10. Aerosmith 150 million claimed 79 million certified

11. Genesis 150 million claimed 38 million certified

12. Backstreet Boys 130 million claimed 65.7 million certified

13. Bon Jovi 130 million claimed 64 million certified

14. Chicago 122 million claimed 47 million certified

15. Eagles 120 million claimed 126 million certified

16. Dire Straits 120 million claimed 40 million certified

and finally...

17. Metallica 100 million claimed 81 million certified

  • Agree 2
SAmadei Newbie

SAmadei

Posted
Posted

Didn't Metallica cease to be relevant around 1999 or so?

>>"World Magnetic Tour was a 2008/2009/2010 concert tour in support of the group's 9th studio album, Death Magnetic, released in September 2008.

It ended up being the most successful by Metallica, grossing roughly $417.2 million..."<<

I guess not. :rolleyes:

Well, yes and no. There are loads of bands that tour on hugely popular tours... AC/DC, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, etc... who people can argue have not been particularly relevant for decades. I don't fault these guys for collecting the easy money. Guns N Roses keeps grossing big bucks, despite low relevance and that the remaining original 20% of the band is a raging asshole.

But I wonder why all the big touring money is recent... well, its the same reason why newer movies keep setting box office records (Avatar currently holds this)... they count dollars and not tickets... because everything keeps getting more expensive... adjusted for inflation, Gone with the Wind blows Avatar out the window. And I feel this effect blows tours out of proportion even more so due to the fact that the fans are older and have the disposable income they didn't have when the bands were in their prime... and because the bands are getting older and the fans realize this might be the last time they may be able to see them live.

Blake Noble Newbie

Blake Noble

Posted
Posted

Again.... See above. And again, how is making a ton of markup on CDs bad business again?

Let's see. Where to start on this one? For starters, it unwittingly encourages listeners and fans to buy or download elsewhere. Like I said earlier.

Also, you know just as well as I do if you're charging more for the same item that someone else is selling for much cheaper no one will buy from you. That's basic business sense. I know if I had a band and we were selling records we'd make sure listeners and fans were buying from us first and foremost.

That's the root of EVERY one of these conversations (countless) that I've had...

"MetallicA was greedy...." MetallicA sucks..." "MetallicA lost..."

YES, MetallicA was VERY greedy. I'm a diehard fan, but I could've never dealt with the jackasses I saw in Some Kind of Monster. HOWEVER, what's wrong is wrong.

What's wrong again?

Really dude?

First off, MetallicA sold 490,000 copies of Death Magnetic in THREE DAYS using your 'out-of-touch' business sense.

Secondly, do you REALLY think most people would look at a new MetallicA CD and say: "Oh, I feel better about buying this because it's padding James Hetfield and Lars Ulrichs pockets." YEAH RIGHT! This isn't some wook haven like Radiohead... It's a bad that most 'common' people loathe....

You're missing the point. I threw the online sales figures out there for that record only to show an album can be a solid success without a record label to distribute it to big-box retailers and advertise it on MTV. Total sales figures for that album aren't easy to find.

The point I was getting at was that, since Radiohead released the album themselves, paid for all of the recording costs incurred and promoted it themselves (although they didn't do a great job at advertising it), all of the profits came directly back to them. It didn't have to sell 2 million copies to be financially successful. They didn't have to let a million corporate leeches suck up a slice of their earnings.

And regardless of the band's reputation, fans and listeners do like buying albums directly from the band. Ask and look around.

Neither do I, and that's why I didn't say I did. Again, many bands have come out in support of Lars stance against file sharing/Napster.

You're missing the point, but that's fine. No big deal.

When other bands and artists are asked about online piracy, I hear just as many positive comments as I do negative ones. I hear comments on how it negatively impacts hard-working independent labels; I hear comments on how bands built up their early fanbase by just releasing music online for free, no touring required. My gut tells me that Ulrich would do away with online music share all together if he had the chance. Maybe not, but that's where I'd put my money. Other bands ... well, not so much.

Unless you meant Tool takes the same stance against file sharing. I suppose they might, but I'd also guess that they would be just as likely to leak their own albums to spite their label.

1) That's completely subjective.... 2) I'll agree that, while it's an excellent album, it's too refined and over thought And 3) But who can blame them?!?! GOD FORBID THEY NOT TRY TO MAKE AN ALBUM THAT DOESN'T APPEAL TO PISSED OFF FANS. *rolleyes*

Toyota might not be everyone's tastes, but arguing that they're irrelevant is ridiculous... In fact, they're the company that set the standard for eveyone in the modern era (sound familiar?)

If my opinion of "Death Magnetic" is subjective, then yours is too.

I didn't say Toyota was irrelevant and I wasn't trying to argue that.

Blake Noble Newbie

Blake Noble

Posted
Posted

What record industry? Oh, and tell that 'irrelevant' speech to the tons of bands that want to open fo them and the tons of festivals that want to book them to headline.

 

Missing the point again, but it's cool.


1) You have to admit, the signature is freakin' hilarious :)
2) The album is PAINFUL for me to listen too
3) And the reason is because Lou Reed suck ass. (which, BTW since this was a Lou Reed project that MetallicA participated in, I'm pretty sure Reed wrote those lines)
4) THAT SAID, I understand why the band did it... The album actually is morbidly haunting (if you pretend an talented vocalist is actually reciting Reed's lines) and GEE GOLLY, isn't it just nice to see a big band THINKING OUTSIDE OF THE BOX these days instead of being a &#036;h&#33;ty pop sensation or one of those annoying 'indie' abominations that everyone *thinks* is so innovative?

 

1. Oh, I'm not denying that. I laughed my ass off when I first caught wind of that song and saw all of the 'Shoops.

2. Agreed.

3. Lou Reed doesn't suck. He's just not someone you'd want to put in the same room as Metallica. On his own, he's okay. I don't think he's anything spectacular, but there's certainly much, much, much worse. And The Velvet Underground wrote some of their best albums and songs during his involvement in that group.

4. I've listened to albums, even certain songs far more emotionally smothering and haunting than "Lulu". And why give too much credit to a band of Metallica's size when they "think outside the box"? Who says that gaining popularity automatically means that you can get lazy and rest on your laurels? If you're a musician and you play in a band that's recording albums, you're going to be thinking about the record you just wrote and how you want to make that record better the next time you're in the studio. Not how you want to completely change everything, but improve.

 

Indie bands are "abominations" huh? Metallica was on an Indie label (Megaforce) in their early days, which means they were an Indie band at one time. I guess they're an abomination then.


AJFA is a masterpiece (my favorite album) and has inspired MANY metal bands. TBA was an excellent album (although probably one of my least favorite) and still serves as a MONUMENTAL success. Load and ReLoad possess some of the darkest (and best) lyrics I've ever heard, capitalize on MetallicAs UNMATCHED ability to set atmosphere and tone and, unlike ANY other record I've ever heard, feature unique flavors and sounds on almost every one of their songs. And St. Anger would've been a raging success had it been put out by a run of the mill metal band. I LOVE the raw style of St. Anger.

See, that's the cool thing about MetallicA (and it's very unique) virtually ALL of their albums have a different vibe and different influences. Again, why is this diversity a bad thing?

 

All of that's subjective.

 

And, like I said, diversity isn't a bad thing. When you do, just make it sound like you and be consistent. Move forward but hold on to where you came from. That's how bands who do diversify find universal critical acclaim.

 

Metallica's later work, as I've said, is a complete departure from their original sound. It makes me think of what Vinnie Paul said about forming Damageplan after Pantera went bust. Something about serving Coke to people for years then switching the formula to Diet Rite.

 

Food for thought: If Metallica's studio albums beginning with "The Black Album" were released under another name, I'm sure you'd have less complaining. Seriously. If "The Black Album", "Load", "Reload" and "St. Anger" were all from some other band, they would probably be universally acclaimed.



You HONESTLY can't tell the "MetallicA sound" 5 seconds into a song... I remember hearing AJFA for the first time (I had only heard TBA and the Loads up to that point) I INSTANTLY knew that guitar sound was MetallicA. Hetfield's riffing is unique enough in its own right to set them apart. That's not even counting the raspy vocals HE pioneered (that EVERY metal singer tries to hit now) or their classic guitar harmony.

 

A band's sound and a guitarist's tone are two separate things. They can work in tandem i.e. one can play off of the other, or they can work alone. In Metallica's case, it worked alone when you compare and contrast their early and later work.

 

Their classic guitar harmony huh? Yeah. It isn't like Thin Lizzy did stuff like that or anything.

 



Mastodon's fans aren't anything like MetallicA fans (especially the 'betrayed' lot) .... and Mastodon sucks regardless. (Sorry, couldn't resist)

 

You're concentrating on the fans themselves too much and not the band's consistency and progression throughout their career and how the fans reacted to that. They didn't release "Remission" and "Leviathan" then the "The Hunter" right after that. That would've been a complete 180 and that would've pissed fans off, regardless of how they may differ from Metallica's fans.

 

Metallica going from an album like "... And Justice For All" to "The Black Album"  was a total 180 and that's what led to so much dischord. As much I find "... And Justice For All" lackluster in comparison to "Ride The Lightning" or "Master of Puppets", I can say it was a passable Metallica record.

 

And would you like Mastodon better if they sounded like this?

 

 

Okay ... that one was almost a cheap shot. Sorry.

Robert Hall Veteran

Robert Hall

Posted
Posted (edited)

Food for thought: If Metallica's studio albums beginning with "The Black Album" were released under another name, I'm sure you'd have less complaining. Seriously. If "The Black Album", "Load", "Reload" and "St. Anger" were all from some other band, they would probably be universally acclaimed.

Interesting point...The Black Album (after hearing Load) was when I first started listening to them..wasn't familiar w/ their earlier work.

Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar
Turbojett Newbie

Turbojett

Posted
Posted (edited)

Good lawdy. Do Abba, the BeeGees and the Backstreet boys really have so many fans that they sold that many records?

...and I like Metallica as much as the next guy, but you just have to accept sometimes that there are "better" bands out there, there are "more successful" bands, and there are bands that have sold more records. There's always a bigger fish.

So why are we trying to scale this molehill, really?

Edited by Turbojett
Robert Hall Veteran

Robert Hall

Posted
Posted

Good lawdy. Do Abba, the BeeGees and the Backstreet boys really have so many fans that they sold that many records?

...and I like Metallica as much as the next guy, but you just have to accept sometimes that there are "better" bands out there, there are "more successful" bands, and there are bands that have sold more records. There's always a bigger fish.

So why are we trying to scale this molehill, really?

Then there are the bands that are actively trying to be the biggest ever...whether it is in terms of album sales, awards, make the most $$ off of tours, etc. many different ways of measuring success...as far as what bands are 'the best', well, that's a personal or a critical choice..not really quantifiable...

Turbojett Newbie

Turbojett

Posted
Posted

Good lawdy. Do Abba, the BeeGees and the Backstreet boys really have so many fans that they sold that many records?

...and I like Metallica as much as the next guy, but you just have to accept sometimes that there are "better" bands out there, there are "more successful" bands, and there are bands that have sold more records. There's always a bigger fish.

So why are we trying to scale this molehill, really?

Then there are the bands that are actively trying to be the biggest ever...whether it is in terms of album sales, awards, make the most $$ off of tours, etc. many different ways of measuring success...as far as what bands are 'the best', well, that's a personal or a critical choice..not really quantifiable...

exactlicly. :thumbsup:

FUTURE_OF_GM Newbie

FUTURE_OF_GM

Posted
Posted

A few things right off the top of my head (Just because I'm not really interested enough to dissect another series of posts to say basically the same thing)

1) I will amend my Beetles statement to reflect that, in the last 14 years MetallicA is second to only the Beetles in CATALOG sales.

2) I'm well aware of Thin Lizzys influence on MetallicA. What I meant was that's what sets/set them apart in the modern/metal scene.

3) Karma must not be too much of a bitch (I personally believe Karma is a bull&#036;h&#33; myth, but whatever) since they're selling BETTER THAN EVER.

4) Mastodon sucks (IMO) because of the singers weak-ass vocals.

5) I understand the issue perfectly (in regards to the misunderstanding comments) This is just another outlet for self-righteous former fans to air their grievances and take a crap on one of the best and most legendary musical acts to ever exist. It's nothing personal. Just as I get tired of hearing the lame anti-GM speal, I get tired of hearing "what's wrong with MetallicA" (Although I will admit that I LOVE the fact they're a self serving lot which has pissed off countless people)

But hey, like I said in my original post, good riddance.

SAmadei Newbie

SAmadei

Posted
Posted

1) I will amend my Beetles statement to reflect that, in the last 14 years MetallicA is second to only the Beetles in CATALOG sales.

Please quote a source. I find it really hard to believe that Metallica has moved that much product in the last 14 years... or that even the Beatles catalog sales in the last 14 years is number one. In fact, I'd say Micheal Jackson's Catalog sales have trounced both when he died and nearly every album reentered the charts.

Z-06 Newbie

Z-06

Posted
Posted

The word Karma is almost always taken the wrong way. Karma in Sanskrit means "Work." I guess Work is a bitch, or Work is bull&#036;h&#33;. :P

Blake Noble Newbie

Blake Noble

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm just going to respond to the minor points of the following post.

2) I'm well aware of Thin Lizzys influence on MetallicA. What I meant was that's what sets/set them apart in the modern/metal scene.

Oh. That's what you meant. Sorry for misunderstanding then.

Baroness in particular are really, really big on guitar harmonies. Just sayin'. To be fair, maybe that influence comes from those early Metallica records (which was influenced by Thin Lizzy). Hard to say.

4) Mastodon sucks (IMO) because of the singers weak-ass vocals.

Hmmm ... yeah, I gotta agree that in a live setting their vocals leave plenty to be desired. Still, there's a hell of a lot of talent in that band and one weak cog isn't always enough to bring down the whole machine. But hey, to each his own. In the words of The Dude himself, "That's just, like, your opinion, man."

5) I understand the issue perfectly (in regards to the misunderstanding comments) This is just another outlet for self-righteous former fans to air their grievances and take a crap on one of the best and most legendary musical acts to ever exist. It's nothing personal. Just as I get tired of hearing the lame anti-GM speal, I get tired of hearing "what's wrong with MetallicA" (Although I will admit that I LOVE the fact they're a self serving lot which has pissed off countless people)

It's nothing like that. Not for me at least. It's simply about speaking up and challenging someone's perception, and what sort of conversation comes about as a result.

Sure, I dislike a good lot of what Metallica's done and I don't understand how they've been able to ultimately ignore the progression of the record industry. I've never claimed to be a fan and I think they're far from the best musical act out there, past, present or future. Not everything Metallica has done during their career was/is pure gold and just because a band can brag about selling 2 million copies of a particular album doesn't mean literally everything they've done is something great to all people — the same is true of GM, if you want to make that comparison. But, in the end, I can admit there are some Metallica records I really like and may have even inspired me a bit. I'll just leave it at that.

Edited by black-knight
  • 2 weeks later...
FUTURE_OF_GM Newbie

FUTURE_OF_GM

Posted
Posted (edited)

1) I will amend my Beetles statement to reflect that, in the last 14 years MetallicA is second to only the Beetles in CATALOG sales.

Please quote a source. I find it really hard to believe that Metallica has moved that much product in the last 14 years... or that even the Beatles catalog sales in the last 14 years is number one. In fact, I'd say Micheal Jackson's Catalog sales have trounced both when he died and nearly every album reentered the charts.

Mission Metallica Video number 1 (it's now on YouTube)

The word Karma is almost always taken the wrong way. Karma in Sanskrit means "Work." I guess Work is a bitch, or Work is bull&#036;h&#33;. :P

Both, actually. :D

Edited by FUTURE_OF_GM

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

I've whitelisted
Continue without support

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search