GENE SIMMONS: ‘ROCK IS FINALLY DEAD’

[BrammyH]

Even the Whisky a Go Go has rap shows now. And a lot of their shows are tribute bands.

I think he's got a point in that the days of playing clubs, and then working up to get a deal are dead. Tour revenues unless your a big draw are tough.

I also believe in today's market, KISS would still have happened. Only they would have self-produced their albums and released YouTubes of their shows. Gene and Paul were very, very good at the image and marketing.

 

[Dogsinplastic]

Even the Whisky a Go Go has rap shows now. And a lot of their shows are tribute bands.

I think he's got a point in that the days of playing clubs, and then working up to get a deal are dead. Tour revenues unless your a big draw are tough.

I also believe in today's market, KISS would still have happened. Only they would have self-produced their albums and released YouTubes of their shows. Gene and Paul were very, very good at the image and marketing.

What's more is the "360 deal" that the majors and many independent labels are now using. To make up for the continual decline in record sales the labels now want a piece of tour and merchandise revenues, which used to be how artists really made their money. The benefit is that the label might help finance a tour, but they'll bill you for that as well. It can, and for many does, extend to anything the artist/band does. If the singer starts acting, the record label can get a percentage of his/her salary or points (however they worked out the deal).

 

[VoidTerraFirma]

I blame Weezer.

 

[BEACHBUM]

In the 50's they told my Dad that Swing was dead. By the end of the 60's I heard that Blues was dead. The 70's killed off everything but Disco. In the 80's Chicken Fried Rock saved my soul. God I'm getting old. Since then I've gone with whatever feels good dead or not. Gene Simmons is a Dink. Just play and forget about him.

 

[Dogsinplastic]

In the 50's they told my Dad that Swing was dead. By the end of the 60's I heard that Blues was dead. The 70's killed off everything but Disco. In the 80's Chicken Fried Rock saved my soul. God I'm getting old. Since then I've gone with whatever feels good dead or not. Gene Simmons is a Dink. Just play and forget about him.

Hopefully no one hear was looking to Gene for the final word on anything, but he's speaking some truth and stating some valid points. That said, I've heard them all before from other folks that I respect more and from quite a few that I think poorly of. Times are changing, but music isn't going anywhere.

I also think you being to kind to Gene, he's much more than a Dink...or at least he's like the king of dinks

 

[Tig]

Not so fast, Mr. God of Thunder…RT: @esquiremag Gene Simmons declares "rock is finally dead"
- Foo Fighters (@foofighters) September 6, 2014

Score one for Grohl.

 

[Flamencology]

IDK. For me, Foo Fighters are, regardless of craftsmanship or entertainment factor, a solid example of rock stagnancy.

 

[Tig]

KISS is the very definition of rock stagnancy.
The Foo Fighters aren't exactly ground breaking with their pop melodies fused with power chords, but at least they are relevant.

YMMV, which is cool.

 

[Flamencology]

KISS is the very definition of rock stagnancy.
The Foo Fighters aren't exactly ground breaking with their pop melodies fused with power chords, but at least they are relevant.

YMMV, which is cool.

KISS is Disney rock. Their gigs are all about nostalgia. They fit a cultural niche.

I understand Foo fandom, but I think relavent is a stretch. Relavent to what?

 

[sunvalleylaw]

KISS is Disney rock. Their gigs are all about nostalgia. They fit a cultural niche.

I understand Foo fandom, but I think relavent is a stretch. Relavent to what?

As others have said, one should find music one likes, and then enjoy it. So, relevance to those that enjoy that sound. Relevance is in the eyes/ears of the beholder. Those that feel that music must boldly go where no one has gone before will find relevance elsewhere.

 

[Flamencology]

As others have said, one should find music one likes, and then enjoy it. So, relevance to those that enjoy that sound. Relevance is in the eyes/ears of the beholder. Those that feel that music must boldly go where no one has gone before will find relevance elsewhere.

There's a difference between cultural relevance and personal relevance. Most of what I listen is nowhere being representative of mass culture, capturing the zeitgeist, whatever.

And I'm fine with that. I don't understand why people get defensive about being in the same boat.

 

[Dogsinplastic]

KISS is Disney rock. Their gigs are all about nostalgia. They fit a cultural niche.

I understand Foo fandom, but I think relavent is a stretch. Relavent to what?

Can't things stagnate, but still be relevant? Look at the U.S. as a nation.

As to who, the folks that buy their albums and go to there shows, a group which apparently numbers in the millions (or at least a million).

 

[BrammyH]

I like Kiss. Love Gun was the first album I bought. Even at 48, I still fall squarely into the 18-34 demographic.

 

[Tig]

Can't things stagnate, but still be relevant? Look at the U.S. as a nation.

As to who, the folks that buy their albums and go to there shows, a group which apparently numbers in the millions (or at least a million).

Sorry, I'm too busy living in the good ol' days to look at our current condition.

 

[sunvalleylaw]

There's a difference between cultural relevance and personal relevance. Most of what I listen is nowhere being representative of mass culture, capturing the zeitgeist, whatever.

And I'm fine with that. I don't understand why people get defensive about being in the same boat.

Oh, ok. I hope I did not come off as defensive. Didn't mean to be. As far as socially relevant, I guess I would think the Foos are socially relevant to a lot of fairly mainstream Dad types that like that sort of thing. At this point, middle aged suburban Dads that like rock oriented sounds. If we are talking about social relevance in terms of what is hip or happening, then I have no clue.

 

[Flamencology]

Can't things stagnate, but still be relevant? Look at the U.S. as a nation.

Can I answer that without having a political debate?

History tells the story: For a period, sure. Maybe for a long time. But the world keeps spinning regardless of how hard anyone tries to stand still. Keeping up is the best we can do.

Armchair historians who read pop history might argue that decadence was the downfall of the Roman Empire. No; it was a failure to adapt.

 

[sunvalleylaw]

Can't things stagnate, but still be relevant? Look at the U.S. as a nation.

I know it can be considered an exception, but consider classical music. I know there are new composers. I just heard the work of one (can't think of his name offhand) performed at our local summer symphony. His work is known for incorporating electronica into a classical form of music. But generally, at least that which most people see or hear performed, has been the same, and therefore stagnant, for decades even centuries. I think @Flamencology said that performers of that music study folks from 300 years ago. so, I suppose that is an example of stagnant relevancy. Bach and Beethoven remain relevant today. Though I prefer Mozart.

 

[Tig]

I understand Foo fandom, but I think relavent is a stretch. Relavent to what?

I honestly can't answer that question, but still stand by my post until death do I part! stirthepot

But seriously, I'd say they are relevant in the sense that they connect with people at a more personal level than most headlining acts. People relate to them, their music, and even some of their lyrics. A musician or artist that connects past the surface level with others, especially a large number, is therefore relevant in culture, regardless of style or genre.

The music is the binder. The common ground. Bands that loose touch stop making relevant music. Example: The Doobie Brothers, The Who, The Rolling Stones, etc. They still put out an occasional album, but it is usually 99% pathetic, uninspiring crap.

 

[Dogsinplastic]

Can I answer that without having a political debate?

History tells the story: For a period, sure. Maybe for a long time. But the world keeps spinning regardless of how hard anyone tries to stand still. Keeping up is the best we can do.

Armchair historians who read pop history might argue that decadence was the downfall of the Roman Empire. No; it was a failure to adapt.

Just an example. The Foos can be relevant without being "important". Relevance is irrelevant when it comes to my appreciation of music. Most of the most "appreciated" stuff is shite to my ears and in part because it's crafted to be as vanilla as possible from either stagnate forms or they help in making said form (read: genre) stagnate. I guess you can rename it and that might breathe new life into it for a while, e.g.: R&B is now Hip Hip, but along with hip-hop some was classified as neo-soul for a while. Same shit, different name.

But the focus should be that Gene Simmons is a massive DOUCHE, right? That's what this thread is actually about, right?

 

[sunvalleylaw]

I honestly can't answer that question, but still stand by my post until death do I part! stirthepot

But seriously, I'd say they are relevant in the sense that they connect with people at a more personal level than most headlining acts. People relate to them, their music, and even some of their lyrics. A music or artist that connects past the surface level with others, especially a large number, is therefore relevant in culture.

So as I was saying, relevant to the largely culturally silent adult male who connects with their music. I say male because I believe that although you would find women who also enjoy it, mostly it is the guys. Much like the many ordinary folk who connect with the TV show Modern Family. Socially relevant, even if not super high brow entertainment.