• 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.

Opinion on Gene Simmons

Opinion on Gene Simmons

  • He's Awesome

    Votes: 41 8.4%

  • He's Ok

    Votes: 182 37.1%

  • He's Absolutely Horrible

    Votes: 191 38.9%

  • No Opinion

    Votes: 77 15.7%
  • Total voters
    491
  • Poll closed .
#164
Jake of Bass said:
That's not gospel. But I'm talking about the Australian music industry where you can sign to a company and keep all your copyright. I think it's a little different in the US. Having said that I'm fairly certain not every contract means an artist has to "sell out", there are plenty who keep artistic control through not selling their rights to the record company, ie. there are no absolutes, as in the case of Mike Patton whom signed to a major record label with a band like Mr. Bungle, or Tool who have done the same yet still release 7 1/2 minute singles with no radio edits, because they have had artistic control right from the genesis of the band.
Click to expand...
If Tool didn't have every album go gold, they would have zero artistic control and would have been dropped, just like Mr. Bungle. Patton was coming off a hot project in Faith No More when he started Mr. Bungle, so he got artistic control. But Mr. Bungle never sold many albums so they got dropped.

I know people, especially young musicians, really want to believe it's not all about the money with popular music, but it is.
 
#168
Eric618 said:
I've given up trying to argue that point in these threads. Too many children floating around. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Sad but true indeed. I like a good spirited discussion as well as the next person but some of the opinions stated just sound plain mean or ignorant. No offense that's just how they sound.
Honestly guys & girls, since I started logging on to TB I have witnessed the bashing of many players who have seen great success in their careers. Sting, Phil Collins, Jaco, Jeff Berlin, Tal Wilkenfeld, Victor Wooten for cryin' out loud, now Gene! The list goes on and on. What's the point?
All these people have one thing in common. They have gigs!!
Better than most of ours. Whether the people on TB think these artists have artistic credibility or not really makes for a foolish argument as most of us dont know these artists personally and don't really know their motivations not that it even matters.
So far i see money, fame, the adoration of fans of the opposite sex not to mention the ability to play music for a living as all solid motivation to be in this business. Art is in the eye (or ear for that matter) of the beholder (tired saying but true none the less).
If you don't like it, look away or plug your ears or whatever you need to do. Create something better! so everyone on TB can tear you apart as well.
Funny, I feel like I keep posting the same thing in these threads :eyebrow:
 
#171
3toes said:
Right, we're all children because we don't like KISS. I'm sorry but in my opinion it's a gimmick band with rudimentary playing. Not my cup of tea.
Click to expand...
Yeah but you're wrong that Gene just pounds the root. He has done it in the past, but he has also used a lot of cool walking basslines and often played off the root, more often than not. Nobody that has actually heard Gene play would call him a root pounder unless the only song you ever heard him play was "Lick It Up." So that's why you came off bad. You obviously said something that was ill-informed and based off what you've read, not what you've heard. Own it and move on ;)
 
#173
JimmyM said:
Yeah but you're wrong that Gene just pounds the root. He has done it in the past, but he has also used a lot of cool walking basslines and often played off the root, more often than not. Nobody that has actually heard Gene play would call him a root pounder unless the only song you ever heard him play was "Lick It Up." So that's why you came off bad. You obviously said something that was ill-informed and based off what you've read, not what you've heard. Own it and move on ;)
Click to expand...
BOOYAH!

davec said:
if it was he would have figured out a pay to vote, policy
Click to expand...
lol!!
 
#174
JimmyM said:
Yeah but you're wrong that Gene just pounds the root. He has done it in the past, but he has also used a lot of cool walking basslines and often played off the root, more often than not. Nobody that has actually heard Gene play would call him a root pounder unless the only song you ever heard him play was "Lick It Up." So that's why you came off bad. You obviously said something that was ill-informed and based off what you've read, not what you've heard. Own it and move on ;)
Click to expand...

Fine, point to you. I'll own up to it. :p

But it has nothing to do with reading v. hearing... I've heard plenty of KISS. I just find none of it interesting at all, especially in terms of the bass work. So I guess, in my mind, he might as well just be pounding the root.
 
#177
JimmyM said:
If Tool didn't have every album go gold, they would have zero artistic control and would have been dropped, just like Mr. Bungle. Patton was coming off a hot project in Faith No More when he started Mr. Bungle, so he got artistic control. But Mr. Bungle never sold many albums so they got dropped.

I know people, especially young musicians, really want to believe it's not all about the money with popular music, but it is.
Click to expand...

But what are you saying here, is it the industry or the artist?

Also, just a few facts here that you're getting wrong.

Mike Patton was in Mr. Bungle for about 5 years before he was recruited by Jim Martin to join Faith No More. Tool held onto their copyright and artistic control before they ever made it to a recording studio, before they ever made or sold a record or played a big gig. And have kept it that way the entire time.

I know people, especially cynical and perhaps jaded musicians think commercial success is all about selling out your artistic integrity, but it isn't.
 
#178
Jake of Bass said:
But what are you saying here, is it the industry or the artist?

Also, just a few facts here that you're getting wrong.

Mike Patton was in Mr. Bungle for about 5 years before he was recruited by Jim Martin to join Faith No More. Tool held onto their copyright and artistic control before they ever made it to a recording studio, before they ever made or sold a record or played a big gig. And have kept it that way the entire time.

I know people, especially cynical and perhaps jaded musicians think commercial success is all about selling out your artistic integrity, but it isn't.
Click to expand...
It isn't if you sell lots of albums. It's freaking great if you sell lots of albums, or if you come from a background of selling a lot of albums on your own. Record companies will leave you alone as long as the cash register keeps ringing.
 
#179
JimmyM said:
It isn't if you sell lots of albums. It's freaking great if you sell lots of albums, or if you come from a background of selling a lot of albums on your own. Record companies will leave you alone as long as the cash register keeps ringing.
Click to expand...

But what are you really saying here?

Of course you lose integrity if you're not selling as many albums as expected and when it's put to you to make your music more commercial you do so for business reasons rather than artistic ones. That's a pretty much cut and dried point of discussion. But it's different from your original comment which was "Oh stop. Most rock and roll musicians would say the same thing if they were honest and not trying to cow-tow to the "artistes" out there who think artistic integrity exists in the music industry. Know who's got musical integrity? The kid in his living room writing songs not trying to get signed, not making any money. Everyone else is in it for the money and good times."

Everyone else? You must surely know tens of thousands of bands personally to make a statement like this!!

Musical integrity doesn't exist in the industry, or not in the artists that work within the industry? It's a bit of an ambiguous statement you're making here.
 
#180
Jake of Bass said:
But what are you really saying here?

Of course you lose integrity if you're not selling as many albums as expected and when it's put to you to make your music more commercial you do so for business reasons rather than artistic ones. That's a pretty much cut and dried point of discussion. But it's different from your original comment which was "Oh stop. Most rock and roll musicians would say the same thing if they were honest and not trying to cow-tow to the "artistes" out there who think artistic integrity exists in the music industry. Know who's got musical integrity? The kid in his living room writing songs not trying to get signed, not making any money. Everyone else is in it for the money and good times."

Everyone else? You must surely know tens of thousands of bands personally to make a statement like this!!

Musical integrity doesn't exist in the industry, or not in the artists that work within the industry? It's a bit of an ambiguous statement you're making here.
Click to expand...
I don't think I am. I think musical integrity exists, but every popular band represents a huge effort from many people besides the band members, and I don't know of a single band out there that hasn't had to do something that they didn't want to do at some point in order to put their band out there or make a name for themselves. If one exists, I'd like to see it because it would be a miracle. And when they say that they've done exactly what they want every step of the way, I don't believe them.

However, once you sell a buttload of albums, it gets infinitely easier to deal with people and have the clout to call more of your own shots. Just remember that music is only a small part of the music business.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back