Gene Simmons comments on Record Industry/Illegal Downloading

Spoiled Grape · #1 11-16-2007, 03:40 PM

Another "artist" throws in his two cents.

I bolded a sentence and pretty much makes me throw up. Oh ok, you don't want to write music...because you can't make millions off it? Please save us the trouble of more cock rock.

Quote:

Gene Simmons is a busy man. The legendary KISS founder fills his time with a variety of projects. There's filming for "Gene Simmons Family Jewels," the reality show entering its third season on A&E. And there's an animated show on Nickelodeon called "My Dad the Rock Star."

Simmons is writing his third book -- "Ladies of the Night," a "personal and historical overview" on the profession of prostitution -- coming this spring via his own publishing company, Simmons Books. He also has Simmons Comics, with three comic book series based on characters he's created. The list goes on.

And if that weren't enough, Simmons manages a host of efforts with partner Richard Abramson as part of Simmons Abramson Marketing. Of those is NGTV.com, a popular video Web site featuring uncensored celebrity interviews and music videos in which Simmons is both the chairman and an investor.

Simmons took a few moments to chat with Billboard about NGTV.com, and discuss his thoughts about the overall digital music market.

How did you get involved with NGTV?
I think they wanted to add my name to the roster, possibly to raise funds and attention. I brought over my partner Rich Abramson and told them we'd come on board subject to a few provisos. One was that it would no longer be called NetGroupie. I came up with No Good TV and trademarked it. I found the building where it's based. And it's been a nice steady climb.

What drew you to the company?
Part of it is the uncensored thing. But a ship is only as good as the people who work on it. They have a terrific team of young, talented people who didn't just look at the clock -- and everybody does what they needed to do. That's my style too.

For a young company, it's taken off quickly. To what do you attribute their success?
You can't put your finger on it, but you can recognize pieces of the puzzle. The VIPs of the world in pop culture decide among themselves where they want to go and who they want to be associated with. That's called buzz. It's difficult to create it.

It's like if you open a disco in the middle of Manhattan and it has 20,000 square feet with modern this and modern that, and you expect the stars to go ... good luck. But you can have a little roach-invested bar downtown in the Meatpacking district and the stars will come out knowing full well they'll be photographed.

NGTV is one of the few projects that you're associated with that you didn't create yourself. What makes this different?
I trust my own gut. I like to create my own stuff, but every once and a while something comes across that just looks too good to be true. The day-to-day is still Kourosh (Taj, co-founder and head of programming). All I've done is co-raising the money with Rich, and branding it No Good.

You've got the third series of the Kissology DVD coming out next month. Is there much more we can expect coming?
There'll be 10. No one -- and that includes the Beatles and Elvis -- can touch our (KISS') merchandising and licensing. Nobody. Outside of the music world, it's only Disney and Lucas. But in the music world, they can't shine our shoes.

Any touring plans?
We'll tour a few dates next year. We don't have anything to prove to anybody or do press to convince anybody we're important. We're doing KISS festivals around the Indy car racing series. Simmons Abramson Marketing markets and brands Indy cars. I came up with the I Am Indy brand, by the way. They go on the night before. We'll do 15 dates or so. We'll also go to Australia and New Zealand and maybe to four to six shows -- but nothing comprehensive until we feel like it.

It has been nine years since we've seen a new KISS album. Any plans to get back into the studio?
The record industry is in such a mess. I called for what it was when college kids first started download music for free -- that they were crooks. I told every record label I spoke with that they just lit the fuse to their own bomb that was going to explode from under them and put them on the street.

There is nothing in me that wants to go in there and do new music. How are you going to deliver it? How are you going to get paid for it if people can just get it for free? I will be putting out a Gene Simmons box set called "Monster" -- a collection of 150 unreleased songs. KISS will have another box set of unreleased music in the next year.

The record industry doesn't have a f*cking clue how to make money. It's only their fault for letting foxes get into the henhouse and then wondering why there's no eggs or chickens. Every little college kid, every freshly-scrubbed little kid's face should have been sued off the face of the earth. They should have taken their houses and cars and nipped it right there in the beginning. Those kids are putting 100,000 to a million people out of work. How can you pick on them? They've got freckles. That's a crook. He may as well be wearing a bandit's mask.

Doesn't affect me. But imagine being a new band with dreams of getting on stage and putting out your own record. Forget it.

But some artist like Radiohead and Trent Reznor are trying to find a new business model.
That doesn't count. You can't pick on one person as an exception. And that's not a business model that works. I open a store and say "Come on in and pay whatever you want." Are you on f*cking crack? Do you really believe that's a business model that works?

So what if music just becomes free and artists make their living off of touring and merchandise?
Well therein lies the most stupid mistake anybody can make. The most important part is the music. Without that, why would you care? Even the idea that you're considering giving the music away for free makes it easier to give it away for free. The only reason why gold is expensive is because we all agree that it is. There's no real use for it, except we all agree and abide by the idea that gold costs a certain amount per ounce. As soon as you give people the choice to deviate from it, you have chaos and anarchy. And that's what going on.

DigthemLows · #2 11-16-2007, 03:50 PM

I've never liked his attitude.

Jared Lash · #3 11-16-2007, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoiled Grape

Another "artist" throws in his two cents.

I bolded a sentence and pretty much makes me throw up. Oh ok, you don't want to write music...because you can't make millions off it? Please save us the trouble of more cock rock.

Gene Simmons has made similar comments before. I don't know if there was ever a big name band that was less about the music and more about image and money than KISS.

So none of that surprises me.

TrooperFarva · #4 11-16-2007, 03:53 PM

You're surprised? What, did you think the KISS Pez Dispensers and Coffins were made because Gene Simmons thought it was the next progression in them expressing themselves? The entire purpose of KISS, right from the start, was to make money, as much money as possible, however they could. Of course Gene Simmons is going to be adamantly opposed to downloading, because as he basically put it himself, he can't make money with it.

lunarpollen · #5 11-16-2007, 03:57 PM

"Those kids are putting 100,000 to a million people out of work. "

Really??? And your source for this statistic, Gene? Could it be your rectum, maybe?

Johnny Crab · #6 11-16-2007, 03:58 PM

Wonder how angry he feels about "successful" glamrock, cartoon character-type bands "borrowing" UNSIGNED artists tunes?

Just a hypothetical question doncha' know.

Spoiled Grape · #7 11-16-2007, 03:59 PM

Another "artist" adds her two pence to the Radiohead discussion.

Quote:

Lily Allen has branded Radiohead "arrogant" for giving fans the chance to download their new album, 'In Rainbows', for free. The singer reportedly said that she thinks it is unfair for the millionaires to devalue recorded music and survive on touring money when new artists can't. "It's arrogant for them to give their music away for free - they've got millions of pounds. It sends a weird message to younger bands who haven't done as well," WENN reports Lily as saying. "You don't choose how to pay for eggs. Why should it be different for music?"

The interesting thing about Lily Allen was how she rose to fame. She never played a live show and she already had a record produced by Mark Ronson. Her first live show was sold out. I'd say it's safe to say she is hardly the type of person who has "cred" to call anyone else arrogant.

thesteve · #8 11-16-2007, 04:09 PM

I read an interesting blog today. it's very long, but IMO worth the read.
http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/1...-birth-of.html

Simmons' personality aside , some of the stuff he said sounds downright moronic in light of the blog above. Simmons says to sue everyone? Give me a break...the industry would've lost more money had that happened. He is right that the record industry is in shambles, but they screwed themselves. When any industry fails to adapt to new, superior, technologies, they set themselves up for failure.

I'm sure KISS is a band that lost money over illegal downloading...them and Metallica. I'm sure Trent Reznor and Radiohead were losing money from it too when they decided to try alternative methods of music distribution.

and really...if KISS was to release those 150 new tracks digitally and sell them online for some price (even if it wasn't a "pay as you feel" thing) they would make a ton of money...I really have no idea what Simmons is whining about.

Spoiled Grape · #9 11-16-2007, 04:16 PM

Nobody was losing money. Maybe "not getting as much" would be a more correct term.

73jbass · #10 11-16-2007, 04:31 PM

It's real simple,he doesn't want to work for free.I don't think any of you do either.If you recive something that you didn't pay for,or wasn't given to you,it's theft. Spend all your time writing and producing a record,then just put it online for everybody to take for free.If you're in music as a career,you won't do it.

Spoiled Grape · #11 11-16-2007, 04:44 PM

www.myspace.com/bombthemusicindustry

danders · #12 11-16-2007, 04:47 PM

Interesting perspective. I'm sure it's frustrating for him, but sue a college or high school kid and what are you likely to collect? Maybe he's got a car but houses? Isn't this the same crowd he relied on to make his money back in the day?

Spoiled Grape · #13 11-16-2007, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 73jbass

It's real simple,he doesn't want to work for free.I don't think any of you do either.If you recive something that you didn't pay for,or wasn't given to you,it's theft. Spend all your time writing and producing a record,then just put it online for everybody to take for free.If you're in music as a career,you won't do it.

His argument is incorrect though. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that he makes more money from the "image" of KISS than the actual music, even with multiple royalties and tons of plays "Rock n Roll All Nite" gets on TV and radio.

thesteve · #14 11-16-2007, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danders

Interesting perspective. I'm sure it's frustrating for him, but sue a college or high school kid and what are you likely to collect? Maybe he's got a car but houses? Isn't this the same crowd he relied on to make his money back in the day?

even if the high school kid has a car...how many kids have cars that are worth the RIAA has sued some of them for? The combined worth of the three vehicles I've owned isn't even $10,000.

Munjibunga · #15 11-16-2007, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBigO

I don't know if there was ever a big name band that was less about the music and more about image and money than KISS.

Look at any current pop star or hip-hop act. It's all marketing and no music. I'd call Simmons a savvy businessman.

Spoiled Grape · #16 11-16-2007, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

Look at any current pop star or hip-hop act. It's all marketing and no music. I'd call Simmons a savvy businessman.

Correct. I just don't like savvy businessmen who make music, it irks me.

**Marcus Willett** · #17 11-16-2007, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 73jbass

It's real simple,he doesn't want to work for free.I don't think any of you do either.If you recive something that you didn't pay for,or wasn't given to you,it's theft. Spend all your time writing and producing a record,then just put it online for everybody to take for free.If you're in music as a career,you won't do it.

Amazing how such a simple concept is so hard for so many to grasp. Of course 90% of the time, the ones who fail to grasp it are not the ones who depend on revenue from their music product to pay the bills.

Harlan addresses a similar issue here and I agree with him 100% It's a bit of a tangent but really the same ethic at work. (some profanity, but look past that and listen to the content)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE

thesteve · #18 11-16-2007, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 73jbass

It's real simple,he doesn't want to work for free.I don't think any of you do either.If you recive something that you didn't pay for,or wasn't given to you,it's theft. Spend all your time writing and producing a record,then just put it online for everybody to take for free.If you're in music as a career,you won't do it.

I totally understand this and agree...but at the same time question why I should only be paid for 1/16th of a product that I did the majority of work on when the record label gets the other 15/16th of the money.

fenderhutz · #19 11-16-2007, 05:06 PM

In some sense I agree with him.

Unless I give you permission to download my music I created for free, you shouldn't be able to give it away or share it. Intellectual property is still property.

Anyone that makes ANY kind of money from CD sales would agree as well.

I don't walk into your house and start eating from your fridge, don't take food from mine.

**Marcus Willett** · #20 11-16-2007, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thesteve

I totally understand this and agree...but at the same time question why I should only be paid for 1/16th of a product that I did the majority of work on when the record label gets the other 15/16th of the money.

Agreed, that's a crappy deal, but no one is making you sign such a contract. Plus, you are probably not risking any of your capital at the time. If the album flops, you walk away. The record company has the loss. This doesn't mean the scenario presented is fair it's just the reality that you need them more than they need you, otherwise you would not take such a deal.