"The next KISS or Beatles or whatever isn't going to come along because there's no infrastructure. Here...

"The next KISS or Beatles or whatever isn't going to come along because there's no infrastructure. Here, let's play a game. From 1958 to 1988, thirty years, we have Elvis, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, the biggest bands of all time. And then in disco, you have Madonna, Donna Summer, all that. The biggest of all. And then in pop, you have Michael Jackson, the Jackson Five, all that stuff. In heavy metal, you have Metallica and Iron Maiden and all that stuff. And Prince and all that."

"From 1988 until today, give me the new Beatles and the new Stones. Give me just one. And you can't. Rock is dead. And the reason for that is downloading and file sharing. When you stop paying for things, they become worthless. And there's going to have to be a business model that changes, because there's great artists out there, but no support system."

"Before the Beatles went into the studio to become the Beatles, they played clubs for 10,000 hours. That's years. You have to do something for thousands of hours before you get good at it. Nowadays, instant gratification means that you can hum in your shower, wind up on the X-Factor, and you're on TV and get a huge recording contract. But almost none of these singers who get recording contracts become huge."

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Nv7vnkROPeA
youtube.com/watch?v=D_5wsTzQXzM
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I kinda agree with that last bit

Cry some more you jew fuck

>The next KISS or Beatles

the first paragraph is '1910: music started' tier analysis

Music isn't dead, just his kind of music ie. wearing a huge wig and leather pants while singing about teenage sluts.

Good. Insufferable faggots, all of them.

There's a correct way to do music, and jumping into a Jew-run, blood-fueled meat grinder isn't it. Trying to replicate that isn't it either.

Welcome to the New World, (((Gene)))

>muh happy merchant in distress
yeah, these are dark times for "us" gene

Rock is dead because the music is limiting and it needs to disappear for a while. Rap and EDM and shit are relatively modern and still have tons of room for innovation and experimentation and combining with pop and other genres to make interesting stuff.

Pretend it's 1967 and you're listening to the Beatles and Hendrix and VU and the Beach Boys and the interesting experimental new rock music with tons of room for exploration. This guy is essentially complaining that no one is making interesting ragtime anymore.

Imagine Prog Rap

>KISS is more known for stage antics than their actual songs
What the fuck does he know?
Also what is Nirvana? Oasis? Blur? Sonic Youth? Radiohead? Tame Impala? What about Mac Demarco?
>hurr durr dude let me do the horns so everyne knows I'm REAL rock. What a joke.

Imagine someone with the ego manageable for that to exist. The hip-hop scene would call him "lightskinned" or something.

>people still forget exactly how big a cultural phenomenon Nirvana was

didn't Nirvana stop the glam metal era, which was started by Kiss in the first place?

He's right. Modern availability of entertainment and information breeds ADD.

>give me an example of someone really popular in a genre no one listens to anymore
Give me the new Bach or Wagner, Gene

explains why he's so mad

>dude look at my tongue lmao

>From 1988 until today, give me the new Beatles and the new Stones
>Nirvana
>linkin park
>green day
>blink 182

He's a douche, but he is right about the first part, before he gets into lewronggeneration shit.

There's never gonna be anyone that influential and huge again, because the monoculture that allowed a handful of bands to get massive is gone, split into many separate subcultures due to the internet. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it means there's certainly more variety to listen to, but that's how it is now.

>Modern availability of entertainment and information breeds ADD.
stop producing fucking entertainment then, and create something more ethical

Does gene not like variety?

Shabazz Palaces?

Nirvana maybe but that's so close to the same time frame it hardly counts. The other 3 are not even close to the same level of popularity or longevity.

>There's never gonna be anyone that influential and huge again
Sure there will be. As long as people die at 27 they'll be influential. Winehouse still sells records and she's now the poster child for alcoholics

He's mad that he's irrelevant. When they played here, they had to be booked to a 3rd rate venue in a 2nd rate city and 2Unlimited still got more attention than them

Is he also mad that Paul Mccartney is more relevant than him?

>Rock is dead
And that is good, I love rock music and I'm kind of happy that rock isn't the hot thing anymore, we had so many different styles of rock that is hard to come up with a new sound, so for a change we got other genres like hip hop, rock will continue to live in the underground until someone comes up with some groundbreaking stuff, for now lets give rock a rest and enjoy other music

it's kind of true

nowadays you make the majority of your revenue as a big-name artist from publicity, sponsorship and live shows, album sales are more or less an afterthought

when album sales mattered, bands that weren't absolutely appealing to the lowest common denominator could actually break through and become massive, but that is no longer possible because in order to be a star in music you have to be an A-list celebrity as well

the internet has also lead to the fragmentation of culture and the death of the monoculture, meaning that it is now possible to be a "star" within a very specific subculture but virtually unknown anywhere else, whereas before you just had "the underground" and "the mainstream", now you have tons of levels in between where people like mac demarco, charli xcx, pc music, and mall grab can be found

still, gene simmons is a hack and a retard

what an absolute brainlet

It's no surprise that Radiohead, who would be the best counter to his point that no one has done anything interesting in rock in our era, is interesting because they dabble in electronic music and krautrock and shit that retards like Gene wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole

I think almost everyone from the era is more relevant than him, really. At least the active people.

>the majority of your revenue as a big-name artist from publicity, sponsorship and live shows, album sales are more or less an afterthought
wasn't that always the case? it 100% was for Kiss at least

Eh, I'd put Green Day up there. Radiohead's kind of a big thing but also isn't.

Depeche Mode

hey assholes, buy my Vault
youtube.com/watch?v=Nv7vnkROPeA

He has to be something lower than a has been

But that just means more people can make a living making music now.

IS he just mad that Lil Pump is more relevant then he ever was?

Who?

>the next KISS or Beatles
>KISS or Beatles
>KISS
>Beatles

Am I the only one who thinks KISS isn't anywhere close to the bands he is naming?
I never understood why they were so famous, listened to some of their stuff and they sounded so bland to me.

It was "I'm 12 and I want to make my parents mad" music for 70's kids

>rock is dead
I'm sure it will come true if I repeat it enough times.

yeah but KISS a shit showmanship band
i'm not saying it's a bad thing, though there is a certain melancholy to the idea that the era of "great pop-cultural movements" is over, and now everything happens everywhere at once, on the internet

He's a pretentious cunt, what do you expect?

>i'm not saying it's a bad thing, though there is a certain melancholy to the idea that the era of "great pop-cultural movements" is over
Not at all true. This decade has a pretty obvious zeitgeist and trends to it that are hard to miss.

i wasnt around back then (obviously), but to my understanding they were one of those influential bands that pertain to a certain image or subculture, without actually having any amazing albums, in a critical sense. They were the first to wear the makeup, the lyrics were pretty rebellious, with all the sex and whatnot, elaborate stage shows, loud distorted guitars, accessible.

Kind of like how Marilyn Manson is now considered a rock n roll staple of the 90's. Off the record I'm gonna say that I'd much rather have KISS than MM though, so don't get me wrong here.

...

KISS were very influential on a lot of the 80s-90s heavy rock bands since they were often the first heavy music they listened to as kids. Dimebag Darrell outright said that he picked up a guitar because of Ace Frehley.

I don't agree that rock is dead however metal/hard rock is definitely dead. Most of the guitar music in this decade are the dozens of cookie-cutter indie rock bands with girl singers.

I saw Marc Ribot's funk band live not long ago and he was wearing a KISS shirt and it was very difficult to wrap my head around

Interesting. Was it valid? Aside from the the garbage bands, seems most of the popular rock bands were pretty authentic as far as instrumentation and playing ability went. Now the majority of the top 40 artists don't write lyrics, compose music or create anything.

The first generation rock and rollers from the 50s, at least the giants like Chuck Berry, Little Richard, and whatnot generally wrote their own songs and even when they didn't (like Elvis), they were usually excellent performers. However, from an adult POV, rock and roll was just simplistic, dumb, loud noise for teens to dance to. Rock as a serious art form didn't happen until the late 60s.

Think he'll be buried in this

Compared to jazz, classical, or tradition pop, rock and roll was simple and dumb.

>at least the giants like Chuck Berry, Little Richard, and whatnot generally wrote their own songs

Literally no one from that era wrote their own songs but Holly and Cash and bluesman like Berry. That wasn't even something that rock artists would think to do until the Beatles (who were Holly fans) and Bob Dylan.

Makes perfect sense. I was under the impression most of the disdain for rock in the 50s-60s was based on lyrical context, being louder, perpetuating teen rebellion, social and sexual and more primal. Of course being more rudimentary than jazz and classical I could see their point of view. I still think the act of writing, creating and performing, whether basic rock or complex jazz pieces, is still miles ahead of most pop music.

Little Richard wrote his own songs as well. Roy Orbison also did.

no, he rather will be burned on a pyre of money

There is that as well, certainly. I was just speaking in terms of music appreciation rather than sociology. But it's a matter of perception. The "rebellion" was commercially co-opted from the very beginning. That's a main reason I don't put any stock in the lifestyle and cultural aspects of it as a touchstone of authenticity, as many do. The whole rock is dead idea seems to me to be based on the notion that nowadays it isn't revolutionary or rebellious anymore, like it used to be. It never was revolutionary in real terms. It may have seemed so, but now it is obviously a conservative conformist sort of music just like most everything else that is popular or commercial. That is not to say it doesn't have value or provide enjoyment, as it clearly does.

I love it for the music but this idea of rock music being a force for revolution was always a bit of a fallacy. Even at it's inception in the 50s, the business sharks, realizing there was money in it moved in quickly, as they always do. So it's just another commodity to be sold. Especially now with the big stadium gigs, the weekend warriors can buy into the feeling of being rebellious at £79 a ticket and £35 for a t-shirt.

I take your point, but as Rick Nielsen of Cheap Trick once said, there's still magic to be found in those same twelve notes that everyone plays.

Undoubtedly, but at the same time there's only so much you can get out of a guitar, bass, and drums before you start inevitably sounding like someone else. Doesn't mean there can't still be great stuff coming out, just that it won't sound so fresh and original.

Funny you should say that because hip-hop and all DJ-created music is based around sampling. Hip-hop is almost 40 years old and hasn't done anything truly innovative in years.

Complaints about music being created using the same instruments and tonal scale is like complaining that novels are still created on keyboards using spelling grammar and punctuation.

Yes but you get my point. The building blocks and raw materials stay the same and the same, the tools and implements for shaping the raw materials only evolve slightly over time, but it's what you do with the components that matters. A genre isn't dead because it's been in existence a few years and is played primarily on the same instruments that were around at its inception. I don't think anyone would argue that Motley Crue sounded like Chuck Berry despite playing the same instruments.

More importantly to get back to the original post, aging rock stars like Gene Simmons bitching about this stuff says more about their Swiss bank accounts than anything.

>I'd much rather have KISS than MM though
Dude, really? At least MM had some good fucking albums, I can't think of any half decent KISS.

>imagine Mechanicum archeologists digging that up 10k years from now

>At least MM had some good fucking albums
This is a troll, right?

You got records inside cereal boxes back then? Imagine having that kind of economy today.

Radiohead

Checkmate

>Gene Simmons
lol fuck off

lp was very popular and had more longevity than nirvana

You do know that Linkin Park were an undisguised industry plant.

I believe that the "classic rock" canon itself is responsible for the decline in rock. When you say something is "classic", you're saying it's old. As more recent bands are canonized, people tend to gravitate to music they are comfortable with. That's why classic rock radio is so popular, everyone already knows the songs. There is no incentive to create new rock music because the casual fans aren't interested enough, they just want to hear what they know. I'm 42 and music I listened to as a kid is now considered to be "classic". Most of the music I liked as a teenager isn't nearly as good as I remember it to be. Actually most of it is pretty ridiculous in hindsight but then I guess nobody ever accused 14 year olds of having taste.

i dont care for lp at all, all im saying is they sold millions of albums for a couple of years everything gene simmons wants.

The minute I saw kids and their parents rocking out together to the same artists, I knew rock was dead.

Rock was about rebelling against your parents, not joining forces. Oh well.

The whole idea of youth rebellion was never real to begin with, it was invented by Warner and Columbia suits.

Sup Forums seems to really not like KISS

I can't stand Simmons, but they had a few solid albums imo. Especially Alive

>turn on the radio once
>hear a mediocre song
>can't be bothered to actually look for good music
>WOW MUSIC REALLY SUCKS NOWADAYS

>Oh no, we won't get any more shitty, Jew led glam rock bands!

just another spoonfed babyboomer

>Hip-hop is almost 40 years old and hasn't done anything truly innovative in years.

We're in the Golden Age of hip-hop innovation. If you think Knxledge and FlyLo aren't doing anything innovative you need to open your ears.

Nirvana.

Grunge/alternative rock killed off rock because there was nowhere to take it further and since it overtook traditional rock there was no going back to that either. Dio says something to that effect around the 9 minute mark in this interview.
youtube.com/watch?v=D_5wsTzQXzM

I see your point. There were still metal bands in the mainstream almost to the end of the 2000s but since 2010 heavy rock is almost nonexistent.

>music is better than ever! you just have to ignore the radio and the majority of mainstream (as well as indie labels) and sift through an endless heap of amateur trash on soundcloud and bandcamp for hours to find it
ok buddy

To be honest, grunge didn't do anything all that original, it was just continuing the 70s AOR tradition. Also Dio just comes off as a grumpy old man here--when he says "traditional rock bands", he really just means "Me and my dadrock peers from the 70s".

straw men are so much easier to knock down than arguments am i right fellas

>next KISS isn't going to come along
thank fuck

Christgau knew this perfectly well.

This is barely an exaggeration and mostly reflects my experience with finding music in the 21st century.

>Rock is dead. And the reason for that is downloading and file sharing. When you stop paying for things, they become worthless
Which is why Kid A didn't became one of the highest selling alternative albums of all time after everyone found out about it through napster and file sharing?
Stupid Jew only cares about money as usual.

...

quick rundown?

>band that pops up out of nowhere on a major label with a slick, professionally-produced album that somehow perfectly taps into late 90s pop culture
These guys were about as real as the Backstreet Boys.

Not really. Guns n Roses destroyed hair metal, and besides, people forget the weird years between the late 80's and pre-Nevermind when shit like funk metal and college rock had a brief moment of glory.

...

I mean, you're basically right. Pantera and Manson don't really speak to me anymore. Loud screaming vocals and pounding drums don't do it for me now. The emotional range of metal and hard rock is too limiting.

Didn't they literally get pieced together out of like 3 other failed bands that A&R guys had interest in? I'm fairly certain they just told them they were having another singer and put Chester in the band.