From: roy@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Roy J.)
Subject: Re: Any opinions on the CD singles...?
Organization: California State University, Sacramento
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 10:18:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.174948.10163@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcollins@nyx.cs.du.edu (Killans - First And Last And Always) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.082724.28286@csus.edu> roy@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Roy J.) writes:
>>As you said, the cover songs are great.  But I'm really getting annoyed
>>by the multitudes of singles which are being released from this album.  Did
>>they have to release two versions of the Wherever I May Roam cd single?
>>They could have easily combined the tracks onto one single, but IMO
>>success has turned Metallica into a bunch of money-grubbing bastards.  You
>>might say that the record company is more at fault but how come there are so
>>few singles from the other albums (back in the good old days when Metallica
>>didn't give a shit about singles & videos)?  If Metallica still cared
>>about the fans, I'm sure they would have released all the recent covers
>>on a Garage Days-type ep, rather than try to rip everyone off with tons
>>of singles and import cd's only available in other countries.  Come to
>>think about it, I bet they will release such an ep or collection in
>>order to make more money.  And of course, as the avid Metallica
>>collecter that I am, I'll have to dish out the bucks so that my
>>collection won't be incomplete.  Sigh...
>>
>I'd still give Metallica the benefit of the doubt and say the record company's
>to blame probably (all though I'm sure the band aren't complaining all that
>much). As singles sales decline (which is true here in the UK and, I presume, in
>the US), companies look for more and more gimmicks to keep singles sales afloat.
>The gimmick of releasing 2 or more versions of the same CD single with different
>B-sides seems to have been adopted quite recently by a *lot* of record 
>companies. And bear in mind that 'Metallica' has been a greater commercial
>success than other albums (whatever you think of it) and I'm sure the record
>companies are just itching to milk the success for all it's worth. 

My point is that up until this album, Metallica, following along the
lines of Led Zeppelin & other bands before them, didn't let the record
companies run them and get away with all these marketing ploys and
"gimmicks", to quote your own words.

This unfortunate fact about Metallica bothers me more than the
fact that they released a more "accessible" album.

>The earlier albums didn't have loads of singles taken off them because most
>of them (up to and including Master of Puppets unless I'm mistaken) were on
						^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>smaller, independent labels, which generally don't go in for cynical marketing
>ploys - another clue that it may be the company rather than the band. And
>anyway, most of the songs off earlier albums weren't exactly chart fodder...

You _are_ mistaken -- Metallica signed a contract with Elektra Records on
September 12, 1984.  Elektra re-released Ride The Lightning two months
later, and released all subsequent albums.

>And anyway, think of the poor bastards like me who can't even afford a CD 
>player, nor CDs to play on them (nor albums in any other format at the moment
>but hopefully that's a temporary problem). Now *we're* the ones who are 
>really getting screwed over by the record companies.

If you really want the bonus tracks & stuff, e-mail me & we can work
something out.


-roy		E-MAIL: roy@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu
  __    __                            __   __
   |\  /|  __  __    _   __   __  ___  |   |    Your sister is a junkie
   | \/ |  |_  | _  /_\  | \  |_   |   |---|      gets it any way she can
   |    |  |_  |_| /   \ |_/  |_   |   |   |    Your brother's a gay singer
  /                                         \     in a stud leather band
Newsgroups: alt.rock-n-roll.metal.metallica