Gene Simmons [still] Thinks Rock Is Dead

[SimonSays32]

...And I think that brings it full circle to "what Gene said" (and Noel Gallagher, too), that rock's demise is down to a failure of imagination on the part of those who would pick up the baton. My example: Were I one of these 12 year old YT guitar shredders with chops I myself could not acquire over ten lifetimes -- well, I would find the 12 year old YT mega drummer and start a pint-sized metal band with unparalleled chops, and then make hay out of that novelty. But I suppose these young players, for all their chops, are ultimately emulators.

With regards to imagination - thanks to phones/tablets/computers and entertainment being so readily available and consumable, imagination is no longer really necessary to keep oneself entertained.

Not that I think there is a dearth of imaginative entertainment right now - but I definitely think that there will be an effect on the coming generations use of/understanding of imagination for being raised on the internet. I think it will be more analytically imaginative and less fictionally imaginative.

Rock died because the fans killed it by not supporting the new bands and always following the same dinosaurs. It's pathetic. Rock deserves to be dead. If a band doesn't sound like a cheap copy of led zeppelin you don't pay attention to it. Today's bands have no image, they look like professors or barbers. Radio died too, nobody needs it with Spotify. Bands should improve their image and adapt to the times, make collaborations, show colors, bring back that sense of danger and volatility that attracts young people, but if we adults do not support young people, rock will disappear completely. Keep worshiping that old junk music and sticking with the album format ... You guys killed it.

I think that there is a little more nuance to it than that - I mean, some of the "dinosaurs" are still making relevant music (Paul Simon's last few albums were amazing, David Bowie's parting album is one of my favourite pieces of music), although there are indeed artists who are banking on their past success to maintain their careers.

Whether or not an artist is able to remain relevant into old age is dependant on the artist themselves, but the true artist that makes unique beautiful art late into life; their later works often show a patience, experience and perspective that only comes from time in.

It is also hard to fault those who made it during that time for remaining popular and having had that leg up; I mean, that's life - they were lucky enough to be born at the right time when the industry was just starting to flourish. I was born at a different time - a time when the industry stopped taking chances, but a time where the opportunity to afford your own personal studio exists which is pretty lucky too in my estimation.

On that note, we are talking about a multi-generational mass media industry that is currently experiencing a shift in how society at large is consuming entertainment, a shift that is completely at odds with how they capitalized on art for nearly a century.

In any generation you have to take anything that was or is charting with a pinch (or pound) of salt as the stuff that is pushed at a national/international level is having millions of dollars marketed through it by the top of the industry.

I think it is funny to ponder whether or not something so abstract is dead or alive especially on the basis of it's profitability in a capitalist market place, I mean it ultimately doesn't matter because for the moment music is still being made and like any other time in history it is all subjectively good or bad.

 

[Hummergeist]

There's so much choice now - games, streaming shows, YouTube, tiktok. Even during lockdown there is more entertainment than hours in the day. A talented kid has many more outlets than just playing guitar in the bedroom, so music of any kind has a lot of competition. Rock as Simmons thinks of it probably did die at the end of the 90s, and any rock band I've seen since then has been more like a theme park than a real band.

 

[Hummergeist]

And I'm sure Gene would LOVE it that a thread about his comment has reached 19 pages so far.

 

[el murdoque]

Well, you can easily blame that one on the music industry.
The bands are still out there. Look at Greta van Fleet.
What's not around anymore is a label that will sign them
and sink a few million dollars into developing them into
world stars. Glamour costs money. You can easily rant about
that when you're Gene Simmons and you know that you can
fill a venue holding 10k people at $75 per ticket. You want pyro?
Glitter cannons? A huge stage with an awesome show? Not a problem.
All the glamour you crave will be paid for by your loyal fan base that
stuck to you since the late eighties.

I suppose the absulute peak of the industry
was in the early nineties, when the CD took over. CD's did
cost more because they were 'better', but they were a LOT
cheaper to produce. And people were still buying them, because
the only way to make a copy was an audio cassette.
They were making obscene amounts of money and had no problem
making even more by spending a few millions into elevating a promising
newcomer to world stardom.

 

[Polkatronixx]

You can tell that rock is dead when you look at Fender's artist models. They're either for washed up players that no one cares about anymore, or for people you'd hardly expect to be worthy of an artist model. Like, how many signature guitars does that guy from Slipknot need?

 

[SimonSays32]

What I have noticed with the newer generations is that they seem to be much more risk averse than previous generations. I saw Cory Wong (who is around my age group) make a joke about weed once that came off as almost preachy - not that I think anyone should/shouldn't smoke pot, or do psychedelics, or whatever - but say what you will about the boomer generation (or Gen X), they were risk takers and the music that they produced is reflective of that which is part of the reason it remains a relevant part of the discussion 60 years on.

There were certainly artists of the time like Gene Simmons who were more calculated and took less risks (I mean - while the makeup and costumes might seem like a risk, Kiss was ultimately a calculated product that comes off as much less provocative than intended). But the balance of music produced between the 50s to the mid 90s skews riskier than the music made from the mid 90s onward.

There are certainly some newer artists that are taking risks with their own life experience - and that is reflected in the art they produce. But the balance seems to be lots more are making music that sounds like an imitation of their influences - like a school project that they are trying to get an A+ on, which while commendable on a technical musical level in some cases, isn't very interesting on the merits of artistic innovation.

Which is the true spirit of "Rock" - risk for innovation, and it is through all the best art of any generation in any medium or any genre. I do not think it is dead - as I said earlier in the thread, there are artists that I like who are in my age group or younger that are making new interesting and innovative music. But right now at least, it is harder to find that music in the vast landscape of new music due to the mass shift in how society is consuming music at the moment.

Technology has become so affordable that anyone can make music now that sounds in line with what is on the charts - and that is great for the artist (musicians are finally on parity with Painters and Writers for being able to work their craft at home), but it also means that anyone can put out music and that means there is lots of dreck that you have to wade through to find the interesting stuff. Especially in comparison to the past - because you can't depend on the industry to produce interesting risks anymore as they are in survival mode and banking on metrics and focus groups to keep profits steady.

 

[Brent Cain NZ]

This forum is a perfect example of how the consumption & ability to share & comment on music has changed on a scale that I never could have imagined when I was just starting to learn to play. I am still learning if the truth be known ! As a youth I spent hours with friends jamming in school halls, garages & bedrooms while listening to music as there were few vehicles to watch it. This is a key point for me. Somewhere, probably, quite quickly after the arrival of MTV people around me starting saying " did you see the latest song from so & so last night ". I still find this fascinating. Did video ( gone as well ) really kill the radio star or did it become more of a case of style over substance when it came to all styles of music. I personally do not think rock is dead but is scattered in endless fragments as more content is produced at home & uploaded. There is now so much out there I hear about new bands I might like from friends referral, music magazines like UnCut or my grandkids.

I once spent hours standing in line to buy the latest release from Deep Purple on vinyl when it was released at midnight at a local record store. My grandkids would never do that. Now there are almost no record stores but Purple roll on. I am sure Rodger Glover is in his 70' s. Not sure I could stand in line that long any more either without needing a trip to the restroom. Ah, the joys of age. I am not sure if that same level of dedication exists for artists today as you can access so much so quickly or whether this was just a sign of the times? I would be very interested to read what everyone thinks. Take care out there.

 

[alaskaleftybass]

I worked with a young gifted techie years ago. He went to California to attend Berklee School of Music for Recording. One of the first things he learned is a story he told me. How the industry reshaped the "rock pop" scene in the 2000's.

In the late 90's as music changed and the internet was growing, the Powers That Be decided they had to reshape the music industry. Young people were going to the internet and were now playing Guitar Hero guitars instead of real guitars. They knew that there was no longer a pool of true talent that existed in the late 70's through the end of the 80's. No more "power gunslingers" on guitar and tight hammering rock bands. So they changed the sound. They simplified the music. Made lyrics more like repetitious cheerleading chanting. Put pretty singers with acoustic guitars up front stage. Simple simple simple.

They succeeded in changing the industry by capitalizing off the "ironic un-style" culture. They had singers playing simple melodies and strumming their three chords which the bands could easily follow along with. And if not, they could have the "old dinosaurs" lay the tracks down in the studio because they knew the old timers would get it perfect in no more than a couple takes. So the pop band could play along with essentially karaoke backing tracks while they were still promoting their pop rock in concerts and other 'live performances.' It's sad because the promoters always come out on top. They've used musicians for generations to their own end. They've just changed the formula to match the times.

 

[Polkatronixx]

I worked with a young gifted techie years ago. He went to California to attend Berklee School of Music for Recording. One of the first things he learned is a story he told me. How the industry reshaped the "rock pop" scene in the 2000's.

In the late 90's as music changed and the internet was growing, the Powers That Be decided they had to reshape the music industry. Young people were going to the internet and were now playing Guitar Hero guitars instead of real guitars. They knew that there was no longer a pool of true talent that existed in the late 70's through the end of the 80's. No more "power gunslingers" on guitar and tight hammering rock bands. So they changed the sound. They simplified the music. Made lyrics more like repetitious cheerleading chanting. Put pretty singers with acoustic guitars up front stage. Simple simple simple.

They succeeded in changing the industry by capitalizing off the "ironic un-style" culture. They had singers playing simple melodies and strumming their three chords which the bands could easily follow along with. And if not, they could have the "old dinosaurs" lay the tracks down in the studio because they knew the old timers would get it perfect in no more than a couple takes. So the pop band could play along with essentially karaoke backing tracks while they were still promoting their pop rock in concerts and other 'live performances.' It's sad because the promoters always come out on top. They've used musicians for generations to their own end. They've just changed the formula to match the times.

That sounds ridiculous to me. Why is everything these days the result of some sort of massive conspiracy?

 

[JW56789]

Gene Simmons [still] Thinks Rock Is Dead

Wait a minute . . . . . Gene's still alive ? ? ?

 

[Iroquoisroadwarrior]

I watched it die. New year's Eve from Dubai

 

[alaskaleftybass]

That sounds ridiculous to me. Why is everything these days the result of some sort of massive conspiracy?

Because our lives are dictated by "conspiracies." I'm not a fanatic or nut, I just know that my place in the lower 99% DOESN'T shape the direction of the masses. Haven't you ever heard the expression "king maker?" It's a real expression and it's a pertinent today as it was 1,000 years ago.

 

[Hummergeist]

Because our lives are dictated by "conspiracies." I'm not a fanatic or nut, I just know that my place in the lower 99% DOESN'T shape the direction of the masses. Haven't you ever heard the expression "king maker?" It's a real expression and it's a pertinent today as it was 1,000 years ago.

The music industry wouldn't be where it is today if there was some kind of mysterious conspiracy at play. It's changed because it has always changed, and because there's been a scramble to keep up with new technology. Furthermore, social media has caused artists and genres to come and go faster than ever. The idea that there is less talent now than in the 1970s is easily disproved by spending a few minutes on YouTube. The talent is simply dispersed over a wider field.

 

[Hummergeist]

It feels like this quote from Mike Watt could be relevant also: “It’s so funny when people talk about the ‘good old days’ you know, because in a lot of ways they were lame ass. The people who made music and were in bands were in a whole other world far from you. You couldn’t have that…we were more kept in our place. Nowadays you’re kept in your place more by your mind, more by the herd mentality, than actually having the material and wherewithal to do things.”

 

[BargeOn]

Gene Simmons [still] Thinks Rock Is Dead

Wait a minute . . . . . Gene's still alive ? ? ?

Gene Simmons isn't dead, he just smells funny.
- Apologies to FZ

 

[Polkatronixx]

Because our lives are dictated by "conspiracies." I'm not a fanatic or nut, I just know that my place in the lower 99% DOESN'T shape the direction of the masses. Haven't you ever heard the expression "king maker?" It's a real expression and it's a pertinent today as it was 1,000 years ago.

Well, Berklee is in Boston, not California - so that should be your first clue that something is amiss. But beyond that, a quick perusal of YouTube will clearly show how many young guitar shredders exist today.

The truth is that tastes change. Record companies follow the money. There were plenty of talented bands in the 90s and 00s. But people move on. Rock music lasted about 50 years (if you include rock and roll) and that's a lot longer than a lot of other musics lasted.

 

[alaskaleftybass]

Well, Berklee is in Boston, not California - so that should be your first clue that something is amiss. But beyond that, a quick perusal of YouTube will clearly show how many young guitar shredders exist today.

The truth is that tastes change. Record companies follow the money. There were plenty of talented bands in the 90s and 00s. But people move on. Rock music lasted about 50 years (if you include rock and roll) and that's a lot longer than a lot of other musics lasted.

By the time I realized that I made a mistake about Berklee, I couldn't change my post. The young man DID attend Berklee, and I believe the story rings of truth. There are a lot of shredders on YouTube, but how many shred guitar solos do you hear on Top 40 music?

The industry doesn't follow the trends, it creates and shapes it. That's what i meant about 'kingmakers.' Let's just agree to disagree. This discussion is non-productive.

 

[Polkatronixx]

By the time I realized that I made a mistake about Berklee, I couldn't change my post. The young man DID attend Berklee, and I believe the story rings of truth. There are a lot of shredders on YouTube, but how many shred guitar solos do you hear on Top 40 music?

The industry doesn't follow the trends, it creates and shapes it. That's what i meant about 'kingmakers.' Let's just agree to disagree. This discussion is non-productive.

You don't hear very many euphonium players on top 40 music these days, but that's not because of a concerted effort to marginalise euphonium players.

When Nirvana broke through in 1991, it was the result of many years of record labels trying to break 'underground' or 'alternative' rock. Not because they were creating it and deciding it was the new thing they wanted to sell, but because they were savvy enough to see that it was becoming more and more popular and indie labels were selling more and more records - and their bands were generating a lot of column inches in music publications. They did the same thing with 'electronica' a few years later. It happens all the time - the major labels follow the trends. They cash in on them, yes - but they don't create them. Or they rarely do.

But as far as rock music is concerned, it was killed by hip hop.

 

[alaskaleftybass]

You don't hear very many euphonium players on top 40 music these days, but that's not because of a concerted effort to marginalise euphonium players.

When Nirvana broke through in 1991, it was the result of many years of record labels trying to break 'underground' or 'alternative' rock. Not because they were creating it and deciding it was the new thing they wanted to sell, but because they were savvy enough to see that it was becoming more and more popular and indie labels were selling more and more records - and their bands were generating a lot of column inches in music publications. They did the same thing with 'electronica' a few years later. It happens all the time - the major labels follow the trends. They cash in on them, yes - but they don't create them. Or they rarely do.

But as far as rock music is concerned, it was killed by hip hop.

Do you understand the term 'agree to disagree?' It means we will never agree, and it's best to stop the conversation. Well, I'm now asking. Stop. This. Conversation. Thank you.

 

[alaskaleftybass]

The music industry wouldn't be where it is today if there was some kind of mysterious conspiracy at play. It's changed because it has always changed, and because there's been a scramble to keep up with new technology. Furthermore, social media has caused artists and genres to come and go faster than ever. The idea that there is less talent now than in the 1970s is easily disproved by spending a few minutes on YouTube. The talent is simply dispersed over a wider field.

Sure there's lots of talent on YouTube. How many of the shredding guitarists do you see on TV or making appearances with new artists? I contend that the industry still steers the talent in the direction it wishes. My 2 cents. It's a free country, we are free to state our differences.