Deja Vu? Metallica Attacks the Internet AGAIN, Censors Album Reviews

Continues to focus on apparently everything else, but making good music after it demands that music reviewers invited to listen to "rough tracks"from their latest album take down posted reviews even though they were ALL POSITIVE!

Metallica just can't seem to figure out what the heck it's supposed to be doing. Is it a band or is it some sort of "content production entity" whose fans are nothing more than "revenue streams?"

First it was going after thieving fans who dared to take money from the mouths of the "starving" millionaire bandmates. We all know how that one turned out as almost as many people per each dollar they had earned over the years forever turned their backs on the band that had seemingly turned its back on them.

And then for a brief moment it seemed as though things had changed. Many of us didn't buy it, but you want to give the guys responsible for albums like "Ride the Lightening" or "And Justice for All" a second chance right?

For about a month and a half ago it seemed the time for reconciliation had come when Metallica gave an interview with Rolling Stone magazine - at a "Record Store Day" of all places - in northern California. In retrospect one has to know wonder if that was really intended to meet and greet fans or to merely sell their products Gene-Simmon's-style.

"We want to be as free a players as possible," said the outspoken drummer Lars Ulrich. "We've been observing Radiohead and Trent Reznor and in twenty-seven years or however long it takes for the next record, we'll be looking forward to everything in terms of possibilities with the Internet."

Like I said some, myself included, dared to give them another chance, but others still resisted.

"Sounds like desperation to me," read one of the cleaner comments on the story.

Others sarcastically praised Metallica for acknowledging it's 2008 and that record stores - the only path to reaching fans they were willing to recognize - had vanished.

"Wow, you're looking into using the Internet," wrote Lewis Salem in reply to similar coverage of the story. "Good for you Lars. We have been looking into using it for fourteen years."

Indeed.

Now just when you thought it was time to "hug it out" and listen to them rock out again - you know, the real reason they should be together in the first place? - they go out and break your heart once again. Maybe for good.

How? The Quietus, a rock music-oriented blog site, has reported that Metallica went postal after discovering that music reviewers invited to a listening party exclusively for music reviewers had the audacity to post reviews of what they heard. After learning of these transgressions Metallica immediately began serving them with legal warnings to remove the articles.

Why? Because they were apparently"rough tracks"and not the finished work it would prefer to have reviewed. But, if that's the case then why invite music critics to listen to them in the first place and then expect them not to do their job and write about what they heard?

Something just doesn't add up.

The funny part, or the sad part honestly, is that NONE of the now-removed reviews were negative! The least glowing review was written for The Quietus, but as editor Luke Turner told Blinded By Hype, it was "...full of praise about a return to form."

Here's Turner's account of the events:

The story behind the removal of the article runs as follows: Metallica held an album listening party for selected music journalists in London this Wednesday past. One of the writers was kind enough to write a piece about the album which, if you were lucky enough to read it before it was taken down, was full of praise about a return to form. At no point was the writer ask[ed] to sign a non-disclosure agreement. The Quietus and other websites ran pieces on the album, but were quickly contacted by Metallica’s management via a third party and told to remove the articles. The Quietus kept our article up the longest and, as no non-disclosure agreement had been signed, [was] not prepared to remove it merely due to the demands of Metallica’s management. We only eventually removed the article earlier today to protect the professional interests of the writer concerned (the piece was written anonymously). Seems Metallica’s fear of the internet shows no sign of abating.

Even if the reviews had been terrible, which they were not, is it really worth the bad press of adding a fight against freedom of expression to Metallica's long battle with fans and file-sharing? At this point many may just give up for good no matter how great their new album is.

What's most perplexing is that their technically music "artists." I emphasize the word artists here because you'd never think they were judging by the way it seems to always fall last on their list of what matters most to them. It seems to come somewhere just below profits and absolute control over the opinions of those "lucky" enough to hear their music before its perfected. I'd call them eccentric, but at least eccentric artists act out of an unbridled passion for creativity. Can the same honestly be said of Metallica?

To quote a great movie line from Godfather II: "Fredo, you're nothing to me now. You're not a brother, you're not a friend. I don't want to know you or what you do. I don't want to see you at the hotels, I don't want you near my house. When you see our mother, I want to know a day in advance, so I won't be there. You understand?"

Metallica's become the new Fredo in my book.