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
Brilliant.
If a musician I took seriously said something like “rock is dead” I would still roll my eyes super hard, but coming from him it seems exponentially more ridiculous. It would be like Coolio or Vanilla Ice saying “rap is dead”.
.
And yet music sales in 2021 across all mediums were the highest they've ever been, 7x higher by dollar value than in 1973 and almost $3 billion more since 2020. That 2020-2021 $3B differential is notable because it's $1 billion more than the sales of all music in 1973, which was just $2 billion.
U.S. Sales Database - RIAA
So I'd have to say that RIAA sales numbers don't support the argument that music isn't as relevant today as it used to be. Somebody's buying it, and I mean opposed to just pirating it or downloading it on streaming services for 0.00001 cents per play. For me, I spend at least 5x as much time listening to music today than I did in the 60s, mostly because of the convenience of so many music delivery platforms and their pervasiveness. Moreover, virtually all of my listening is to music which the Music Industry completely ignores but which, thanks to modern music technology, gives me access to artists and styles I never would have found on vinyl in the 60s. These are the last 16 songs I listened to. I would have found maybe one or two at an imports record store like Colony in the 90s (if I'd known what to look for).
This is just my Samba/Manouche playlist. My pop and blues lists are almost as fringe.
Music as a whole has not got the relevance it once had, teenagers nowadays have nothing to revolt against, and that is the reason why 'Rock is dead'. If there are another Beatles it will be on insta or youtube and a kinda private affair. The music that reaches the masses nowadays is boring mind numbing mulch that is played along side apps, games, and the likes. Not saying the music scene is dead, but you'll probably know that there wont be any appetite or even equally exciting and ground-breaking performers for a second Woodstock
And yet music sales in 2021 across all mediums were the highest they've ever been, 7x higher by dollar value than in 1973 and almost $3 billion more since 2020. That 2020-2021 $3B differential is notable because it's $1 billion more than the sales of all music in 1973, which was just $2 billion.
U.S. Sales Database - RIAA
So I'd have to say that RIAA sales numbers don't support the argument that music isn't as relevant today as it used to be. Somebody's buying it, and I mean opposed to just pirating it or downloading it on streaming services for 0.00001 cents per play. For me, I spend at least 5x as much time listening to music today than I did in the 60s, mostly because of the convenience of so many music delivery platforms and their pervasiveness. Moreover, virtually all of my listening is to music which the Music Industry completely ignores but which, thanks to modern music technology, gives me access to artists and styles I never would have found on vinyl in the 60s. These are the last 16 songs I listened to. I would have found maybe one or two at an imports record store like Colony in the 90s (if I'd known what to look for).
This is just my Samba/Manouche playlist. My pop and blues lists are almost as fringe.
I must admit that I agree with Simmons to some extent. By that my feeling is that pop music is in transition, though what will emerge if most difficult even to speculate about.
Rap and Hip-Hop have dominated sales charts for far too long. It clearly is time for a replacement.
Alternatively, Simmons is truly a cretinous nothing who never was. Accordingly, I have no interest in anything the redoubtable Mr. Simmons may have to say about anything.
Rap and Hip-Hop have dominated sales charts for far too long. It clearly is time for a replacement.
Alternatively, Simmons is truly a cretinous nothing who never was. Accordingly, I have no interest in anything the redoubtable Mr. Simmons may have to say about anything.
Last edited:
I think what I say and what you say dont really exclude each other. Back in the 60ies you didnt have the variety of outlet channels as you have nowadays, not so many channels to watch not so many (digitally isolated) places for new music to pop up. I do maintain through that music does not have the relevance it has NOW as it had even onlyt 15-20 years ago with the young people. And not jsut musci in general but I would even go as far as to say that the music MADE today has far less relevance today as the music that was made 20-30-40-or more years ago. OLD music is outselling (or outperforming on streaming services, et al) NEW or current music by huge huge margins.
Old music is outselling new music (true) but that's because it has a huge catalogue going back sixty+ years. It's not a fair comparison against a much smaller sample of music ~5 years old. A better comparison is looking at all record sales by new artists in 2022 or 2021 and comparing them against sales by new artists in 1965 or 1998.
Olivia Rodrigo scored a double platinum album in 2021 ("Sour") and a 4x platinum single (“Drivers License”). Such sales were unheard of 25 years ago. Who's Olivia Rodrigo? I've heard her name, that's all. But someone bought 4 million copies of her single last year.
Olivia Rodrigo scored a double platinum album in 2021 ("Sour") and a 4x platinum single (“Drivers License”). Such sales were unheard of 25 years ago. Who's Olivia Rodrigo? I've heard her name, that's all. But someone bought 4 million copies of her single last year.
Yes, of course there is a bigger catalog available, but what is happening is that even the young people under 30 are streaming more of that back catalogue than what is supposed to be 'their music' created by their peers currently. But we are going off topic a bit which was that rock is dead, and the fact that big innovations in (popular?) music are most probably a thing of the past. I really do feel that the focus of the young has moved on significantly, and away, from music. When you were young (and I dont know your age, but you seem to remember the 60ies) how many did you know that played an instrument, wanted or were playing in a band, or even were avidly listening to music, awaiting new releases, talked about etc. All that happened when I was in my formative years (mainly late 70ies, 80ies, early 90ies) but looking at what my kids and their friends are doing now, - its not that this is gone completely, but there is so much other stuff to be getting on with (not lest of all social media nonsense of all sorts) that music takes a decided backseat. the fact that there seem loads of young people playing instrumetns and very well at that is really 'just' that we can see them on (mainly) instagram and youtube, and then it looks like a lot to us because we see the ones that previously would be out of our sight (hiding in new zealand, canada, some easter block country, etc, etc. And I have to say many many of them are absolutely brilliant and beating the older generationas at their game at an age when the old ones were pissfarting around in pub bands waiting to be discovered. 
So much has changed, hasnt it?
So much has changed, hasnt it?
So then, who's gonna buy all those TBirds he's selling with Gibson? Dead people?
Oh, now I get it:. Those 11-year-olds that grew up on that stuff . . .
Oh, now I get it:. Those 11-year-olds that grew up on that stuff . . .
Hummergeist
Commercial User
- Jul 21, 2020
- 1,269
- 3,084
- Disclosures
- Tutorials, reviews, and interviews for Future Publishing.
Could be that part of the reason for a spike in 'classic rock' interest is because of the artists who have reached pensionable age and sold off their catalogues, thereby causing their music to appear in ads and movies, and being heard by a new audience. Classic rock is a museum - who amongst those artists is selling new material in large numbers?
Filter all of these through the fact that I am not a huge KISS fan. Don't love 'em. Don't hate 'em. Don't have a dog in the fight.
1) Once ANYONE acquires a certain amount of wealth, ANY good financial advisor is going to shift them into commercial real estate as part of their portfolio. I recently learned that Jimmy Buffett earns way more from his commercial real estate Do you honestly think the members of KISS knew they would be buying commercial real estate back in the 70s when they started their band? Virtually every single rich and famous person you know of owns at least some commercial property. You're just blurting anti capitalist nonsense with that one. Sister Rosetta and Chuck likely would have thrown you under a bus to have the kind of money Gene has.
2) KISS helped kill rock? Are you kidding me? I admit that some of their antics are/were cheesy (to me). But you can't sit there with a straight face and argue that they somehow lessened the appeal of rock music. They have sold out stadiums for decades. Mind numbing? Most of Chuck Berry's songs I could have written on a napkin in a bar at 2 a.m. if a bouncer had told me I can't go pee until I crank out a song.....and I really had to pee very badly. And his antics, back then, were seen a lude. Filtered through the sands of the hourglass, he was every bit as provocative (if not more) than KISS was. (And I 100% admit he was ridiculously influential in music history. I'm not putting the guy down.)
3) Weird Al Yankovic is actually a very intelligent man. He's probably way more qualified to be a "cultural historian" than you or I (or Gene)....unless you are actually a cultural historian....which I doubt.
Look, you don't like Gene, or his music. I get it. Again, I'm not exactly his biggest fan either. But it's ridiculously easy to see what he was trying to say. He wasn't being literal. He was simply pointing out that there aren't exactly a plethora of new rock acts taking up space in the mainstream. The vast majority of the sold out stadium rock acts have been around for at least twenty years....some for fifty plus.
Did he say it in a way that was specifically designed to get a rise out of people? Yup. Classic troll. And it seemed to work beautifully.
22 pages? Gene got attention, all he ever wants. Yes, I've been a KISS fan for a long time and enjoyed every one of the 25 times I've seen them live. Met some great people, it's all good.
I'm not gonna read all 22 pages so if this was posted already than my mistake. But did anyone actually include the entire text of the quote on "rock is dead" and what he was referring to, the business model? That's the business model that KISS and other classic rock bands had to work with, it's gone. Knowing this won't change anyone's mind, and that's fine too, the world will keep spinning.
"What happens to rock music after KISS, and eventually other classic rock acts like Paul McCartney, stop playing?
Rock is dead. The kids are listening to EDM and sort of Tame Impala stuff, which I quite like actually. Ghost is interesting. There’s some good stuff out there, but they’re not going to get the chance that we did. They didn’t have a record company who put up posters around, gave you advances that you never had to return, so you could full-time dedicate yourself to that thing. How do you do that if you’re giving your music away for 1/100th of one penny for a download? How do you pay the rent? How do you buy gas? So there’s that vicious cycle of we’re a new band, we don’t make any money, nobody knows who we are. Let’s give our music away for free and hope that we build up enough fans so we can go out and play clubs to make enough money to drive to the next city.
The model is broken. How many supermarkets and stores, retail and airlines would there be if you could just walk in, put a penny down and walk out with stuff? How long do you think they’d stay in business? And what makes you think being in a band or doing music is anything other than a business? I don’t mean that to simplify or negate it. Everything needs fuel. We need air and water and musicians and writers and painters need money.
I'm not gonna read all 22 pages so if this was posted already than my mistake. But did anyone actually include the entire text of the quote on "rock is dead" and what he was referring to, the business model? That's the business model that KISS and other classic rock bands had to work with, it's gone. Knowing this won't change anyone's mind, and that's fine too, the world will keep spinning.
"What happens to rock music after KISS, and eventually other classic rock acts like Paul McCartney, stop playing?
Rock is dead. The kids are listening to EDM and sort of Tame Impala stuff, which I quite like actually. Ghost is interesting. There’s some good stuff out there, but they’re not going to get the chance that we did. They didn’t have a record company who put up posters around, gave you advances that you never had to return, so you could full-time dedicate yourself to that thing. How do you do that if you’re giving your music away for 1/100th of one penny for a download? How do you pay the rent? How do you buy gas? So there’s that vicious cycle of we’re a new band, we don’t make any money, nobody knows who we are. Let’s give our music away for free and hope that we build up enough fans so we can go out and play clubs to make enough money to drive to the next city.
The model is broken. How many supermarkets and stores, retail and airlines would there be if you could just walk in, put a penny down and walk out with stuff? How long do you think they’d stay in business? And what makes you think being in a band or doing music is anything other than a business? I don’t mean that to simplify or negate it. Everything needs fuel. We need air and water and musicians and writers and painters need money.
It's dead in the sense that it's no longer growing. Jazz remains as a genre existing mostly for the appreciation of the people who make the music and a number of hardcore fans that is small and shrinking.
The one thing that will keep jazz going is that jazz is, among all the current options, the optimal kind of music to use to teach music theory. As it structures itself around the rules, and breaks them, in a way very useful to convey as a concept. In my opinion.
Are we talking singles, like the 45s of old, or albums?
Album sales are pretty sparse from what i understand
Singles were huge, before albums became the standard ... now as you are saying, we've gone back to singles... Interesting cycle... That being said, what may be the "breath of life" to bring back album sales?
As a former teacher, he is in favor of them!
He likes pens n pencils too!... And chalk....
streamed single songs. whatever that might these days be comparable to ... comparing it to singles of old days is kinda problematic i find, because many people stream stuff not knowing who it is they are listening to and it is a much more fleeting action than going to a shop and physically buying a 45 etc.
Good point
Much easier to stream....
I remember as a kid, having to get a ride from a parent, or ride a bike to a store to make the purchase... A very conscious act to buy a record, either 33 or 45... Having the fun looking through all the records to find the one(s) that we wanted...
Reminiscing, I remember the feeling that was had when you got home with the purchase... It really meant something to come home with a record that you really wanted -- reading the record cover over and over, checking out the cover art...
Yup, your right, a very different pricess of buying the physical record verses streaming...
Almost comparing apples to oranges. ... Both fruit, but........
