Gene Simmons: 'Rock Is Finally Dead'

[VitaminD]

I`m surprised how many ppl in this post are stuck on Simmons and Kiss.
The OP is asking whether Simmon`s statement that "rock is finally dead?" is true.
The subject is not about Simmons, it`s about the rock genre!
I should ask the question: "Is intelligence finally dead?".

I get the feeling many people commenting didn't even bother to read the article... instead read the subject line and decided to weigh in.

[xNiMiNx]

Advertising Executive 1: Gene, baby, we’ve got to get the word out on the streets about the new season of your reality show, and we’ve got some ideas.

http://www.videogum.com/74221/gene_simm ... marketing/

[PurpleCatfishBettie]

it's like the gene character in 'trick or treat' (1986) basically said: 'never buy into your own hype'.

[spaceman]

It's not dead but it should be.

[ThoughtExperiment]

What an idiot - if Rock was dead, he'd be one of the guys who killed it

[jancivil]

I`m surprised how many ppl in this post are stuck on Simmons and Kiss.
The OP is asking whether Simmon`s statement that "rock is finally dead?" is true.
The subject is not about Simmons, it`s about the rock genre!
I should ask the question: "Is intelligence finally dead?".

To you the subject is the rock genre, to me it's the vacuousness of Gene Simmons who believes that his group's sales are a harbinger of the death of a whole genre if not a whole way of life.

Your argument relies on a similar fallacy of sales of things to kids.

I don't care how many people do any given thing. So 'rock is dead' is itself overreaching I think, and from Gene Simmons just another self-aggrandizing move; for me such a thing has life according to my investment in it. I think that's a healthier outlook than this argument from popularity [of the moment]. Jazz ceased to be very popular music before I was born, in the middle of the last century. People moved to it as music qua music more and more. There are definitely younger people informing a 'jazz' or 'rock' music from their own position in music today. I think music itself is quite alive. People's consumerism notwithstanding.
The definition of a genre of music doesn't depend on popularity per se does it? Not to my view. One person has already referred to Zappa 'not dead, it just smells funny'. The word 'dead'? You need no one doing it for that to be other than hyperbole. So you're arguing for the validity of an obvious bit of hyperbole.

Your ignorance of particular things which do occur is not a sign that they do not occur, your assertion there is no new talent in rock or jazz is the same quality as Gene Simmons' rubbish. You're both {edit} enamored of your own brand, one supposes. "I should ask the question: "Is intelligence finally dead?"." - really? This is how you get to be the smart person in a context? It seems to be excessively bellicose, which in itself does not seem to strengthen the argument.

Every time Gene Simmons picked up a bass, music died for the moment.

[robogone]

I`m surprised how many ppl in this post are stuck on Simmons and Kiss.
The OP is asking whether Simmon`s statement that "rock is finally dead?" is true.
The subject is not about Simmons, it`s about the rock genre!
I should ask the question: "Is intelligence finally dead?".

I get the feeling many people commenting didn't even bother to read the article... instead read the subject line and decided to weigh in.

I read it, but regardless of the reason that he thinks it is dead, it's not the first time it has been said (for any reason), nor do I think it will be the last. He certainly isn't someone with his finger on the pulse, yet he seems to think that his word is gospel.

The reason that many people started talking about Simmons and Kiss isn't necessarily that they didn't read the article, but perhaps more because 1. Simmons is so full of shit, and 2. Kiss haven't produced good music for decades, but sell a shit load of records because they focus much more on selling product than producing anything original or interesting.

[jancivil]

"What is the next Dark Side of the Moon? Now that the record industry barely exists, they wouldn't have a chance to make something like that."

The cart of 'the record industry' pulls the horse of all our chances to record music now? He's entirely out of touch (in addition to confounding *the industry* with *making things*). The whole article is stupid. It mentions Foo Fighters countering it and fabricates their reason for it, they felt left out of Simmons statement. He contradicts himself knowing about one thing through his son and 'Nirvana' which is in fact dead.

[robogone]

He's entirely out of touch (in addition to confounding *the industry* with *making things*)

Well no surprises there really, as this is coming from someone who milks the corporate rock cow on a daily basis.

He's probably bitter because his royalty checks are shrinking each year as his music gets ever more staid and derivative.

[jancivil]

The music scene as it once was is gone. There is practically zero jazz scene in the US anymore, and I can`t remember the last time I saw a rock or jazz club large enough to hold a good size audience.

I can, Yoshi's which does good business both sides of the bay.

Simmons is right when he sez trained, practiced players can`t find gigs anymore to support playing on the road. The only work is behind the scenes....and that ain`t the scene.

I don't know where you saw him say that. I'm reading of other concerns, really.
It is true that there isn't the work there used to be.

... there is no way to stand out from the multitude of other indie that`s also available, which most of it is not of high quality and most people just don`t have the time to audition through so much mediocre music in order to find something good...

Most of music was never of high quality. So most people were led to 'good music' through the more highly functional record industry and browsing bins at Tower Records?
I'm not persuaded by this whole tack. I do agree that the whole fabric of music in relation to the consumer has changed dramatically and that 'file sharing' is part and parcel of that. But the statement 'there is practically zero jazz scene in the US anymore' is at a sharp discord to my experience in life. Where I live, it's pretty much the same as it ever was. Rock music as a vehicle for an asshat like Gene Simmons to become a very rich man probably doesn't exist today, which is the silver lining in the cloud IME.

[Turello]

IMO Gene is dead, everyone stops to buy Kiss albums from long time (first 90's with the grunge scene)...

... Unlike Gene Rock is alive and grows and evolves, some example?

Tool
A Perfect Circle
Porcupine Tree
Karnivool
Nine Inch Nails
Radiohead
The Grunge scene (Alice In Chains, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Nirvana etc etc)

RIP Gene... Hard Luck Man!

[Tricky-Loops]

The show must go on!

[robogone]

IMO Gene is dead, everyone stops to buy Kiss albums from long time (first 90's with the grunge scene)...

Kiss are actually still one of the big album selling bands, and pretty much every album they release goes gold.

It certainly isn't because they are the best band out there - far from it. The Rolling Stones have been around longer and still rake in money from touring like Kiss, but they don't sell anywhere near as many albums.

The difference seems to be that Simmons knows that Kiss are shit, but knows how to polish a turd before selling it; and the Rolling Stones don't know they're shit but have record company backing so release albums anyway.

[xNiMiNx]

I get the feeling many people commenting didn't even bother to read the article... instead read the subject line and decided to weigh in.

I did read it, the linked article, not the actual magazine. To me it sounds like Gene didnt look into anything before he gave that interview to his son.

He says Nirvana cant happen today. Nirvana recorded Bleach for about $600.00 and was on, at the time, a small label. They did it with cheap used gear. But of course, that cant happen today right? Cheap gear, small label, good music? Yeah, impossible! [/sarcasm]

I think Genes lost a lot of bloodflow to the brain, wearing all that oh-so-too-tight spandex, on one of KISS's farewell and reunion shows.

Again, hes basically equating money to rock n roll, and id like anyone to show me a definition of rock n roll where the word money is involved.

Heres a perfect interview:

Gene flat out admits he got into music for the ATTENTION, not for the money. At some point he whored himself out and it became about the MONEY, not the attention. Maybe once the attention fled the KISS scene, he turned it around to be about money, so he'd feel good about himself.

Paul "People who are putting barricades in your way are only putting them there, cause if you succeed its that much harder for them to deal with their failure". He goes on to say that he doesnt need a lot of money or objects, just enough to get by.

Now listen to Gene years later, saying that anyone who says 'they just need enough to get by, is full of shit'.

So Gene is saying Paul of 1983 is full of shit.

Seriously, that interview sums it up. They got into music for attention, the attention dried up, so now its about the money. Now they try to stop people from getting into rock n roll (by saying its dead) because if anyone succeeds, it shows KISS their failure.

Gene of today, needs to listen to Gene and Paul of 1983.

[trimph1]

Succinct point.

Gene is suffering from old man syndrome.