data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/99d59/99d597af32e405d1973b21fd9f080c04cbca5781" alt=""
Fellas, really, I really don’t see the problem. Your core audience will still be there to judge for themselves regardless of whatever a reviewer [favorably] says about you, no? Fans tend to stick by a band even if a CD sucks. They’ll just chalk it up to any number of excuses/conspiracies and wait for your next one. (Just don’t suck twice.)
Radiohead and others like Prince have also shown that offering it for free doesn’t delute anything. Both still manage to sell a lot and draw at concerts. Guess the Napster Bad clip needs updating to include reviews.
Tags: Radiohead, Metallica
3 comments:
Dude, after an album like Saint Anger, Metallica reviews might be a complete waste of time anyhow.
But you're right. They're being super lame.
Also, I'm not sure this ever would have happened in the U.S., between laws protecting noncommercial speech and preventing prior restraint. Without an NDA, too. Lame.
And to think the review was actually positive...
Such a shame.
Yeah, considering it's just a review/opinion that's being written by a journalist and not even a sample clip, I have no idea what the lawyers could possibly object too, nor what their management has a problem with. Knowing they have a new CD coming out and telling people isn’t exactly classified unless maybe Lars thinks it is.
Pietro, I need to run it by Lars first.
Post a Comment