"We've been around for over 40 years and we've

He's literally not wrong

He is an asshole though

His claims, while interesting, fall apart under scrutiny because he's apparently unable to explain why, if illegal downloading killed the industry, that it's seemingly had no effect on pop and hip-hop. I mean, Taylor Swift, Kanye, Rihanna, etc are not exactly eating out of a dumpster because of file sharing.

The record industry has dropped rock like a hot potato for a variety of reasons, very few of which have to do with downloading.

>>73573512
This

I understand his point but even indie is selling a lot of records these days, it was definitely worse for bands in the 90's. Quality control is a bigger issue these days than bands not selling.

>>73573512
It has a lot more to do with the fact that pop stars and rappers cost less to produce and guarantee instant immediate returns on the investment. A rock group is composed of several people, not just one, and all the equipment needed to play in a band is expensive. Also pop songs=radio play. Plus a band can break up/switch members.

>>73573690
that's capitalism bro

>>73573690
>>73573719
Didn't stop bands from making $$$ 30-40 years ago.

>>73573690
One Direction isn't one person and it generates tons of cash.

>>73573205
Okay technically he isn't wrong but my biggest issue with his statement is that the world doesn't NEED those things right now. Nobody wants stadium style rock music right now. Hip Hop and Pop music are on top right now for many reasons, but just like all musical trends it will go away soon and different genres will take the throne. (Who knows, maybe rock will make a comeback).

Everyone knows rock music isn't 100% dead anyways. There is plenty of good rock out there right now (although much of it falls under other sub-genres genres besides flat out 'Rock').

Also, starving artists will always be starving artists. The only reason Gene Simmons and Kiss made money is because they literally put their brand on every fucking man made object in existence and sold out from the start. Just like in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's, artists now are 1% super wealthy 99% broke. If anything artists should be happy to be around in 2017, where the internet and social media make that climb to the top more doable than ever before.

tl;dr rocks not dead, gene is old and rich and out of touch

>>73573205
(((Chaim Witz)))

>>73573755
There were a lot of baby boomers back then to fuel record/concert sales.

Gene Simmons is the guy who, once he's living in a Beverly Hills mansion, forgets that he used to sleep on a friend's couch when he was just starting out.

>>73573812
to add on to this, almost every artist or band who has become wealthy and famous has done so from touring, merchandise, sponsorships, and ad deals. Music sales are and have always been largely a drop in the bucket revenue-wise.

>>73573812
>Nobody wants stadium style rock music right now

If you're playing stadiums, chances are you're already a sellout. See, even back in the 70s-80s, music journalists like Christgau were condemning stadium rock, they thought only some punk group in a club in NYC was "real".

>>73573856
>Music sales are and have always been largely a drop in the bucket revenue-wise

Didn't Thriller sell over 60 million copies?

>>73573896
I said largely. There are a few artists who have had records go platinum a billion times and became rich that way. But a large majority or bands from the 60's-now have made most of their money from the other things I mentioned. Also, I'd be willing to bet MJ still made more money from touring, merch, and appearances then he made from record sales alone.

>>73573856
Well, yeah. People forget that the "real" rock groups in the 70s didn't actually sell a huge number of albums. The bands who did sell them were pop rock trash like Journey. Compare Devo's record sales to, like, REO Speedwagon or some other buttrock from that era.

>>73573896
It did, but Michael Jackson had talent and if he were around today, he would have been just as successful. Maybe he wouldn't sell as many albums, but he'd still be a superstar.

>>73573940
Ok but even bands like Black Sabbath who didn't get radio play still had major label support behind them.

>>73573996
Yeh but even back in the 70s, AOR probably wasn't a big moneymaker for record labels. I guarantee you the Carpenters and Bee Gees were worth more money because they appealed to normies/women and got played on the radio. Record companies are obviously in business to make a profit, and one of the reasons for the disco boom in the late 70s was because the stuff was poppy and you could play it on the radio. You couldn't play Black Sabbath on the radio.

So even though bands got on major labels, they weren't the primary moneymaker for the industry, that was (as it always is) pop music of various flavors.

>>73574053
Disco is fantastic though. You just pop some on and your day lightens up completely. Classic stuff. :)

>>73574053
>So even though bands got on major labels, they weren't the primary moneymaker for the industry, that was (as it always is) pop music of various flavors.
Ok but what we're trying to get down to is the specific reason why it was ok to sign bands in the 70s even though they weren't big moneymakers, but it's not ok today.

>>73574106
One could perhaps guess that 40+ years of experience led the industry to believe that pop stars were simply more profitable relative to the amount of money invested in them, and they hadn't yet come to this conclusion in the 70s.

However, I think it had to do with demographics since the huge baby boomer population created an unnaturally large music market at that time. Record companies made so much money in the 60s-70s that they could afford to sign rock groups in spite of them not being poppy and radio friendly. They were able to keep it up for a long time thanks to the profits made in that period, but by the 2000s eventually it wasn't profitable anymore.

>>73574106
Pay-for-play, everyone always forgets what a huge graft it was until the the mid 90's when FM radio began to die out.
This is why record companies are largely dead. Once the scam was broken there was no going back.

>>73574187
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola

In case anyone's interested.

>>73573205
trips and brian wilson kills gene simmons with beach boys magic

>>73574184
>However, I think it had to do with demographics since the huge baby boomer population created an unnaturally large music market at that time. Record companies made so much money in the 60s-70s that they could afford to sign rock groups in spite of them not being poppy and radio friendly. They were able to keep it up for a long time thanks to the profits made in that period, but by the 2000s eventually it wasn't profitable anymore.

In the 60s-70s yes, but then you had the 80s-90s after which Gen Xers had replaced boomers as the major music buying audience and there were far less of them. The decline of rock coincided with Millenials who are a big generation, there should in theory have been more young people in 2000+ to buy music.

>>73574256
As I said, they made so much money in the 60s-70s that the industry could live off those profits for a long time after the boomers had aged out of the primary music buying demographic. Also even when boomers got older, there was still a lot of money to be made selling bad adult contemporary/Christian revival music (and holy god, there was a lot of this in the 80s as the boomers were reaching middle age) not to mention repackages/reprints of 60s-70s music.

Yes there's a lot of Millenials but they reached adolescence at about the point where the industry just said a collective "fuck it" and went with the easiest and cheapest genres of music to produce.

>>73574053
>Yeh but even back in the 70s, AOR probably wasn't a big moneymaker for record labels. I guarantee you the Carpenters and Bee Gees were worth more money because they appealed to normies/women and got played on the radio. Record companies are obviously in business to make a profit, and one of the reasons for the disco boom in the late 70s was because the stuff was poppy and you could play it on the radio. You couldn't play Black Sabbath on the radio.
Arguably the decline of jazz had to do with its evolution post-WWII into extended length noodling like John Coltrane that wasn't danceable anymore. The industry jumped on rock-and-roll in the mid-1960s because it was doing what jazz had ceased to do for some time. Probably also helped that electric guitars are a very flexible instrument that can produce a wider array of sounds than a horn or a trumpet.

>>73573802
One direction also needs no instruments

>>73574240
Sure.

>>73574540
I was just going to get to that, but thank you for pointing it out.

>>73574481
>Probably also helped that electric guitars are a very flexible instrument that can produce a wider array of sounds than a horn or a trumpet

That blues rock/wah-wah pedal stuff is stale as fuck and doesn't wow anyone like it did in Jimi Hendrix's day.

>>73574868
That's the thing though, an electric guitar can make almost any sound you like. It doesn't have to necessarily have to have the same tone they used in 1969.

>>73574919
You're right, but most of the equipment you can buy now is just trying to emulate dadrock bands, it's not utilizing modern sounds.

>>73574540
Yeah because instruments cost millions of dollars right

>>73573512
He's not saying illegal downloading killed the industry at all, he's saying record labels are using illegal downloading as an excuse to play it safe and give artists less, especially rock musicians. Pop stars are pop stars on the grounds that most pop stars basically do what they're told and often don't write their own songs anyways, and hip-hop is a completely different market with its own "underground" and "mainstream" acts that have a similar kind of push and pull between them

>>73574960
You can buy guitars and amps which sound modern and not like the 70s, you know.

>>73575059
>and hip-hop is a completely different market with its own "underground" and "mainstream" acts that have a similar kind of push and pull between them
We already covered that. Hip-hop is cheaper to produce than rock, doesn't require an instrument, and isn't 4-5 guys together all of whom could split up/change members at the drop of a hat.

>>73575010
The crew of engineers needed to maintain them and mic them up and plug them in and the transportation cost for them and the amplification equipment certainly costs more than an audio player and a few dummy microphones.

>>73574187
Why did radio die out in the mid 90s?

>>73575111
As I said, it was probably cheaper adjusted for inflation to do this stuff in the 70s than today.

>>73573205
dammmmm

gene simmons is redpilled

Gene Simmons sounds like a silent movie star complaining that talkie films ruined everything.

>>73575916
They didn't have the technology to do otherwise.

Rock isn't dead, it just doesn't look like Aerosmith anymore. Like it or not, Twenty One Pilots and Tame Impala are today's rock as made by and representing Millenial tastes and values.

>>73576014
Ice Cube said that rock-and-roll isn't a guitar, it's an ideal and it can in theory be any form of 4/4 music with a strong beat. In fact Christgau said sort of the same thing, he bandwagoned disco back in the day because he though it was the rock-and-roll of that time period.

>>73575942
gene simmons is your typical "blood for israel" neocon jew stereotype down to a T, that's not redpilled

>>73576014
You're kind of right. Gene Simmons's problem is that he's looking at it from a 1970s-80s POV. Of course a current band made of 20-something guys in 2017 won't look or sound like 1977 and wearing leather and having a cigarette dangling from your mouth as you play blues rock solos looks ridiculous today, it doesn't represent what young guys think is cool now.

File: Aerosmith_ASB.png (62KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 240x240px

>>73576014
And thank god for that- aerosmith was shit

>If there’s a claim for rock’s continuing relevance, that would be it. A disobedient spirit is direly needed to balance out the economic pressures that push both music and media toward a narrow, survival-of-the-fittest emphasis on mega-pop. The results are both more demographically inclusive and conformist, and leave many gifted midlevel artists marginalized by press and industry. In the “rock era,” there was more space for eccentrics to skew the game.

>That standard is perhaps best borne now among young female artists, who appropriate rock’s flexibility to express out-of-bounds thoughts while ignoring clichéd postures. The likes of St. Vincent, Alabama Shakes, Courtney Barnett, Angel Olsen and even, an ocean away, Pussy Riot, embody the thought that Kurt Cobain scribbled in his late-’80s notebooks: “I like the comfort in knowing that women are the only future in rock’n’roll.” The rock feints that Beyoncé and Lady Gaga made this year on their respective albums attest that its seemingly worn-out maneuvers can yield otherwise unavailable strengths.

>>73573205
yeah hes right no artist will be as famous now as they were in the past because of the accessibility to new music and the constant division of groups of people along with the fact pirating is easy as fuck currently

>>73576210
The piracy problem is a meme anyway, Gene Simmons and Lars Ulrich at this point in their lives are so far removed from their early days of gigging in clubs that they completely forget how bootleg recordings were used to spread the word around about a band.

>>73576059
I mean, what makes Nicki Minaj less of a "rock star" than AC/DC? And back before the 50s-60s, jazz was the rock-and-roll of its time until it lost touch with its dance music origins and turned into self-indulgent noodling for people who wear a lot of wool.

>>73576546
As I said, the whole rock star thing is an ideal more than a specific way of playing music, but one thing it does require is being edgy and being able to scare parents. Someone like Taylor Swift isn't a rock star at all, she's bland, safe vanilla pop that scares nobody.

>>73576173
>St. Vincent, Alabama Shakes, Courtney Barnett, Angel Olsen
acceptable choices
>and even, an ocean away, Pussy Riot
Besides bitching and moaning has this band ever made anything musically on the same level as the above artists? Hell, have they ever made anything worth even listening to?

>>73576682
>St. Vincent, Alabama Shakes, Courtney Barnett, Angel Olsen
>acceptable choices
Liking an artist solely because waifu doesn't count.

Even today people like Adele and Taylor Swift are able to sell much more records than nearly all of the most successfull rock bands of the '60s-'90s era.

>>73573205

I like his wig.

File: dt.common.streams.StreamServer.jpg (52KB, 968x645px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 968x645px

>>73576807
>Liking an artist solely because waifu doesn't count.
Yeah she's really waifu material, let me tell you.

>>73576807
i would not fuck alabama shakes

>>73573812
>Just like in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's, artists now are 1% super wealthy 99% broke

The percentage in the past couple of decades has been much lower (around 0,1 against 99,9%), but only because many more people are producing music compared to the past, since it has become way easier and less expensive.

File: 33860.jpg (12KB, 350x350px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 350x350px

>>73573205
When this piece of garbage received widespread critical acclaim, I realized that modern rock is awful and the genre deserves to die

File: Nickelback+wallpaper+%252822%2529[1].jpg (372KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 1440x900px

>>73577356
yeah, my response to boo hoo rock is dead is always look at the garbage that was actually popular the last time rock was on the charts

File: waifu.png (278KB, 299x379px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 299x379px

>>73576161
DELET THIS

>>73577356
you ain't wrong nigga

>>73574868
he was comparing it to pre-war jazz. Learn to read maybe?

>>73573205
Fucking Gene telling it like it is. Can't wait to see the record industry fold into itself like a giant dying star and then all the rich jews are gonna say "w- what happened??"

>>73573812
>There are tons of good rock bands out there
Name 3 you dipshit
I can think of is Cage the Elephant and Foxygen and one of them are in their 30's already and the other is more of a songwriting duo

>>73573275
he is wrong. any schmuck can pick up a mpc and start making music and post it online. you can literally do whatever you want now, you don't have to play that stupid record label game it used to be like

>>73578277
Only schmucks say "schmuck".

>>73576831
And wouldn't you know it. The Carpenters sold vastly more records than all of the most successful rock bands of the 60s-70s-80s as well.

>>73579393
ok

>>73574053
That's why grunge was almost a fluke occurrence, because even if you look at 70s AOR, plenty of it was danceable party music, like, of course, KISS. So even at that time, it was still generally expected that rock groups would produce singles that could at least be played on FM, if not AM radio. What happened with grunge was the industry making the very odd decision to deliberately sign bands who were depressing nihilists and absolutely not fun or danceable. After several years of that, everyone had had their fill which is why good-time fun bands like Blink 182 took over.

>>73579513
So then what was with all the claims that disco had to take over from rock because it stopped being fun?

>>73579546
Disco could be played on AM radio, at least after the industry cleaned it up from its more raw underground roots. I mean, yeah, merely having a dance rhythm doesn't guarantee radio play, there's loads of EDM/techno that isn't radio friendly, for example dubstep briefly got mainstream in 2011-12 when it achieved proper song form with hooks.

>>73579513
The industry was definitely a lot more willing to experiment in the past, hence their eagerness to pick up bands during the British invasion or New Wave or grunge, anything that sounded fresh and kids might catch onto. Today there's almost a stultifying unwillingness to try anything new.

>>73574960
The pedal market is literally overflowing with unique pedals for electric guitar that can be used to make all kinds of "new" sounds. Literally any Earthquaker divices pedal can be pushed to extremes to make all kinds of new and interesting sounds. There are more ways then ever to make guitar more interesting and sound different.

>>73579638
That's true, still, there is a disturbingly high amount of gear out there designed to emulate Jimmy Page's guitar tone. Though I'm not sure how much of it isn't actually just marketed to nostalgic old guys. Probably a little of both them and certain kinds of lebornintheronggeneration hipsters.

>>73579718
I mean, I agree with the guy earlier who said that the blues/wah-wah shit is played out and boring. And why wouldn't it be? That sound was first developed by Clapton and Hendrix a literal half century ago.

Twenty One Pilots is probably the closest thing to a mainstream rock act of today, although as someone else in here pointed out, they don't look or sound anything like the Rolling Stones, and it would be silly if they did. Gene Simmons's idea of what a rock group should look like is rooted in 40 years ago and even if a modern band of today comes along, he wouldn't recognize them when he sees them.

>>73573812
>Nobody wants stadium style rock music right now

I wouldn't care if stadium rock never comes back. Today's kids don't deserve to experience the horror of AC/DC, U2, and Bon Jovi all over again. Let's bury that cancer in the elephant's graveyard where it belongs.

>>73578242
>I can think of is Cage the Elephant and Foxygen
lmfao

>>73579842
>Twenty One Pilots is probably the closest thing to a mainstream rock act of today, although as someone else in here pointed out, they don't look or sound anything like the Rolling Stones, and it would be silly if they did. Gene Simmons's idea of what a rock group should look like is rooted in 40 years ago and even if a modern band of today comes along, he wouldn't recognize them when he sees them

Oh, but he does. Thing is, the shit out today (or really since the 90s) isn't his idea of rawk. He thinks Nirvana were the beginning of the end.

>>73579981
>He thinks Nirvana were the beginning of the end
Well, they were for him and his career anyway. Literally all pre-80s rockers other than Aerosmith and Neil Young were relegated to the dustbin in the 90s.

>>73580047
Oh yeah, totally. Record labels were cutting everyone left and right who didn't fit in with the alternative bandwagon. This meant virtually everyone who predated the 80s and everyone from the 80s who were associated with hair metal. Neil Young and Aerosmith were able to keep their relevancy an absurdly long time compared to most all of their peers.

>>73573205
> implying I want to listen to Bands

File: Love interrupts.jpg (29KB, 300x298px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 300x298px

https://www.discogs.com/Various-Love-Interrupts-A-Dada-Drumming-Sampler/release/766514

I bought this for a buck at half-price books and still regretted it desu; only the first few tracks were notably good

File: Gene Simmons.jpg (8KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x200px

haha what a story paul

>>73578202
No idea why you think that will happen.

>>73573205
*enter hip hop*

>>73574960
>You're right, but most of the equipment you can buy now is just trying to emulate dadrock bands, it's not utilizing modern sounds.
You don't have to play 12 bar blues for the rest of your life just because your instrument of choice is a guitar.

>>73573205
kike

>>73573812
>the world doesn't NEED those things right now. Nobody wants stadium style rock music right now.
Is that why there is 50 Nirvana threads daily?

>>73573205
I'm in a touring band so he's wrong about that but he's not wrong about how there is no more label support system like there was in the 90s / early 2000s. It's much harder to tour these days.

>>73573963
>Maybe he wouldn't sell as many albums, but he'd still be a superstar

If Jackson was alive today he would still sell more albums after his conviction and the new artists would still feel average because of MJ second huge success.

>>73576604
Bro, tyler the creator scared the fuck out of my parents when goblin came out, whats your point?

>>73582324
>I'm in a touring band so he's wrong about that but he's not wrong about how there is no more label support system like there was in the 90s / early 2000s.

Covered within the first 10 posts of the thread.

>>73573690

Story of the week: Washed-up old man doesn't understand how the modern world works

>>73575963
Sure is at that.

Why aren't there any experimental/progressive artists these days?
Trick question: we've all degenerated in our taste of music so much that anything that would try and push the bounds of music would be considered retrograde out of ignorance. Anyone who isn't notorious or famous and makes music might as well be "progressive".

>>73583440
Take off your fedora, dude.

File: Jeffery_young_thug.jpg (10KB, 316x316px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 316x316px

>>73583440
Uhh sweetie?

>>73573205

He has a point. However, there's 2 things Gene has no clue about.

With the advancement of technology, even going back to casette or CD, it changed the way people listen to music. The reason people attached to acts from back in the day is because music listening was an experience you immersed yourself in, and that's how/why people became enamored with musical acts. It still happens today, but most people only use music as background noise, or barely passively listen.

The second aspect, which is more important in my opinion (because both Ace Frehley and Gene have almost no knowledge of music before the music industry) is that music was always free up until the invention of the music industry. People centuries ago used to play music as a hobby, and it was a hugely social activity. Outside of purchasing the instrument, all people did was jam/play together. Once the invention of the phonograph and then later the vinyl record came about and we realized we could capture sounds and reproduce them, it didn't take long for people to figure out they could monetize off of the recording and selling of something physical that you could always have with you. He just happened to be lucky enough to fall in to that time line where people would pay you for your music.

I'm a musician/producer. I'm not saying people shouldn't be compensated, but if you make something that's really good, people are going to pay to support you so you can keep doing that. Gene's just a greedy ass-hole and is mad no one wants to watch Kiss play anymore.

File: 19458379_1574072909269815_1791569614_n.jpg (51KB, 706x395px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 706x395px

>>73584472
true

>>73578277
lol, sounds like you completely missed Gene's point. Can't believe I'm defending the guy, but he's right.

>>73584856
>and is mad no one wants to watch Kiss play anymore
Nobody's wanted to watch Kiss play since Nirvana happened, which is why Gene is still butthurt about them 25 years later.

>>73585034
mmmm no, they had pretty successful tours throughout the 90s.
This Nirvana marketing team revisionism is fucking cancer.

>>73585078
meant for
>>73585054

>>73573205
if the band doesn't get discovered, then they're not "the next led zeppelin". the future hasn't happened yet, so there's no such thing as a band being destined for greatness

>>73585111
But Led Zeppelin themselves could have been passed up and never got to record anything and not exist.
The point is that some musicians have potential to become great, but won't because they have no backing and have to get a day job instead.

>>73585187
they could have been but they weren't. there's no such thing as pre-destiny

this entire post is bullshit because new bands/artists are constantly being formed and discovered, there's no shortage of new music or artists.

gene simmons is a faggot who only ever cared about being famous and making money. i'm glad that artists like that are dying out. bands should be in it for the art, not for money or fame.

>>73585239
Gene disgusts me. At least corporate artists like Kanye aren't pretending to not be corporate and make lots of money. Gene did it under the guise of his band name and slapped it on near fucking everything in existence if he could.

>>73585920
>Gene is pretending to not be corporate and make lost of money
are you mental? Gene is the biggest flaming Jew on the planet. He'll tell you to your face he loves making money.

>>73585239
>gene simmons is a faggot who only ever cared about being famous and making money. i'm glad that artists like that are dying out. bands should be in it for the art, not for money or fame.
I feel like this isn't actually true. Bands still care about success, which in mainstream terms amounts to fame and money. Caring about the art and caring about the money isn't mutually exclusive, especially when it's a career.

pro: all kinds of music is now readily accessible
con: all popular music is niggerfied lowest common denominator shit more so than ever
kiss: shit band

>>73576546
>And back before the 50s-60s, jazz was the rock-and-roll of its time until it lost touch with its dance music origins and turned into self-indulgent noodling for people who wear a lot of wool.
No one should dare strive to make art instead of money? And, oh boy, just wait until you discover classical music. Just a bunch of self-indulgent noodling dead white guys.

File: 1497835880095.jpg (102KB, 600x918px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 600x918px

>>73579901
>Hating on AC/DC and U2.

Fuckin' monster.....though you're on the money with Bon Jovi.

>>73578242
>cage the elephant

L M A O

>>73573205
He is asking for a musical oligarchy, which is completely retarded in my opinion. We don't need that one rockstar that defines a generation. We now have so much music and so many artists having leverage that is independent from money because of the internet, we don't need that anymore. Views and Likes are the new currency.
Regardless, we will always have single artists dominating the mainstream music scene for a while, to think otherwise is just being naive.

>>73589926
Still, you can't make a career and money without big label support, and today nobody but pop stars and rappers gets signed to Sony.

>>73573205
Maybe popular musicians shouldn't become fabulously rich from record sales. Just a thought Mr. Simmons

>>73585078
>mmmm no, they had pretty successful tours throughout the 90s.
For most of the 90s, Kiss were nearly irrelevant. The 1992-93 tour was playing in front of crowds of 30 people at some concerts and eventually they just said "Fuck it" and decided to milk the nostalgia bandwagon for everything it was worth. The reunion tour got them back in the headlines, but musically those shows were awful because Ace and Peter were shot and it marked the end of them trying to be a contemporary music act instead of a nostalgia act.

>>73590381
/thread

>>73590506
Almost every band from Kiss's era faded from relevance in the 90s, they were just lucky they didn't end up on CMC Records like most 70s groups.

>>73594109
What is CMC Records?

>>73594330
A dumping ground label in the late 90s for washed up dadrock/hair metal bands that had been ditched by the major labels. Seriously, after grunge happened they were cutting all those bands left and right, the only thing left was for them to go on budget labels and release albums with no promotion.

>>73573690
Another thing...you can develop a pop star a lot quicker. Britney Spears was a superstar before she turned 20 while rock groups generally peak in their late 20s (Metallica and a few other exceptions aside). Rappers also peak in their late 20s most of the time as well but make up for it with the much cheaper cost of production.

>>73586894
This t b h

>>73573275
he literally is wrong.

things being done differently does not equal things coming to an end. innovation will only help, it can't hurt. also, if the only thing gene simmons cares about is where the next led zepplin, or Elvis, or who ever is then he's less relevant then he ever has been (and let's not talk about him trying to copyright the "devil horns"symbol; which, of course, he quickly withdrew he realized how wrong he was about inventing it).

>>73578277
Yeah and they'll be making music from their mom's basement.

>>73573512
Hip-hop is kept afloat by private equity.

>>73594626
>things being done differently does not equal things coming to an end

He's kind of like John Philip Sousa declaring that the event of recorded music was the death of music because people wouldn't need to actually learn to play instruments anymore, they could just listen to recordings.

>>73594626
>if the only thing gene simmons cares about is where the next led zepplin, or Elvis, or who ever is then he's less relevant then he ever has been

I don't think anyone but fat mullet trailer park guys in their 40s-50s care about Kiss.

>>73576500
Those guys are still living in 1985 where music is obtained by browsing the cassette rack at K-Mart.

>>73573755
30-40 years ago, making music wasn't as cheap and accessible as it is today. The industry has lagged behind the technology and they know it.

>>73596764
One of the reasons why Internet music sharing happened in the first place is that after 1995, the record industry stopped selling singles separately, there were just albums (that is to say when cassettes died out and CDs became the sole music distribution medium). Since they removed that option from the consumer, people had to find ways around it.

>>73573205
He doesn't care about "the next Elvis". He's just butthurt that record labels aren't as relevant as they used to be. Also he's a fucking douchebag.

>>73578277
nothing stopped an average joe from making music and circulating it in the past either. the point is the only way to get your music very know is via record companies. which are a fraction of what they used to be

>>73573205
The record industry that Gene is describing here existed from 1968 until the arena rock bubble burst in 1977. Literally at every point in time before the Beatles and after Led Zeppelin, that is not how the record industry has worked.

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-26 at 7.30.50 PM.png (2MB, 1384x726px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1384x726px

>>73596973
this will never happen again

>>73573512
The industry changed... the technology changed. people who embraced the changes thrived, those who fought against them didn't. It's pretty simple.

>>73595041
No
You funnel your drug money into it to launder your dirty cash clean
Hip hop isnt about making money, its flexing on the poor

>>73597005
What show is that shot from?

And maybe that's not a bad thing. I think it means more that there's more interesting music to listen to, more choices. The easiest way to make people congregate is to not give them other choices.

>>73596973
>>73597005
As someone else in here said, there were a lot of baby boomers.

>>73596973
The industry was still a massive cash machine through the 80s-90s and bands were playing stadiums and doing mega tours (eg. the early 90s Metallica and GNR tours).

>>73598446
>What show is that shot from?

Rock in Moscow 1991.

>>73579513
grunge was a reaction to 8 years of reagan

>>73589926
>We don't need that one rockstar that defines a generation.
Yet we have one and her name is Grimes.

Because Generation iPhone™ can't do anything right.

>>73599950
Grunge was a pop fad that was at the right place and right time like any other.
Stop reading so much into it with your social meme science.

>>73579393
you just said the word twice oooooooh lol guess yer one too now huh buddy?

>>73600397
>Yet we have one and her name is Grimes
No, just no, ok?

>>73600397
uh grimes,taylor swift, royal blood? lol

>>73578242
Iceage
the ILYs
Algiers

>>73601959
>Taylor Swift
You have to actually scare parents to be a rock star. She's about as shocking and offensive as those 60s girly singers like Lesley Gore. Rihanna and Nicki Minaj are actually edgy, they could qualify for that label, TS...does not.

>>73584856
>He just happened to be lucky enough to fall in to that time line where people would pay you for your music
Recorded music was not a moneymaker before 1965 either, there was only a relatively short window of time when record sales were worth $$$, and a lot of that had to do with the giant baby boomer population.

>>73603001
>Recorded music was not a moneymaker before 1965 either
(not true by the way)

>>73603032
It is true, and if you go back to the pre-1950s age, sheet music sold more copies than recorded music.

>>73603088
And most of the 50s rock-and-rollers other than Elvis made jack-all in terms of money. Artists didn't have a multimillion dollar record industry machine behind them until the Nixon years.

this is why i love death grips.

I mean, yeah, I do agree that the days of rock megatours like Metallica in the early 90s are over.

>>73603225
It's for the best.

>>73573856
This is true, but music labels don't just help to record albums. They also help with touring, merchandising and all the other things you mentioned.

>>73604040
If you're not on a big label, you're not gonna have hit singles/radio play either. Youtube is nice and all, but you need Warner or Sony's money and marketing machine to become a major artist.

>>73573205
Gene is a piece of shit, but he's right. There's a couple of things to note about his comment. He is making a very specific comment that pertains only to the fact that major labels are in dire straits and have been for some time (an objective fact) and that as a result this makes them more risk-averse, meaning they are less likely to take a chance on unknown musicians like they did in the 70s and 90s.

I do think he's a bit out of touch in the sense that he doesn't seem to fathom how a band could become successful without major label support. This is because KISS are a pop band to the bone, an absolute product created by major labels. The truth is, Gene & co. got a bit of a free ride compared to some of these newer bands making it day by day through hard work and hustle. But they can make it work. I don't think disparaging the quality of rock music today in general.

>>73604066
>This is because KISS are a pop band to the bone, an absolute product created by major labels

Not true by the way, they got to the top like every other band, by gigging in clubs and eating one sandwich a day until they blew up with Alive! Gene Simmons just forgets that he didn't always live in a Beverly Hills mansion.

>>73604092
>Not true by the way, they got to the top like every other band, by gigging in clubs and eating one sandwich a day until they blew up with Alive! Gene Simmons just forgets that he didn't always live in a Beverly Hills mansion.

Actually what he was saying is that aspiring young bands gigging in a club today will remain in that club for the rest of their life because the major labels have no apparent interest in guitar music anymore other than country.

>>73604092
What you're describing would apply to PiL for example. They were popular, although as far away from a pop band as possible. The madmen even performed Death Disco on top of the pops.

>>73604066
>He is making a very specific comment that pertains only to the fact that major labels are in dire straits and have been for some time (an objective fact) and that as a result this makes them more risk-averse, meaning they are less likely to take a chance on unknown musicians like they did in the 70s and 90s.

I've never believed this anyway, I think they're just cheap and lazy and one day the industry cynically realized that pop stars and rappers cost less money and were lower maintenance than a rock group.

>>73594109
>they were just lucky
Well, I was under the impression that KISS was just that popular, even more than most of their contemporaries, and had less to do with luck?