First bitches Posted by F1XXX3R @ 06/10/2008 11:18 AM EST

Don't blame Metallica for this one. This is SOOOOOO WB trying to capitalise on Metallica's last contracted album. Posted by F1XXX3R @ 06/10/2008 11:25 AM EST

This is so over hyped. All they did was say, take down the reviews. Now headlines say, Metallica wages war....No they didnt, their management asked the reviews not yet be published. Posted by Mark @ 06/10/2008 11:30 AM EST

Yeah, I think Warner is really trying to get every last red cent from MetallicA, considering this is their last album under contract. Jump in the Studio was put out by Metallica and it was free. Although I'm just using the free section of MM, I like JITS better. I've decided I want the album to be brand new to me when I pick it up; that's why I didn't do the Platinum thing. I am thinking of joining the club again, but holding off for now. Posted by The Thing that should not be @ 06/10/2008 11:37 AM EST

retarded who cares Posted by Tony @ 06/10/2008 11:40 AM EST

Warner Posted by Tim @ 06/10/2008 12:17 PM EST

been in the club for 12 years and didn't get M&G passes or tix for the MetClub BBQ. None too happy. So who's going to see them this Friday in Tennessee? Posted by The General @ 06/10/2008 01:05 PM EST

This isn't about money you idiots- it's about reviews leaking that may, or may not be accurate because 6 songs does not make up an album. What the hell is up with the IS guys being so convinced that Metallica is money grubbing and posting it in every news segment. If you just want to complain about Metallica, then go write for Blabbermouth. This is a Metallica FAN site, or at least, it used to be. Posted by Chris @ 06/10/2008 01:08 PM EST

i dont think the guys here at IS think that Metallica are money grubbers. doesn't seem like they are complaining either, just stating facts and what people are saying....And this is still a Metallica fan site. Posted by The General @ 06/10/2008 01:34 PM EST

Chris first of all how can a opinionated review not be accurate? second of all, none of the reviews were bad..the worst was "best song since the 80s, 2 good songs and 3 mediocre ones." Have you ever heard 6 britney spears songs and say hmm..I need to hear the rest of the album before i say anything? reviews dont get LEAKED ..thats the whole point of a listening party. Its FASCISM ..to censor and oppress media and freedom of speech.maybe PUTIN runs warner brothers i dunno. Lastly, this is a metallica fan site -that is correct. Here you will find opinions both positive and negative. If you think paying 100 dollars for a new metallica cd you havent heard yet..be my guest..and if you find nothing wrong with warner bros. leaving up the positive reviews and taking down any negative ones..then go live in russia, just dont write anything bad about the government or you might wake up dead. Posted by sean @ 06/10/2008 01:43 PM EST

The General. Sorry to hear that. I have been in and out of the club for probably a total of 3 to 4 years and have had back stage passes three times through the club, won tickets and went to the Filmore and seen them front row a bunch of times. Have you ever had passes through the club? We have had great luck obviously. I also had all access backstage in St. Louis but it was through a friend that got to know Jason and watched the show from the side of the stage, ate their catering, drank with Kid Rocks band in the hotel..this was during Summer Sanitarium. I bought Kirk a shot, he was with Mike Borden and drinking 20 dollar shots of 1920 Tequilla. Posted by Mark @ 06/10/2008 01:54 PM EST

I understand they took down all the reviews, even the good. Blabbermouth and other sites are only focusing on one that was still good but said 2 mediocre to stir controversy. Who knows the reason why and who cares. Posted by Mark to Sean @ 06/10/2008 01:57 PM EST

Since the reviews were pretty good overall, I'd bet what they don't want out yet is the song descriptions. I think they want as much suprise and anticipation as possible, and don't want such note for note dissections being public until it is available. Posted by kurt @ 06/10/2008 02:25 PM EST

Kurt, I have to agree. They mentioned song titles and lyrics and that may have been to much. Again, the reviews were positive so it is not Metallica against the internet, that is just stupid. They just dont feel it should be leaked yet. Posted by Mark @ 06/10/2008 02:48 PM EST

Ok... this most definitely is a Metallica fansite. But, this is still my site... I pay for every damn cent... the one ad I run (google) hasn't paid me a dime... the hours of design/coding all are done by me and uncompensated; the hosting paid by me. Therefore, I'm gonna speak my mind. I'm going to throw my two cents out there. Right now, it appears that something in the Metallica chain of command is out whack and out of touch.... it's ridiculous. If you don't like what I have to say you are invited for rational, intelligent conversation here in the comments. Posted by IS-JD @ 06/10/2008 04:01 PM EST

Not to kiss your ass, JD, but I agree with you 100% on this. Mission Metallica is an absolute joke. Metallica is big enough to tell Warner to not charge for such a service. I don't believe it was out of their hands. Posted by Ice Nine @ 06/10/2008 04:40 PM EST

I disagree. Lars has recently been saying how exciting its going to be to regain their freedom by not having to be under contract with Warner and do its bidding. But this could also be Metallica and Warner testing a new method of distribution. This may be a warner site, but when Metallica splits, they'll take lessons learned to create their new distribution model, minus record companies. Posted by D-J @ 06/10/2008 05:11 PM EST

D-J: This is NOT a new way to distribute the music. Distributing music CAN be done online... other bands are proving it. Tying access to a website to watch them make an album is NOT a way to promote and/nor sell your music in a new way... especially as overpriced as it is on Mission Metallica. Posted by IS-JD @ 06/10/2008 05:18 PM EST

What I dont get with the Mission Metallica complaints are that is pretty much a free service. If you want platinum it is pretty small a price and you dont have to sign up or buy the CD or whatever. I am in the club so dont have to pay for anything extra and will buy the CD from a store rather then through a site. I imagine that some people will not get their CD when promised and be upset. I think they may need new management to help guide them better. Posted by Mark @ 06/10/2008 05:43 PM EST

Its a new way for them. Its a new way for MOST artists. Just how many big names are doing it this way? Nine Inch Nails doesn't even count with Ghosts because I am not talking about distributing the music itself, I am talking about distributing the FULL album experience, which includes everything Metallica is doing on Mission Metallica. Its like back in the day we had VHS and you bought it and got a movie. That was it. Then with the advent of DVD, you get the movie "experience" with behind-the-scenes, interviews, all kinds of cool extras. In reality, there was a small production company called Full Moon video that was doing this exact thing with their movies on VHS BEFORE DVD, but the DVD format was the catalyst that made it popular. In this case, it could be huge bands like Metallica that could make the "making of" an album, and build up to it, a common thing. As far as access goes, first off, its primarily free! I am watching video clips being posted for free. Where's the money in that? If they didn't let us watch ANYTHING at all, then ok, I can see the complaining people are doing. But otherwise, they ARE letting us watch for free. I doubt they are putting up that much more stuff for the paying people. I would say Mission Metallica is doing a GREAT job of promoting the album. It sure as hell is getting all of us psyched up for the album. Without it, we would be doing our normal thing. But what are we doing instead? Checking the site at least a few times a week, some people probably checking everyday, getting us all psyched up for it. Again, I believe you when you say this isn't the first time its done, but again, how many big name bands are updating a site every single day with clips of them in the studio making an upcoming album? I am not being a smartass, I really don't know, so please, tell me. Again, big names, the ones that people look up to and are influenced by. Posted by D-J @ 06/10/2008 07:33 PM EST

Sorry, I have to disagree with you Ice Nine. Just because Metallica is a big name does not mean that they are unbound by contracts. I am in MM for the free ride and I see something new at least every other day, cannot complain. As far as the stir-up with the reviews, I might think something about it if the reviews were bad but what I read was positve for the most part. Someone in the chain, probably unknown to anyone, just does not want the info posted yet. I do not see the big deal, just my two cents. Posted by Tim @ 06/10/2008 07:54 PM EST

Hey, just to change the subject and get away from the constant bleating that seems to be going on lately, what does everyone make of the new M-logo-thingy that's been put on the MM and metallica.com sites? Could be appearing somewhere inside the new CD slick when it comes out...??? Might make a good tatt for someone. Posted by Harvester of Sorrow @ 06/10/2008 07:59 PM EST

After reading the thread that we're all commenting on, I really hate to agree with JD, which I agree with him to an extent. I think it sucks that the missionmetallica website has this corporate feel to it, but the flip side is, they are (like it or not) big business. This is their last record on the label, and I'm sure there was some type of agreement between them and the label to put the squeeze on which is why the album is taking forever to come out. Metallica is not the little band in everyone's pocket or patch on a denim jacket anymore. They're superstar status. That said... just because they've reached the financial heights they have, does not mean they owe it to anyone to take it in the ass and start giving things away. They're much more fan friendly than any band of their size, but it's not like a Machine Head thing where you can have a sandwich and a beer with the singer (which I did a couple years ago). The mission metallica thing sucks... I want the excitement of being at the record store at midnight of the release date. The internet has sucked the fun out of buying music. It's convenient for groups where I like to not invest in all their shit, but for bands I live and die with, it sucks. As far as the actual request of management asking for reports to be taken down... They were pretty positive reviews, and I think this whole thing is meant to stir up controversy... Get them attention. The one guy like I mentioned above, seemed to review them as people versus the actual album. Here's my thoughts, and I'm not preaching... Metallica is no longer the innovators they were with the first five albums. They distanced themselves from the "Thrash" scene with TBA, and Load... I love those records... the biggest mis-step in my opinion they made was ditching the term "metal" and trying not to define the music they make. They're name is METALlica for Christ's Sake. Fuck Pantera's bid for the front runners of the genre... Even if what I mentioned was a mis-step, and some of you may mistake me for bashing them, I'm not. I've defended this band since they wrote a country song, and Lars and Kirk were tounging eachother. There's my bashing! I love this fucking band, as we all do. We'll never always agree with what they do, but God Damn it... They're in their mid 40's and about to unleash an Old Skool album... how sweet is that. Bring on a tour in the U.S. that features Machine Head guys. Do what you do best and that destroy every fucking band on the planet. Here's a cheers to my fellow "Metal" heads", fuck ups, and playaz! Have a good one guys! Posted by MOTORBREATH666 @ 06/10/2008 08:01 PM EST

What the hell is WB (and, I assume, Metallica- who are probably part of this to at least some extent) thinking? This is a freakin' awful PR disaster; Metallica will lose even more respect among people (hard to believe that this is the same band who priced their EP at $5.95 so that the kids wouldn't get ripped off) and it's just, well, really shitty. Are Metallica and WB trying to market this album with the aim of pissing as many fans off as possible? I hear people saying "well it's the label" and while that's probably true to an extent, if the band honestly opposed this then I doubt you would see this happening, or at least they might put something up on their website going "well we don't really approve". Also: Machine Head fucking suck, Motorbreath. Why on earth would you want Metallica touring with them? Posted by caspian @ 06/10/2008 08:12 PM EST

Motor - You're spot on. I have been a huge fan since Justice came out and I agree with most of what you wrote, but even I can't defend the fact that they wrote a country song or that Lars and Kirk started wearing fluffy coats and make-up. Load and Reload sucked. Period. St Anger was a step in the right direction, but it still sucked. I have tried to wipe the last 15 year period in time from my memory and hope to god it will just disappear. At least bands like Pantera (RIP Dime) and Slayer have always stayed true to themselves and their art and never sold out. I think this new album will be the album that they should have put out after TBA. Let's hope that they've left the fag era behind them and they've returned to the metal throne that they once occupied for so long. Posted by Harvester of Sorrow @ 06/10/2008 08:30 PM EST

Look guys, if you don't want to pay 100 bucks for an album (which is a gross exaggeration Sean) then don't. You can still go down to the record store the day it is released and pay the $15.00 at Best Buy or some other place. But as MOTORBREATH666 pointed out, they are a business like it or not. Any artist that says they are in it just for the love of music or whatever either doesn't have any ambition or isn't any good. You don't pay to hear someone that sucks. IS-JD, if it has not been said enough, thank you for all of the stuff that you do. I check this sight daily and I am glad to have a place to go that has balanced conversation, comments both positive and negative, not just some tool living in his parents basement and never sees the light of day crying about how Metallica sold out with the black album. Peace Posted by The Unamed Fan @ 06/10/2008 08:30 PM EST

protip: It's spelt "Unnamed" ;) Posted by caspian @ 06/10/2008 08:39 PM EST

We can all agree or disagree here without getting to personal thank goodness. I was not to blown away with load and re-load either, loved everything before that. I give St. Anger a listen every now and again but it is hardly a block-buster (nor was it meant to be). I am looking forward to this album though and I think I will be pleased with it from what little info that we really have on it. Also, any more thoughts on the ??? thing? Also IS-JD, it is your site and it is Metallica news that you are posting so I see nothing wrong with any of that nor would I expect you to really care if I did. I just appreciate being able to have a place to go to write my thoughts and read others. Posted by Tim @ 06/10/2008 08:58 PM EST

Right or wrong... I think Caspian said it best: it's a public relations disaster. And someone at management or the record label or somewhere needs to think these things through a little better... the 'net is here to stay. Posted by IS-JD @ 06/10/2008 09:06 PM EST

It's a P.R. disaster as far as them looking like they fear the net, but Missionmetallica is far from a p.r. disaster. They aren't forcing us to buy the platinum. With record sales at rock bottom you have to do things off kilter to promote your band. I can't agree with them letting their management asking journalists to take down early reviews. Bottom line is this... does anyone expect them to receive rave reviews? I don't... I bought into the hype in St. Anger, and while I like it, it's not the best thing they've done, but it's hard again. Not diluted like the Re-Load album (though I do love a bunch of songs from that record). I'm glad they've become outlaws in the metal land. They have tainted people's perception of them. You have three groups. The first group which consists of naysayers and bashers who are going to accuse them of sucking since the slow section of the four horseman (sarcastic jab at blabbermouth detractors). The second of which got to know the more polished streamlined over produced band that was around during the 90's. The third, and smallest of the group, the objective ones who will judge the album on it's own merit. None of us can expect Master of Puppets, and defend the Slayers and Panteras all you can. The very least that the evolution of the sound of Metallica has made the first five albums "classic". While the load albums might not be, you can't deny that songs like "King Nothing", "Until it Sleeps", "The Memory Remains", "Fuel", and possibly "Hero of the day" are classic Metallica. Nothing wrong with them making money at what they do. You don't get into the "rock n roll" lifestyle to be average, or broke. I firmly believe music is the first love, and the perks like fame and fortune aren't far behind. Who wouldn't want the adulation of millions. Side note... Machine Head sucks? If you don't like them, that's your opinion. This guy typing had balls enough to name another band that's sort of like Metallica on a much smaller scale. Evolution of sound, heavy criticism for doing so, and with their last album "The Blackening" they may have wrote the best album of their career. If you're going to state an opinion as fact, have some nut to name a band of that caliber that you believe is better. Saying they suck without making a point about it or bringing up a band who might be better holds no weight! Posted by MOTORBREATH666 @ 06/10/2008 09:44 PM EST

Sure, they aren't forcing you to buy it, but the option itself is a PR disaster. Anyway, bands better then Machine Head? There's an insane amount of them! Ulver is a band that comes to mind that has constantly (drastically) changed it's sound (unlike MH, which has went from watered down Pantera to watered down Nu Metal and finally to watered down Thrash) from black metal to electronica to strange prog rock stuff and has consistently came out on top. Neurosis is another that comes to mind, and they're a HUUUUUGE amount better then Machine Head. Boris. Broadrick's Godflesh/Jesu projects (massive change in sound). In Flames, even, a crappy band but one that's changed their sound and is a bit more listenable then Machine Head. Meshuggah haven't changed that much in recent albums, but compare their current one to Chaosphere or DEI and you get a good point. All of these are bands that have followed a similar career path and done a much better job of it. And, if you're just looking for better thrash/heavy metal bands (that may not be as big or whatever) there's a massive amount. High on Fire. Skeletonwitch. Municipal Waste. Asschapel. Dark Angel. Vio-Lence. One Man Army. Gojira. Kreator. Sodom. Destruction. Megadeth. Raw. Cryptic Slaughter. Evile. So on and so forth. Posted by caspian @ 06/10/2008 11:21 PM EST

...and let's not forget Trivium Posted by Harvester of Sorrow @ 06/11/2008 12:25 AM EST

That was a joke right? If so, I shall continue with it: BULLET FOR MY VALENTINE AND AVENGED SEVENFOLD MAN, TRUE METAL!!!!11!1 Posted by caspian @ 06/11/2008 02:21 AM EST

spelt isn't a word. Spelled is the correct verb usage. :) Posted by The General @ 06/11/2008 07:28 AM EST

First, I am with Motorbreath666. I don't understand how anyone can say Load and Reload sucked. Anyone that says that must be deaf. I agree that when I first listened to it, it was like, woah, whats this? I had to listen to it a few times to see what they were doing, where they were going. You are honestly saying Fuel sucks? Devil's Dance? Carpe Diem Baby? Attitude? 2x4? The House Jack Built? King Nothing? Bleeding Me????!?!? Wasting My Hate?? The Outlaw Torn?!?! The true key difference I feel between the first five albums vs load/reload is that the first five albums all had songs on them that sounded like they belonged together, almost like a musical theme of each album. In Load/Reload, the songs were more diverse. Second, let's define Metallica. The definition of Metallica is not a band that plays heavy metal music. The definition of the band Metallica is a band that plays what the fuck they want and does NOT want to be typecast by narrow-minded people. Evidence of this goes all the way back to Ride the Lightning in interviews with Cliff where he address idiots claiming they "sold out" because of Fade To Black. They have always liked doing what the fuck they want to do, period. If you like it, great. If you don't, thats ok too. But get over this "oh Metallica isn't metal anymore because there last few albums weren't heavy metal! Waaaahhhhhhh . Just respect them for the talented musicians they are. For instance, I love STP. Specifically, I love their first two albums. I really don't like their last three albums - I might like 4 songs off their last three albums, thats it. Do I say they suck? Do I say they sold out?! No, because I am an adult who respects their right to play whatever they want to! Why is this concept sooooo hard for people to grasp??! Posted by D-J @ 06/11/2008 09:07 AM EST

Ummmmmmmmm....I'm a little lost. What is the PR disaster? MM or the issue with the reviews? I guess since I am a fanclub member and get the platinum for free the whole pricing issue doesn't matter to me. Since some of it is free, and paying is optional for extra stuff, I really don't understand the problem. So IS-JD, since this is your site and you usually get straight to the point without all the emotional bs, what exactly are you considering the PR disaster? (btw, I'm not being a smartass, I'm just really curious as to the point that I seem to be missing). Posted by kurt @ 06/11/2008 09:29 AM EST

Kurt, hands down the Blogging thing is a major PR disaster. With a new album and tour on the way - this is major. The band's already had enough bad publicity with Napster and has come across as anti-'net or even anti-technology to lots of folks. Sure lots of time has passed and some folks have even moved on... but it's just this type of story that reopens those old wounds... or simply remind folks of this. Posted by IS-JD @ 06/11/2008 10:54 AM EST

Blogging was the reviews?(sorry, I didn't realize the reviews were on blogs). I would agree that it doesn't look great, but I think it more looks disorganized. Did they, or did they NOT, tell these guys to not publish this stuff. I would guess they did NOT, since there were 3 or 4 of them. So there was definitely a miscommunication between the intentions of the band and whoever authorized the whole listening party thing. I agree that this doesn't look great, but I don't think it's a big thing. On the whole, even though I'm the type that loves all the behind the scenes shit, I would rather there be no MM, no previews, just release the record and if you think there is enough good recorded(video) material, release the making of later on. I'm just tired of that fact that they get bitched at almost no matter what they do. I just want the friggin tunes and want to see them next time they come around boston. Posted by kurt @ 06/11/2008 12:29 PM EST

IS-JD- Show me how this is a PR disaster. You have presented absolutely NO FACT with a single argument you have made. Oh, and by the way- Metallica was RIGHT about Napster. That's why it got shut down, and legal file sharing started popping up so artists could actually get paid for things that they make. You wouldn't ask your plumber to come by your house, fix everything, and not expect payment. Besides most of you extremely bitter fans that are constantly espousing that Metallica is "money grubbing" (although they constantly show that they provide more for the fans than almost any other band) the Mission-Metallica site has been a success. The platinum content is way better than JITS ever was, and my friends that have it all love the service. I am all for an intelligent conversation IS-JD, but it doesn't seem like you're capable of providing anything but opinion-laced, factless conjecture that skirts around the real issues and instead, focuses on your personal beefs with the band. I have long been a fan of your site, but lately all you have done is complain and whine in news articles. Why don't you keep news in the news section, and Op/Ed in the Op/Ed section, otherwise the website turns into an internet version of Bill O'Reilly- no facts, all opinion. Posted by Chris @ 06/11/2008 02:23 PM EST

Chris, take a look around you... the story was on Digg and countless other sites with the comments and stories being mostly negative. Case closed, PR disaster. It's an opinion, I've never disguised it as anything else. If you don't like it, bye. Posted by IS-JD @ 06/11/2008 03:12 PM EST

I agree with JD, this is a PR disaster. Ars Technica, Digg, you name it, it's spreading all over the place and really screwing up Metallica's rep (again). I kinda thought Mission: Metallica might get some flack, but this move by Q-Prime to remove the reviews really hurts. Posted by DuManchu @ 06/11/2008 03:16 PM EST

Chris - you're also imagining things, don't make this personal. I have no beef with the band and have continued to support them loyally since '84/6. I agree with them on the Napster issue - I just think they could have pursued that and other net related issues a little differently... There is no doubt in my mind that the band's reputation was soured by Napster and here it happens again; except now it's worse because they've already been tarnished in some eyes by Napster. Chris, open your eyes a bit: take a look at the bad press the band is getting from this issue. It's not an opinion that they're getting tons of bad PR because of this, it's a fact... take a look at some of the sites including mainstream press out there running with this story. Frankly, I think the band needs to address this issue and I think some link in the band's chain needs to be rethought. Posted by IS-JD @ 06/11/2008 03:41 PM EST

WOW, I just checked out Digg. Really ugly. I do wonder how many of those people are true fans of the band and how many are bandwagon haters. Either way, it sure seems to have pissed off many. But still I ask, why? Because they didn't want the reviews published yet? I still think it's pretty damn overblown. Posted by kurt @ 06/11/2008 04:09 PM EST

kurt, what drives those, as you put it PERFECTLY as bandwagon-haters, is that they are jerry springer lovers. They LOVE to bitch. Some people absolutely love to bitch, love conflict, love drama. True fans don't really give a shit. Lars can go fuck a donkey for all I care. All I care about is listening to the music of a really amazing band made up of cool, down to earth, poke fun at myself kinda guys (NOT the typical egotistical rock star) that have endured a lot in their career and still survived to tell about it. I agree that it definitely looks for sure like there was a miscommunication somewhere, but, to quote George Clooney's character Seth talking to his brother portrayed by Quentin Tarantino in From Dusk Till Dawn, "Its only a big deal if you make it a big deal." People calling this a disaster is such a joke. Drama queens. Newsflash! No one really gives a rat's ass! Other than the bandwagon haters that just look for something to bitch about, that is. This will not affect the album's reception at all. MOST people don't even follow on this news. I will bet anyone that of all the people that will end up buying this new album over the next few years, if you said to them, yeah, so what did you think about Metallica having album preview comments taken off websites, I will bet serious money they would say, "what"? Posted by D-J @ 06/11/2008 05:11 PM EST