Gene Simmons: Rock Is Finally Dead

[Basvarken]

Hey Uwe... Loosen up!

[lowend1]

Uwe makes a great point about style and what is comfortable for whom...
If someone thrust a Grabber (or better yet, an stage blood-encrusted LoBue with high action) into Carol's hands and asked her to nail the bass line in "Goin' Blind", what would the result be?

[uwe]

Hey Uwe... Loosen up!

[Pilgrim]

To me, the point is about the industry and today's musical tastes, not Simmons' playing.

In popular music today the 12-bar blues style is losing ground.  There are umpty-'leven different niche types of music, and some of them have completely abandoned that musical structure.  Fine for those who like it, I'm a creature of habit and I prefer that style.

The industry is dealing with fragmented tastes in music listeners, and doesn't have direction.  It's adrift in an old rowboat with one oar, trying to figure out which direction to paddle in hopes that it will find another oar (aka: a good business idea) that lets them row in a direction that will re-open the big cash box. But it's depending on oars instead of building a sail. (Maybe that metaphor has gone as far as I can take it...)

I find it hard to have much sympathy for the production-line music that is found today, but I am somewhat comforted by the fact that musicians still write and perform, and even if I don't care for many of the micro-niche musical styles out there, people are keeping busy making music.

Meanwhile, I can stick that Blues Brothers CD in the player and enjoy some 12-bar style.

[4stringer77]

How can rock be dead when Definition of Madmen just came out with a new album and the Nasty Habits, Knight Patrol and the Eggmen are still touring?
Rock's not dead. If it's lasted this long, it's got proven legs. If Gibson, Fender, Rickenbacker, Gretsch, Peavey, Dean, Ibanez, G&L, Carvin, Yamaha and the cornucopia of other guitar manufacturers can still have a reason to stay in business making electric guitars, then rock isn't dead. 

[nofi]

if its not dead then it is terribly boring. see my last post.

[gearHed289]

It just smells funny...

[uwe]

There is still loads of good music around (and I don't see Simmons wishing to doubt that).



But the infrastructure for propelling it with longevity to the public has suffered. Moan all you want about the record execs of yore, they also nurtured talent, if out of coincidence or sheer greed. If you take a band like ... let's say ... Led Zeppelin, we haven't discussed them in a long time here, I think it's fair to say that their (very much deserved) success was based one third on their talent as musicians, one third on Atlantic being a very supportive record company to them and one third on Peter Grant's managerial skills and ruthlessness.

I rule out that any band of similar musical stature today would be able to go as far - there would be no Atlantic Records/Ahmet Ertegün and no Peter Grant to help them.   

[Basvarken]

Still the question: is success required to be alive?
And if so, what is the definition of success?

[westen44]

On a related note---

http://www.cleveland.com/music/index.ssf/2014/10/the_black_keys_patrick_carney.html

[Highlander]

Still the question: is success required to be alive?
And if so, what is the definition of success?

Pots of money...?

Ah... I fell into the trap...

[uwe]

Still the question: is success required to be alive?
And if so, what is the definition of success?

Oh my, now we have a Dutch philosopher among us! Wait a minnit, weren't you the guys that invented or at least celebrated (Calvin might have been Swiss) Calvinism: You need success or you won't go to heaven. Heaven is filled with wealthy people. (For the avoidance of doubt: Rob is Catholic, so can only be blamed for Dutch Calvinism in a roundabout way, but I still wanted to make the argument!  )

The presence or absence of a mighty record industry has nothing to to with the quality of music or the enjoyment of people listening to or making it. That wasn't Simmons' point. But without out a committed industry (and it can be committed to just make money, that doesn't harm if the music backed by it is coincidentally good) you won't have the same concentrated push for breaking and sustaining an artist. The internet is arbitrary and fickle in the fame it provides.

Let's take two examples: I bought the new Neil Diamond CD Melody Road (Don Was produced, very 70ish and non-Las Vegas, but not as sparse as the Rick Rubin stuff) yesterday. And I saw Robert Cray (I told you my music taste is eclectic) in a club of 450 people (excellent concert, I like the soul influence in his music blues purists tend to view as sacrilege) yesterday. I first heard Neil Diamond in the early seventies - I guess it was "Song Sung Blue", the girls at TASOK liked that and I thought it wasn't bad - and I first heard Robert Cray (like most people probably) sometime in the late 80ies. Rob, how high do you think the chances are that some band with momentary youtube popularity, but not a corporate behind it will

- in 40 years still be selling music,

- in 25 years still be giving concerts before a sizeable amount of people?

So yes, I think it is more difficult today to make being a rock musician (I'm not even saying "rock star") your choice of employment for a longer lasting period (not that it was ever easy or without risk). I - and obviously Gene Simmons - do not necessarily think that that is a good thing. If a job is no longer attractive, it tends to die out. That is why we have more car mechanics than horseshoe makers. And even the car mechanics are probably in the meantime outnumbered by IT cracks.

[amptech]

It's all very sad. I have to buy my horse shoes on ebay these days

I'm not into sports of any kind, but in this match I happen to cheer both teams. I believe firmly that Rock will survive, as long as someone get a kick out of playing and hearing it. As mentioned above, guitars still sell and people make them - and kids who wanna rock buy them ( although sales could be misleading - maybe it's just wealthy lawyers buing them for future investments )

Can't we just say times are though?? Yes, music industry is not what it was and might never be the same again, but what is? Everything changes, who knows - it might be better in the future?

I have this cozy lunchrestaurant/pub ilocated in an old house in a small town. But even small towns have big malls now, and people will rather eat/drink/meet/have coffee in that very same place they buy everything else. They want to be able to park the car in the same building, if it rains they won't get wet etc.  I've never seen times as tough as these, business-wise. Ten years ago everybody in town loved this new 'easy' shopping thing. Today, the whole town seems to hate it. All small shops are out of business, and buying proper food/groceries is difficult. After some time, there will be a demand for quality. I firmly believe times they are a changing, although it might take a long time.

Off-topic maybe, but I think humanity will accept only so much crap before fighting back. Death to shopping malls and internet, let's start anew! (Oh, about that internet comment.. I'd miss the LBO, but one could still use pigeons? The last first  bass pigeon outpost?)

[Highlander]

Someone would eat the pigeon...

[westen44]

Someone would eat the pigeon...

Something along those lines has already happened with the passenger pigeon.  Not the same thing as the carrier pigeon, but close enough. 

http://www.history.com/news/the-last-days-of-the-passenger-pigeon-100-years-ago