Dre vs Metallica

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Or, anatomy of a folk devil!

Lars ("I KNOW I have more money than I know what to do with, but it's people in our position who have the responsibility to look out for the ones coming up")Ulrich and his band are now music hate figures on par with Tipper Gore and the Taliban. Dr ("I'm in this business to get rich and Napster is fucking that up") Dre isn't. What does this say about a) Dre b) Metallica c) Dre fanbase d) Metallica fanbase?

(Related factors - Metallica denounced as hypocrites ie "thrash metal roots in tape-trading underground" - yet Dre got start in sample-based music. More tangentially, "Metallica went glam, tha proves they were corporate sellouts" - unlike the World Class Wrecking Cru?)

dave q, Monday, 3 February 2003 16:51 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

(Also, I don't recall Eminem getting any shit over this issue either, FWIW)

dave q, Monday, 3 February 2003 16:52 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

They were/are all on my shit list, Metallica moreso because they suck the most.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 3 February 2003 16:54 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

When did Metallica 'go glam'? They may have went soft, but never glam (or are you referring to Anton Corbijn's photography on the inside of LOAD featuring Lars in eyeliner and a boa?)

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Monday, 3 February 2003 17:21 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

i don't think that you could really accuse Dre of being a hypocrite - he was never exactly from the socialist hip hop wing! If hip hop is all about getting paid in full, then it is perfectly rational that hip hoppers would complain about people listening to their music without paying for it.

Robin Goad (rgoad), Monday, 3 February 2003 17:21 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

metallica have been a lot more vocal though haven't they?
as in actively drawing attention to the issue rather than giving their opinions during interviews...

robin (robin), Monday, 3 February 2003 17:40 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

"If hip hop is all about getting paid in full"

Ah, but is it? Is that what the genre's forefathers were after? Getting paid in full? Or weren't they simply trying to telegraph their side of the urban experience?

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Monday, 3 February 2003 17:41 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

>Ah, but is it? Is that what the genre's forefathers were after?
> Getting paid in full? Or weren't they simply trying to telegraph
> their side of the urban experience?

Given that most of the practitioners of the genre grew up in desperately poor circumstances, once it was apparrent that you could make money from hip-hop, commercial success became a major if not the major motivation for doing music. Someone who grew up poor is far less likely to take the indie-rock "doing it for the music maaaan" attitude. What indie-rockers failed to realize was that you could do commercially motivated music that was also good.

fletrejet, Monday, 3 February 2003 18:22 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

"What indie-rockers failed to realize was that you could do commercially motivated music that was also good."


Boy is that a smug statement.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Monday, 3 February 2003 18:52 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

>Boy is that a smug statement.

I fail to see what is so smug about it, I still hear "commercial = sucky" opinions voiced all the time (not much here, but elsewhere), and not just by indie-rock types.

As far my own personal taste, most all of what I listen to is uncommercial "doing it for the music maaaaaan" music. (uncomercial here meaning that the people releasing it don't expect to make any substantial amount of money from it.)

fletrejet, Monday, 3 February 2003 19:21 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

I think it's your sweeping generalization that I found off-putting. Moreover, I wouldn't say it's a simple as you depict it. The reasons why many indie bands "fail" to sound commercial is more likely because the musicians involved are bored by "commercial"-sounding music.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Monday, 3 February 2003 19:35 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

so how come they haven't had a new idea in a decade?

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 3 February 2003 19:51 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

(that wasn't cribbed from electronic or pop music?)

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 3 February 2003 19:52 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Shh, Jess, you're giving it away!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 3 February 2003 19:52 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

>I think it's your sweeping generalization that I found off-putting.

So because I fail to put in an (virtually implied) "many" or "most" modifier, I am super-smuggo?

> Moreover, I wouldn't say it's a simple as you depict it. The >reasons why many indie bands "fail" to sound commercial is more >likely because the musicians involved are bored by "commercial"->sounding music.

I wasn't criticizing indie bands for being uncommercial, I was criticizing *many of* them for dismissing any music with a commercial motivation. Besides, some indie music, with some slight slight tweaking, could be commercially successful (and possibly improve in musical quality).

fletrejet, Monday, 3 February 2003 20:08 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Metallica/Urlcih voiced their concerns about Napster and internet piracy a little before Dre did - so maybe they took the brunt of the criticism on the basis. Also Dre is probably not as hypocritical as they are in that he probably didnt encourage live bootlegging as such...and somewhat ironically many people probably lost more respect for Ulrich than Dre on that basis too.

i dont think hip hop was ever about getting paid in full any more than rock n' roll. i think its possible that the likes of KRS-One had a lot of trouble with record companies in the 80s which stopped them getting to Dre's level and informed their 'no sell out' stance too perhaps. i find Dre's persistance in the business and objections to piracy quite sickening considering he's been a multi-miilionaire ever since the release of 'The Chronic' - i suppose its like a champion sports team - they dont quit once they've won the big prize, they try and win it again of course...but still...what's really motivating people like Dre and even the Neptunes (or indeed anyone?) to want to do what they do for 20 years or beyond when the whole process becomes evermore manufactured/processed rather than innovative or primarily artistically motivated once they've already become richer than in their wildest dreams after only 10 years in the game.

stevem (blueski), Monday, 3 February 2003 20:23 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

And let's not forget that Ulrich & Co didn't exactly please many fans with their earlier money-grabbing antics (loads of "especially for the fans" videos, t-shirts, the "Live Shit" box set, repackaging their old B-sides and a bunch of shitty covers as "Garage Inc", and of course "S&M"), and coupled with the bland black album and the "Load"/"Reload" disaster, Metallica were already widely disliked.

Siegbran (eofor), Monday, 3 February 2003 22:39 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

I thought that Dave was implying that Dre's a hypocrite for disowning file sharing when in fact his whole art is based around "stealing"; this has nuthin' to do with either any sort of ghetto idelogies or getting paid in full (after all, if Hip-Hop artists can steal to get $$$, surely we can steal to get a crummy piece of music?)

Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Tuesday, 4 February 2003 00:15 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

hey a lot of hip hop artists used to sell drugs to get $$$ - oh but they HAD to i guess...

stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 4 February 2003 00:17 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

fifteen years pass...

mac dre vs metallica: mac dre

mac dre vs dre: mac dre

mac dre vs edie brickell and the new bohemians: mac dre

del griffith, Saturday, 12 May 2018 01:05 (three months ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.