"Rock and roll is dead. Show me where the legendary performers of today are. Going down the list, I can name Elvis...

"Rock and roll is dead. Show me where the legendary performers of today are. Going down the list, I can name Elvis, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Michael Jackson. But after about 1984, who is there? And you can't say Nirvana because making two albums and then killing yourself doesn't make you a legendary artist."

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=OHHYZoVC2eQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

creed

Well Gene, neither does being a complete corporate shill

old man rants.

i don't think that quote is real but he does say a lot of shit like that
it's funny cause his band literally killed rock
never trust a jew

>his band literally killed rock

WRONG

I know Alcatrazz is still alive, but with shitty guitarrists instead of Yngwie or Vai.

E - street band or Megadeth, Judas Priest....

>rock and roll is dead
>can't name an actual rock and roll artist besides elvis
was it autism?

Anyway, how's your sex life?

Daily reminder that rock has always been shit and a corporate consumerist push that erodes genuine culture and art.

Shrugs

Elvis was a rock and roll artist for, what, three years out of a 22 year career?

t. mallgoth

Good argument.

Define genuine culture and art for us.

He sounds like some retard on Steve Hoffman Forums. And then again, they don't like Kiss anyway, so...

Oh you know, the culture and art that isn't fuelled by corporations, labels, consumerism etc.

so you think some hobo farting on mic about some whore tales is only real music?

dude, it takes money to make music, especially band music

Nirvana made three albums

So DIY underground punk and metal bands make genuine art?

Go away, Adorno.

No, because punk and metal are popular music genres which are consumerist in nature.

What?

most people in the dadrock community don't even like KISS. they're never played on the radio and are seen as a joke gimmick band

Go away, idiot.

The only true art is the guttural screechings of a homeless woman trapped in a septic tank as she drowns in shit

Good argument, user.

Alright, would true art music be me smashing glass bottles onto a wall to create a melody?

I dunno, there's a lot of fat retard 50 year old rednecks who collect Kiss merch and were fans when they were 11 years old.

Sure I guess but it's extremely shitty art and fucking retarded, you fucking moron.

But as long as it's art, it's fine?

Why would it be fine? It's art but it's shitty art. Rock music isn't art but that doesn't mean it's objectively bad or anything. Me saying rock music has always been shit is more of an oversimplified reaction to elitist rockists and old farts thinking they are doing some kind of great cultural innovation and experiment.

Kiss were a big influence on a lot of 80s-90s bands, for a whole generation of kids they were their first exposure to heavy music.

So... What I am doing is art while Rock isn't?

>attempt to create semantic trap
>cannot into semantic traps

>He's still butt hurt about Nirvana and grunge taking away all his fame and fortune in the 90s.

Top kek

>pitchfork
lol

okay user, I'll bite, what artists do you think are great?

That he is. He's never gotten over how his kind of rock (ie. wearing leather pants and a huge clown wig while singing about teenage sluts) became obsolete.

Not really, no. Emo was basically the same bullshit as hair metal, but updated for the 2000s. Hot Topic managers would hire 14 to 17 year old girls with spiked belts and black nail polish to use as their personal harem until they got busted for it.

You could say that.

Irrelevant?

tell me, I'm curious.

Hair metal was about having a good time and fucking sluts. Not at all like "Oh I want to cut myself I hate my mom." crud

No, emo was also all about having a good time and fucking sluts. The lyrical subject matter is just another tool to fuck sluts.

Well I try to listen to all sorts of music but for the past years I've mostly been listening to late romantic chamber music and medieval sacred composers, 50s and 60s bebop, 21st century psychedelic music, minimal techno, black metal, 18th century indian classical, mande music etc. I'll listen to anything and I'll find almost anything enjoyable.

>black metal
is black metal, a subgenre of rock, not a product of decadent consumerism?

Also all those emo cutter girls grew into feminazis on Tumblr, every single one.

Yes, it is. Luckily I never pay for those records or go to those shows but still listen to the music sometimes.

nice self-defeating logic

Why is it self-defeating? I don't consume it.

Is this Tommy Wiseau?

avenged sevenfold and disturbed both have mainstream success

green day does as well

the entire 2nd wave pop punk emo was on the radio, jimmy eat world, my chem, etc

5 counting incesticide and unplugged

plus from the muddy banks

Just as many as Hendrix

these definitions of art music/popular music/traditional music are purely utiliatarian in nature, they're just meant to allow for distinctions between culturally and formally unique kinds of music. taking it so literally as to disqualify all of rock music (and beyond that, any kind of popular music can be art) as art is possibly the dumbest and most biased application of these terms i've seen yet

"art" is anything you fucking want it to be. all music is art. music made by cynical, corporate, tone-deaf label producers is art to someone. it also doesn't do anything to erode so-called "genuine" culture and art (again, if you're not aware these terms are entirely arbitrary and clearly being specifically defined by you because of internal biases, you're an idiot)

Found the consumerist. You probably live in a gentrified American suburb of a large scale city, so it's not surprising that you don't understand genuine art and culture.

Good argument, user.

thx for trying

Of course it's an argument. Against you, coming out with false bullshit like "art" is anything you want it to be.

Black metal is more reactionary to said consumerism and to globalist capitalism, at least in its original conception before labels got involved. The artists involved literally wanted their music to be less accessible to outsiders, often using lofi production values, long form songs and lyrics in their native language. Whether or not it succeeded, it was the furthest deviation from rock music at the time.

no, it's actually just a series of rhetorical fallacies, but maybe if you tried again it would work. so far i have yet to see an argument

>what is free improvisation or the experimental underground rock scene at large
hahaha you just called black metal the furthest deviation from rock music of its time. this place is hilarious.

True art has no physical functions, only metaphysical. My argument is that art under consumerism isn't art because it's consumerist in nature. If it's meant to be consumed, it's not art. The fact that some shitty radio rock music is "art to someone" doesn't make it art because most people have a fundamental lack of understanding of what actual art and culture is. Your argument is shitty and just wrong.

so, your whole argument rests on an unsubstantiated claim that you, random user on Sup Forums, KNOW what actual art and culture is, and everyone else is wrong. and your argument against consumerist music is that it's not art because it's consumerist?

and you legitimately think you're making an argument here? fantastic, just fantastic.

I'm giving you my definition of art that's not purely mine; a lot of people would say the same, a lot of people have talked about it. Have you ever read a book? I haven't said everyone else is wrong, I've said your definition is absolute shit and just saying the fact that most people are clueless about art which is the truth. That's exactly my argument, you haven't proven me wrong.

Oh and you know why I'm saying your definition is shit? Because no serious author, philosopher, artist uses it. You know who uses it? The general, misinformed, unknowing populace.

Art is what you want it to be, hilarious.

Hahaha improvisation has been in rock since the beginning numbnuts. Actual innovation in structure, timbre, rhythm, harmony etc was explored in the 70s and 80s but largely without abandoning the framework of rock music, still rooted in rhythm and blues. This includes Krautrock, post punk, noise rock, 70s prog, and early post rock, with a few exceptions of course.

>implying Gene didn't pay thousands of dollars for that review

>True art has no physical functions, only metaphysical.
actual nonsense since your definition of art music hinges on its form and your distinction between it and popular music has to do with its distribution. all music ever is reliant upon and appreciated as physical function. art music is notoriously concerned with formalism and experimentation within form, reliant on past traditions and structures to even begin to approach a realization of ideas or anything beyond senseless noise. much the same way as how rock music has evolved. one tradition is merely much older, more developed and culturally occupies a much more sober realm in general consciousness. doesn't change that it is ultimately an arbitrarily and contextually dependent field of interest.

you're basically arguing from tradition and popularity, citing the "serious" author and the "unknowing" populace. hilarious that you ask me if i've ever read considering these are fallacies one learns to avoid in their very first compositional english course.

try to think critically about what you're comfortable applying the term "art" to. it seems like it's only what everyone else agrees upon

your point? improv existed healthily at the same as black metal and clearly deviates from "rock tradition" more. as well as many of the genres you listed...you're probably familiar with branca and you still think fucking darkthrone did more to escape "rhythm and blues"?

>musical form
>physical

what the fuck

And how did Mayhem abandon that? Their early stuff actually comes closer to rock and roll rather than the sound of the death metal bands Euronymous was trying to get away from

>notation
>not phyiscal
>soundwaves
>not physical
>instruments
>not phyiscal
oh wow do you think your soul's doing your thinking for you too??
fuck off

Gene Simmons is only a contributor to American rock and roll music because of their marketing brilliance. He's passable as a musician. A fat Jewish fly that occasionally pantomimes bass-playing.

One of the lamest live shows I've ever seen, Mostly comprised of pyrotechnics and LED lights to distract the audience from any music that may or may not be going on. Their songs all run together. They walk around like sloths, barely able to "rock" at all anymore. It's just sad and it's a money grab and they're barely just phoning it in.

I was depressed after I walked out of that show, with all the fuckin' zombies. Their fans are just dumb. Dumb lyrics, dumb album art. Dumb. The musical integrity isn't there, it never was. They make merchandise and occasionally string together a few chords to make songs. It's just bad.

Gene's personality is a whole thread in itself. He's atrocious, and it's a good thing that he's of a dying breed. Self-centered, womanizing, miserable, rich old bastard. Nothing to relate to. Worse than AC/DC. Worse than any legacy band. A puppet show for rednecks. Absolute garbage.

Late 50's - early 60's. Then he became a lounge crooner.

Sound may be literally physical but art still has no physical meaning, it's by far secondary at best. Meaning is not physical and don't give me some
>le brain
>not physical
Bullshit.

rok sux

It's kind of embarrassing to read rock critics like Lester Bangs accusing Elvis of being a sellout because he didn't make the music they wanted to hear anymore. There was one critic (don't remember his name) who went so far as to insist that only the Sun records-era Elvis was the real thing.

>One of the lamest live shows I've ever seen, Mostly comprised of pyrotechnics and LED lights to distract the audience from any music that may or may not be going on. Their songs all run together. They walk around like sloths, barely able to "rock" at all anymore. It's just sad and it's a money grab and they're barely just phoning it in.
>I was depressed after I walked out of that show, with all the fuckin' zombies. Their fans are just dumb. Dumb lyrics, dumb album art. Dumb. The musical integrity isn't there, it never was. They make merchandise and occasionally string together a few chords to make songs. It's just bad.

You never saw them perform in the 70s. No of course you didn't, your dad didn't even have pubic hair back then.

>Gene's personality is a whole thread in itself. He's atrocious, and it's a good thing that he's of a dying breed. Self-centered, womanizing, miserable, rich old bastard. Nothing to relate to. Worse than AC/DC. Worse than any legacy band. A puppet show for rednecks
You were doing ok until you went full Tumblr nu male here.

you're right, art has no physical meaning. hence its meaninglessness

your beloved art music is arranged sound acting on the brain to stimulate responses. it cannot achieve those responses (at least the ones being aimed at, which is of course another field of pure arbitration) without a rooting in contextual history listening to other music of its kind. it's an evolution of form, and thus does not exist on the same level of meaning without all that came before it, and the listener's familiarity with all of that context. what i'm getting at here is that the roots of art music are by necessity in traditional music, and everything as far removed from your comfortable realm of "art" as possible. a lot of the "cultural" context behind what makes established art music art music is in fact the wealth and expenditure of the upper class on such purely arbitrary diversions as music. "art" in general is a wealth-based phenomenon, only possible when a certain level of comfort and tradition allows it

ultimately your "art" is just as consumerist as your "popular", it's just fucking older and more evolved. and if you can't understand that you need to read more

I was born in 93. How the fuck could I have possibly seen them in their prime? All I know is I did see the washed up geriatric version of KISS and it sucked massive dick.

This is a ridiculous definition and I’m curious to know where you found it. I disagree with the “anything can be art” idea but your metric is even worse. I have never heard an art professor suggest that Renaissance paintings were not art because they were created in exchange for a noble’s patronage.

Just make up a new word or term for what you’re describing, you can’t just hijack the broad idea of “art” and force it into such strict parameters.

Whatever. A Rolling Stones concert isn't quite the same as it was in 1969 either.

Actually to be honest, the best KISS live shows were in the early days in 74-75 before they got big. Loud, sloppy, raw rock and roll. Once they got big and became stadium rock, their concerts got slicker and more boring.

Oh, sure. You could say it's meaningless. You're not shattering my reality or anything by saying that.

And no, it's not consumerist. Also popular music still isn't art.

>read more
>rambles himself and doesn't actually recommend anything
Useless comment.

Oh look a stemfag

Yeah but they can still put on a good show. That's more than can be said for KISS.

it's okay user. you did try. you did actually make an argument. sorry to hurt your brain. stick to what's comfortable and don't think too hard about why we think words mean what they do. it's better that way.

literally a comparitive lit major, but okay

>Worse than any legacy band
You never saw Chuck Berry in his last years.

I'm still waiting for those recommendations, user. You can't just say "read more" and run away with it!

uh neither deleuze nor adorno would agree with your retarded interpretation of their work

youtube.com/watch?v=OHHYZoVC2eQ

Here's sum prime Kiss. From '88. The unmasked period probably had the simplest and least gimmicky live shows they ever did.

Uhh but I agree with Adorno, you fucking sperg.

>literally a comparitive lit major

Yikes. Stick with your lesser art forms then.

>Dumb lyrics
The soy in this post is strong.

i cannot tell you is confidential

Why does he make 1984 his arbitrary cutoff?

>going down the list i can name
>a load of shitty dadrock

Lightning Bolt
Guerilla Toss
Show Me the Body
Ed Schrader's Music Beat

>>making two albums

>Rock and roll is dead
good

I'm going to bed. You better have your recommendations ready and posted by the time I wake up, you comparative lit-tard hack.