• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Gene Simmons [still] Thinks Rock Is Dead

Aside from the fact that The Big Bopper still comes up in articles and conversation today when discussing the music of his era... and that Juicy McJuiceFace will be completely irrelevant and nowhere to be found by April?

Nah, not really. :smug:

Is there that much difference between juice wrld and The Big Bopper?
 
... but not anymore. The Black Keys are a perfect example of the cotton candy music that gets airplay these days... here today, gone tomorrow.

It's not 100% their fault. The ways music is selected and introduced to people certainly doesn't provide for longevity. Without record companies to steadily develop and cultivate artists, everyone's out for whatever pop they can get.


The black keys have all that, have been around since the early aughts rose from nothing to playing arenas and having their music in apple commercials.
 
Kids swallowing tide pods smh

u496696acme.jpg
goldfishswallowing-photo02.jpg
AnotherPhotoOfWithingtonSwallowingTheGoldfish.jpg
 

I hate Gene Simmons, but he's right. But he's right for the wrong reasons. Rock is dead for the same reason jazz, the blues, etc are dead. And that's because popular music changes over time. Rock music will stick around as a niche interest for those who care (like jazz, blues, etc). I think 'rock' will become an idea, an attitude that is then referenced in popular music. You already see that on American Idol or whatever.
 
I understand why some people bash the music industry and blame them for all of music's woes, but I don't buy a lot of it. Yes, labels are out to promote certain bands and try to make a profit from other's artistry - no doubt. At the same time, these artists would like be no where without the labels that promoted, invested and managed the talent. It is so dishonest when an artist that hits it big decides that after they are famous that they signed a terrible contract and try to sue their way out of it. The irony is that most of them would not have had a nickel if they did not sign. No one forces people to sign, but they do for their own desire for fame and riches. Also, no one ever seems to talk about the huge amount of money the "parasitic" labels invest in projects that returned them nothing.

The internet has leveled the playing field a little as the big labels are failing to rake in the dough the way the did in the 20th century by carefully controlling every aspect of the business. It is too soon to say what will happen, but if the last 10 years is any indication, music will continue to chase the lowest common denominator as their algorithms seek out ad profits over any type of true creativity or inspiration.

p.s. I started a thread in the misc section regarding disruptive music events and am trying to build a chronology of truly important things. It is enlightening to realize that in the history of music, the current chapters we are fretting about only took place during the last 80 years or so. A blip in the history of music.
 
Last edited:
The only thing, which has truly died, is actual musical talent.

And, for those comfortable in the role of casting aspersions at persons older than themselves, ask yourself why Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Rossini, et al, are still the pinnacle of the arts, and will be revered till the end of time.

There's more to music than technical ability. I'd rather listen to U2 all day than listen to Steve Vai or whatever. Rock and Roll and Rock were never about being skilled anyway.
 
I read the article, and can't say I disagree with him. Rock is not the dominant mainstream force it once was. Like he says, it's still popular, and there are tons of good bands, but it's not dominant.

Does it need to be dominant or mainstream? There is some kind of arrogance tied to the thinking that Rock NEEDS to be dominant. The genre didn't go anywhere - all those hundreds of thousands of rock albums made are still there. There are new bands coming out all the time. There are still rock radio stations.

I mean, Jazz and Classical musicians and fans should be committing suicide in droves out of depression that those genres aren't dominant. I think it's healthy that what is mainstream cycles and changes every few years or each generation.

I can't say I like what is mainstream, but at the same time, I don't have to listen to it if I don't want to. On the other hand, it has led to other genres and subgenres having some time in the spotlight and music should be about experimentation, growth, change.

Funny thing is that we need to ask, WHAT IS ROCK? Because it has undergone so many changes and is made up of so many subgenres that the word is meaningless. R.E.M. is rock. So is Megadeth. So is Roxy Music. So is Led Zeppelin. So is Mastodon. Radiohead is as far as you can get from Black Sabbath and they're still considered "Rock". It's all music to me. And I don't care that Godspeed You Black Emperor, Trans Am, Mogwai or Do Make Say Think aren't mainstream, I was still able to discover and enjoy their music.
 
The only thing, which has truly died, is actual musical talent.

And, for those comfortable in the role of casting aspersions at persons older than themselves, ask yourself why Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Rossini, et al, are still the pinnacle of the arts, and will be revered till the end of time.
I respectfully disagree. There is plenty of talent out there. Plenty of creation. What is missing is a way to monetize it. In the 70's record companies invested in talent they could market and sell. They used to make their money from record sales.

Now, with file sharing, youtube, Spotify, the music is nearly free on a per-play basis. The new model is to find songs that people will click on and make a fraction of a penny - just repeat that process a billion times. Just as important is the supplemental click-per-ad revenue.

So talent in music matters less than universal likeability. Everything starts to sound the same because that is what is gaining the most clicks. Not that people don't want better music, but if it is deemed popular, they will click it. It is not even like there is a music mogul out there calling the shots any more. There is no money to be made by selling complete albums. It is also no coincidence that old songs are being re-recorded because if they worked once, their is a good shot at it working again after the new generation no longer knows the source. Watch 30 minutes of ad-driven TV and you will see this in action.

I am hoping that after Covid, local live music will make a rebound. People are inherently social.
 
Last edited: