As long as you like yours "wit" and and not "witout."Well hey, THIS product has been very popular and made lots of money, and kids love it, so I guess that means it's really great food. Right?
View attachment 4116760
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Gene Simmons [still] Thinks Rock Is Dead
- Thread starter Altitude
- Start date
Well I mean - if you are into making/writing new music, than having to perform only the older material can be soul crushing.
I mean I'd hate to be stuck playing the same things I was playing even 5 years ago - I can't imagine how boring it would be to have to play anything over and over for 40 years without anything new to dilute the stagnancy of the old material.
Though, as I said before - the merit of the actual material is subjective no matter what makes up said product. Beauty is the eye of the beholder and all that jazz.
The flip side of this is that the merits of what equal artistic success are also subjective - objectively you can look at two different acts and see who made more money, had more fan turn out, etc. as those are all objective facts that can determine what is more objectively successful.
But objectively successful and artistically successful are two different things - and to be artistically successful is a much broader and subjective experience that is really only quantifiable ultimately by the artist; with the subjective opinion of the listener being less important (at least in my opinion).
So basically what it comes down to is - does it matter what I think of Kiss? No... but does it matter if Gene Simmons of Kiss thinks that rock is dead? No.
Riveting. You just described me and every other functioning adult with a job that plays an instrument. BTW, I'm no KISS fan, just pointing out the fact that they have had much monetary success over a long period of time. Artistic? That is certainly a topic that will generate many opinions.
Way back when, in 1977, my dad and his lady friend, eventually wife, asked my sister and the friend’s daughter which records they should buy me for my birthday. They went for their taste and I ended up getting the Eagles “Hotel California” and Kiss’s “Destroyer” and “Alive!” All three were given away within a year when I moved into a dorm. Kept LZ, Neil Young, Hendrix, and Beatles.
Last edited:
And people will certainly be discussing those two's music 40 years from now, probably much longer. People still may be talking about Kiss' performance, then, but their music has a very short shelf life, as it's not groundbreaking, substantive, crafty, or even remotely clever. I don't think people will be talking about how deeply creative/importat Love Gun was.
Obviously you missed the point. Frisell and Cooder make all their money from music. I do not. Most people here do not. Being able to subsidize your life with your art without being a weak parody of your 20 year old self is success.
So well-put.
I do say I feel for some of the more innovative rock bands from back then who still continue to innovate and have to deal with the same crappy audience that just wants the hits. But that's not Kiss, by a mile.
Yep for sure, but certainly there is also objectively cooler in addition to objectively more successful - I think in terms of the former; the guitar player from Captain Beefheart's debut album Safe as Milk who also dubbed a lot of the guitar parts in the movie Crossroads - that objectively Ry Cooder is cooler than Kiss...
...yes I know what I just wrote is purely subjective, but I just wanted to get it out there why I think Ry Cooder is cool.
Anyways - I think that success as a whole is a subjective concept, as although my current situation might not be objectively financially successful I think it is pretty cool that I have a studio setup that has allowed me to make the music I want to make whenever I want; and for me that is enough to feel some degree of success.
Don't like the Eagles, eh? I mean - I'm not a big fan by any means, but Joe Walsh is awesome and The Eagles have a number of 70s tunes that are really cool (though personally I prefer the rustic less perfect nature of The Band or Neil Young).
I have such a broad pallet since I started listening to music - 20 years ago I couldn't fathom listening to a tenth of what I listen to these days. All the bands you kept are the bands that I started with when I started playing music and they are still very important to me; and they are still basis of what I aspire to do with my art. But I also have the benefit of looking to a much broader pallet thanks to 60 additional years of culture.
Yep - and that is objectively being financially successful with their art, I mean they also were born at the right time to get into the industry when there was a bigger working economy for music so to see that type of success you didn't need to achieve the mass adoption of something like Kiss.
Myself, I create records to fulfill a need to be creative. I have never received anything but really good responses when our band plays live - and the reviews and comments I have from over the years of our releases are all thoughtful and 90% positive, and more importantly I believe our music is good.
But for us to be financially successful - well during our 20s we had some opportunities that all came with caveats, and we didn't have the means to just drop everything and make a go in the states... and now 15 years on, even without the pandemic the current local live scene anywhere seems to be geared away from original music.
I feel that it is both a better time to be an artist in that you can have complete creative control of your artwork - and a worse time, in that there really isn't a working system in place to make an honest living on it if you don't have a connection into it from the get go.
Personally I don't mind having to work a day job - sometimes it filters into my artwork in a way that makes up for the mundanity of the task.
Agreed - on it's own merits the music of Kiss (outside of a single bass fill that Gene Simmons did on Detroit Rock City that I will always love) is not artistically substantial.
The funny thing is - in the right context with just enough irony, something like Love Gun could be used in a creative way cinematically as Kiss have a certain kind of cultural relevance that could play into a number of different scenes.
Last edited:
Similarly I am driving into the David Bowie catalog. At 14 I was a bit too concerned with my own manhood to listen to a guy who wore makeup. Similarly, California punk was too out there for me; now I’m building my Black Flag and Minute Men collections.
I liked “American Beauty”, “Working Man’s Dead”, and “Tonight’s the Night” better than the Eagles. In the 80s there was, and is, Steve Earle. And Townes. I love Townes.
Man, Bowie is so good - his early stuff is ok, but the stuff he did in the mid 70s, and later with Brian Eno is incredible. His 90s output is full of surprises, and his last album is in my top 10 of all time.
Workingman's Dead is my favourite Dead record (2nd favourite is AoxomoxoA and 3rd is American Beauty), and Tonight's the Night is possibly one of the most unique records ever made and probably Neil Young's best (my favourite is Old Ways).
The 80s are such a weird decade - growing up I found it nauseating, but then I fell in love with it in my 20s. The nausea never really left - but it's easily forgiven when I listen to Talking Heads or XTC.
And let's be fair about it - in 200 years or so, no one will remember any of those guys (assuming we've not wiped ourselves out). Rock music will be a footnote and maybe the Beatles and possibly one other artist will be held up as examples when it is mentioned in history class. Chuck Klosterman has an interesting essay about this in his book But What If We're Wrong?
I've thought about who they'll talk about 200 years from now, I'd generally agree.
I've been a KISS fan since '78, still am.
I've heard many interviews with KISS and other classic era rockers that have made reference to this "rock is dead" theme. IMO, it seems they're talking more about the business model as it was when the Beatles became a household name is no longer a thing. Very few bands have any real staying power, I watched my own kids never really have their own music "heroes" like we did as teens. It's one thing to the next to the next, quick changes.
In other interviews Gene specifically blames downloading and the internet as the reason for the old model going by the wayside. Whatever. I'm not really a fan of band member's spewing too many opinions, talk about your music, your tour, your past, your future, that's what your fans want to hear. He makes reference in the article to a couple artists that he believes are still doing it the "old" way.
Gene does give credit to Billie Eilish and Lady Gaga as being purveyors of the old model, write their own music and perform it themselves.
Always entertaining to read these threads where KISS is mentioned though. Yeah, they suck, to you. I'll keep having some fun with life and while my musical tastes have expanded greatly since I was 15 and first became a KISS fan I still enjoy their stuff.
I've heard many interviews with KISS and other classic era rockers that have made reference to this "rock is dead" theme. IMO, it seems they're talking more about the business model as it was when the Beatles became a household name is no longer a thing. Very few bands have any real staying power, I watched my own kids never really have their own music "heroes" like we did as teens. It's one thing to the next to the next, quick changes.
In other interviews Gene specifically blames downloading and the internet as the reason for the old model going by the wayside. Whatever. I'm not really a fan of band member's spewing too many opinions, talk about your music, your tour, your past, your future, that's what your fans want to hear. He makes reference in the article to a couple artists that he believes are still doing it the "old" way.
Gene does give credit to Billie Eilish and Lady Gaga as being purveyors of the old model, write their own music and perform it themselves.
Always entertaining to read these threads where KISS is mentioned though. Yeah, they suck, to you. I'll keep having some fun with life and while my musical tastes have expanded greatly since I was 15 and first became a KISS fan I still enjoy their stuff.
I was talking with Rock the other day.... it [still] thinks Gene Simmons is dead.
He plays in a Money making Circus Act...Congratulations to him...It's NOT Rock n Roll!!!
Latest posts
-
-
-
Curious what the percentage of bass players use rounds vs flats is.
- Latest: Bassic_desires
-
-
