James Hetfield criticised

The Metallica frontman is currently being criticised for not taking a party-political stance during his concerts.

I don’t understand this need to mix art with politics and football; I don’t see the point. Besides, rock has historically been anti-establishment. Which establishment? Any of them! So giving it a political — or, more accurately, party-political — character is absurd!

Recently, someone told me I knew nothing about rock and that there was no clearer proof of rock being political and party-political than “Woodstock”. To me, that shows how some sections of society feel the need to politicise everything. The reason for “Woodstock” was to fund a small business: they wanted to open a recording studio! Certain groups later politicised the event.

Rock is pure art — and I’m a real rock fan — as long as you keep it in your bedroom or perform for free. The moment you charge for a ticket and put a price on your performance, it becomes a product, whether you like to accept that or not. And as a mass-market product — which is the case with Metallica — it would be utterly absurd to restrict it to a particular ideology. Would a socialist baker ask which political party the hotel owner belongs to? No. He sells him as much bread as possible because he makes his living selling bread!

If you’re not interested in reaching a mass audience, moving and reaching as many people as possible, and having your name remembered as a leading figure, fine: make as much noise as you like and put up all the flags you can find. But don’t then blame art for your failure, or complain that after thirty years on stage you couldn’t afford a house. That was your choice of market, and it’s entirely respectable.

Metallica’s business is different.

When I was young, I adored a rock band. I was convinced their lyrics spoke directly to me, that they were going through the same things as me as human beings, and that this was what made me identify with them.

Then one day — and nobody will convince me it wasn’t out of a desire to curry favour with the establishment — they began adopting an increasingly party-political image, until I found them completely unbearable because my own views were entirely different. It made me wonder whether those lyrics had really been meant for me, or whether they actually meant something else. The first eight albums by that band were like the Bible to me; today, I can’t listen to them.

What happened? They lost a fan and an advertising asset, because as a fan I used to recommend the band to everyone. They also lost a customer, because I haven’t bought any of their later albums. And I’m sure I wasn’t the only one.

That’s why it’s so important to understand music both as art and as an industry. A rock band with even the slightest ambition to make a lasting mark, dear friends, is nothing more than a business with a director and a board. Alienating potential customers limits the effectiveness of that business. The Ramones are the clearest example: their two leading figures were on opposite sides politically — one was very right-wing and the other very left-wing — but both understood that their business had to work, because they made their living from it, whatever their differences.

Does your favourite band let you in without paying for a ticket or give you a free T-shirt?

On the other hand, it’s very important to distinguish between being an artist who is committed to society and being a party-political artist. They are very different things. You can help without pinning your colours to a political camp. Metallica was once heavily criticised for fighting piracy and defending bands’ rights to their work — not just their own, but every band’s!

One section of society, accustomed to getting things for free, strongly criticised the band. But none of them stopped to think that those royalties help the band members feed their families. It’s like expecting a baker to give you bread for free just because he has plenty of it, when he got up at four in the morning to make it.