backtop


Print 82 comment(s) - last by just4U.. on Nov 20 at 4:11 AM

Lawsuits, profanity, and hypocrisy abound as KISS frontman offers his "unique perspective" on the music industry's woes.

Billboard Magazine recently had a chance to speak with the front man and founding member of KISS, Gene Simmons, about the band and about the music industry as a whole. While the questions about upcoming releases and tours were answered in a fairly standard manner, bringing up new music must have touched on a rather sore point for Mr. Simmons.

While artists are certainly not expected to like the idea of a listener having downloaded their hard work, Gene Simmons evidently would rather not have the listeners at all, saying that "Every little college kid ... should have been sued off the face of the earth. They should have taken their houses and cars and nipped it right there in the beginning."

When the interviewer turned the conversation to artists such as Radiohead and Trent Reznor, who are offering free downloads and a "pay if you want to" purchasing model, the abuse continued. "I open a store and say 'Come on in and pay whatever you want.' Are you on f---ing crack? Do you really believe that's a business model that works?"

Evidently the $2.7 million USD grossed by Radiohead on the first day of sales "doesn't work" well enough.

But according to Gene, it's not about the money. "The most important part is the music. Without that, why would you care?"

No doubt a smaller band, playing music for the fun of it, might agree -- but coming from the mouth of a man with a reality show on A&E in its third season, a cartoon on Nickelodeon, his own book publishing company, and a band that has branded merchandise from lighters to condoms to comic books -- it's a little hard to believe that it's still "about the music."





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Nice job
By Polynikes on 11/16/2007 12:36:57 PM , Rating: 5
I couldn't agree with you more, Chris. Wow, what an asshole.

One pirated album is worth my car and home? Try $7.99, Gene. That's the cost of your band's album, Kiss (self-titled), on iTunes.

It's not our fault you didn't have the means to copy records easily when you were college-aged. Don't ask me why, but I expect there's a really, really good chance you would've done it, had it been possible.




RE: Nice job
By masher2 (blog) on 11/16/2007 2:04:34 PM , Rating: 3
> "One pirated album is worth my car and home? Try $7.99, Gene"

There's a basic principle here that, for deterrence to work, the punishment for a crime has to be much more severe than the potential benefit of that crime. Otherwise, expectation value (net benefit) of that crime is always positive.

For instance, if the punishment for shoplifting a $50 piece of clothing is only $50, why would anyone ever pay? They'd simply steal what they wanted, and, if caught, pay the fine. There'd actually be a disincentive to buy the product.

I really don't see a problem with stiff penalties. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Now, if you want to argue that the penalty here is disproportionate to other, more serious crimes, I would tend to agree. But I'd argue that, instead of weakening the punishment here, we should simply strengthen it in those areas.


RE: Nice job
By sj420 on 11/16/2007 2:20:11 PM , Rating: 2
Well, how many people actually go out of their way to download an album? Me Personally? I hardly EVER download music. Simlpy because I don't like the music of today, its junk to me. However if one of our old cds gets busted up, too scratched to play, or whatever I might go and find it on the net if one of my family members *HAS* to listen to the Cd - but I typically don't care to dl music. It is the easiest way to find rare old music that you could never find to buy, or it is a rare band, or whatever, the best thing to do is find it on the net not go down to your local music store. Retail doesn't have anything, as the savvy know, we must go to the nets to even buy the goods we want to buy. For example, you don't see a savvy builder going to walmart to build his PC with walmart junk components.

The point is - if the content was worth it people would be willing to pay for it. Sometimes people will pay ridiculous amounts just to get what they want. Well the artists want to do what they want, which includes release crappy music and expect it to be platinum within the next 3 months while charging too damn much for some plastic and some music. Besides the "price it anything you want" isn't a business practice, it isn't a business model. It is called caring about what your consumer thinks and that is what counts.

People can download it for free, listen to it, and then deem to pay what they see fit. That is what is happening and the nice thing about it is that the BAND gets the money, not the middle man corporate execs that steal 85%+ on average for the bands work.

If this dumb gene guy complaining about piracy knew a thing or two he would know why people pirate. He is just an idiot that wants to complain because he isn't still making enough royalties. Well he can shove his royalties up his arse.


RE: Nice job
By masher2 (blog) on 11/16/2007 2:28:27 PM , Rating: 2
> "Well, how many people actually go out of their way to download an album? "

Are you serious? Torrent sites are among the most popular ones on the Net. Visit any large college campus (and many high schools) and you'll find countless students with thousands of downloaded songs and near-zero expenditure on purchased music. According to many sources, music and video downloads constitute the bulk of Internet traffic

Whatever your opinion on the subject, to deny that illegal music downloads aren't occurring at an enormous rate is simply to stick one's head in the sand.


RE: Nice job
By petergl on 11/16/2007 2:55:35 PM , Rating: 4
Not to keep at you, masher, but your previous suggestion to stiffen penalites isn't a wise one. Any basic criminology course or book can give you a plethora of evidence against the real-world impact of deterrence.

In situations where strong deterrents have had an immediately positive effect, the effect is rarely sustainable. There's no easy solution to crime (which isn't to say there aren't a lot of ways to combat it) but harsher-punishment deterrence has brought about just as many - if not more - secondary-offenders as it has actually deterred would-be criminals.


RE: Nice job
By masher2 (blog) on 11/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: Nice job
By petergl on 11/16/2007 3:22:42 PM , Rating: 3
Your last statement is essentially correct - celerity and certainty (the normal criminological terms) - have a dramatic effect on crime. When dealing with the majority of criminals (and I'm not talking about music-downloading college kids), however - secondary-offenders for whom crime is a way of life (very often because of the debilitating effect of prisons, in the first place), spur-of-the-moment, intoxicated/substance-abusing criminals who don't even consider potential punishments (and there's a lot of these), and those who "feel" (whether or not they actually are) so desperate that the risk of reward far outweighs the risk of punishment - normal deterrents (i.e. "severity" of punishment, as opposed to "celerity" and "certainty") don't even register in their minds or do so escapingly quickly.

And, if you're concerned that "certainty" of punishment, from a law enforcement perspective, isn't usually readily achievable, you're where I am; I, for one (I'm sure there are more socially-acceptable solutions), think the best solution is complete disregard for the privacy of the people. Was it on a DT article that I read about some laser which could detect alcohol in someone's blood? They should install it in every single car steering wheel.

In the end, education and equalization are probably the most effective ways to reduce crime. Until that's ever realized (i.e. until we learn to use the carrot instead of the stick), you can expect locking people away in prison to be America's most "adequate" solution to crime.


RE: Nice job
By masher2 (blog) on 11/16/2007 3:45:16 PM , Rating: 1
> "In the end, education and equalization are probably the most effective ways to reduce crime. Until that's ever realized..."

Piffle and nonsense. When education was hard to obtain and expensive, people valued it. My great-grandfather studied both Latin and calculus starting in the 8th grade. Now that we've made education free, most high school seniors can't even find America on the map, and we have to threaten to take away their drivers licenses to keep them in school.

Anyone in the nation can get a free education through high school, and with a modicum of good grades and test scores, a free college education as well. Has that helped reduce crime? Our inner cities get more violent every year.

As for "equalization", wealth-redistribution is already by far the largest line item on the federal budget, exceeding all other expenditures combined. All it's done is create a large, permanently-disempowered welfare class, wholly unable to support themselves in any way.

Honestly, I find nothing more offensive than the attitude that increased handouts are going to solve all the ills of society. Do people have no ability whatsoever to learn from history? These social experiments have been tried before. They fail, always and utterly.

Punishment deters crime, plain and simple. Even a cockroach can learn to avoid unpleasant results. But in today's society, when committing a serious, violent crime means only a small chance of possibly, eventually spending a little time watching movies and playing basketball in a government "correctional" facility, there is no deterrence. And you wonder why longer sentences don't work? Don't make me laugh.


RE: Nice job
By petergl on 11/16/2007 4:54:04 PM , Rating: 4
masher, it's hard to call attention to your naiveness in this subject; I know from reading the forums that you're clearly more educated than me in a variety of sciences... apparently the social sciences aren't among them.

Regarding your grandfather, I obviously don't know the exact reasons he yearned for education. Perhaps he merely wanted success or perhaps he wanted security for his family. As long as we're relying on little anecdotes, what about Leonardo Da Vinci? I'm sure some history buffs could confirm that he never hurt for money or security in his younger years, yet his curiosity for intellect never died out; I'm sure those same history buffs could point out a lot of other examples.

But more importantly, the educational system in America sucks. And it doesn't just suck from a knowledge-inducing perspective, it also sucks from a "how to be a good citizen" perspective. The distance that has grown between the government and the citizenry - which could certainly be resolved with better education - is absolutely ridiculous. The government is the people... except no one seems to remember that. If more of us did, there'd be a lot more cooperation towards achieving higher societal standards - including the push for better education and better alternatives for crime reduction - and a lot less isolationist rogues (like criminals).

In regards to the inner-city violence, why rule out the effectivenesss or importance of education? The education sucks most there. Those kids are often allowed to pass without half the measure of work that other kids, from more affluent areas, are made to do. And here's the important part: that failure of education - much like the growing crime trends in those areas - is not their fault . Education doesn't play any kind of significant role there; how can you assume it would have a null effect?

quote:
Honestly, I find nothing more offensive than the attitude that increased handouts are going to solve all the ills of society.


Again, with the assumptions, masher? Did I say people should get handouts? If it hasn't become clear, I study sociology, so I know the kinds of problems welfare and other freebies have caused. You seem to think you're talking to a child.

On the note of child-like logic, exactly how many of these "social experiments" have been tried before? Any number even remotely statistically significant? Even if hundreds of these programs had been tried, they're each so different from the next that comparing them to one another - let alone against the whole of them - is just plain ignorant.

I wish you'd bothered to address a single one of my points on deterrence, masher; I guess we're not having a thoughtful and civilized argument. The harsher deterrents get, the less effective they are and the more life-long criminals they create. But you go ahead and keep on pushing for punishments. I hope to be long gone when your mile-high prisons collapse around you.

And just to be clear: I'm not in the business of making you laugh, I'm in the business of making you stop with your "common sense" and resume some scholarly sense. Take a criminology course - it'd be a for a lot more than just the sake of my patience.


RE: Nice job
By masher2 (blog) on 11/16/2007 5:35:36 PM , Rating: 1
> "In regards to the inner-city violence, why rule out the effectivenesss or importance of education?"

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not ruling out the value of a good education-- far from it. I'm dipusting the attitude that offering more of our free, pap-dispensing K-12 system is going to correct anything. A larger budget, more teachers, more programs, larger and more expensive inner-city schools...that's not going to help one bit.

> "As long as we're relying on little anecdotes, what about Leonardo Da Vinci? "

I'm not quite sure of your point. Are you disputing that our educational system has declined over the past century? I would think its a well-documented fact. I know with certainty the curriculum my great-grandfather experienced in the 8th grade was more difficult and challenging than the average 12th grade education of today.

> "Did I say people should get handouts? "

I believe the meaning of the word "equalization", when translated by sociology majors into recommendations for action, ultimately takes the form of government-administered handouts. If I've misunderstood you, then I'm more than willing to be corrected.


RE: Nice job
By petergl on 11/16/2007 7:02:24 PM , Rating: 5
I did misunderstand you in the first instance, a different misunderstanding lead to the confusion in the second instance (I do think the quality of education has plummetted), and you did misunderstand me in the third instance (although you'd probably still disagree with my intentions): working with the system as it is now, I would probably favor a lot of radical policy changes/implementations which would make vast personal wealth much less sustainable; although no money would be given directly to the impoverished, corporate/wealthy taxations would (again, probably) go to combating some important sources of crime, like weak education programs, better rehabilitation programs for the incarcerated, etc.

I know that's not very technical or thorough and sounds a lot what some people are already trying to get done these days but I haven't (recently) done a whole lot of thinking, reading, or research on the specific policy changes I'd implement. The larger point is that I don't think we're just supposed to convert to some socialist state to "equalize" and fight crime problems; I think much of that end can be achieved with some [radical] policy changes here & now.

Again, sorry I don't have any real examples or evidence. Perhaps, though, we've achieved some small measure of agreement between us ;)


RE: Nice job
By XtremeM3 on 11/18/2007 3:01:01 AM , Rating: 2
I have to say, while you both make good points, I strongly agree with Masher on the punishment issue. Harsher punishments do act as a better deterent for crime. I can think of 2 examples right off the top of my head.

1. Theft in Saudi. Chop - you can lose your hand. Yes still done today. Awesome deterent for theft. Does theft still occur? Yes. As frequent as in the states, not even close (with Saudi being a much less educated country - it doesn't take an educated man to realize it would suck to not have your right hand). I've been living in the middle east for a few years now, theft is one of the things I rarely worry about. So there is a great example of a strong punishment acting as a deterent for crime. Call it over the top, or extreme or whatever. I'd be fine for that, as I hate theives. As a victim of theft, I'm all for harsher punishments. There are few things worse than having something that you've worked for taken from you by someone too lazy to work for it themselves.

2. I spent some time in Az a while back, just for vacation. I had friends that were 110% against driving after drinking anything, mainly because at the time there was a mandatory stay involved at the "pink underwear" prison. That's what was told to me while I was there anyway. Now, being told that, true or not, no-one wanted to risk it because of the penalty. I've seen alot of people drive after drinking, but when you know you'd be facing some time in the "pink underwear" prison, instead of at most an overnighter, a fine and higher insurance... you're much less likely to commit the offense. Not to say that it's ok to drink and drive if the penalty isn't harsh but just as an example as harsher punishment acting as a deterent.

Jeff


RE: Nice job
By A5un on 11/17/2007 9:04:35 PM , Rating: 1
Obviously, you're not from the "inner cities." You don't seem to realize the different world in which these people live. When we were in high school, we sat in class. Took notes. Went home. Then had dinner with family. Then off we went to study, watch TV, talk on the phone.

Now consider this. In these "inner cities," teenagers go home to find police at their house with a warrant. Every so often, the police would come by to visit because maybe some of their family member has a history. Worse yet, when the police do find "something," the adult points to the kids to have them take the fall for it. I can't even begin to imagine the constant state of distress these kids are in. What did we ever have to worry about in high school? Getting thrown in jail for something you didn't do probably wasn't one of them. And what I just said is a true event that did happen. One of my friends had spent a night in jail, along with a 14 year old boy. That was how the boy got there.

Here's another one for y'all. A girl that had gotten admitted to Harvard from my school had to sleep as soon as she got home so she can wake up to study through the night, during when no one would be awake. During when she won't be bothered by her parents' constant yelling and arguing. During when she won't hear things thrown around the house. During when she can be along. You think these parents would care to put down money for their kids to go to school, all 12 years of it? A lot of Hispanic children I know wake up at 5 in the morning to do yard work with their parents before they got to school. If education weren't free, they'd probably end up doing yard work the entire day.

When free education is taken away, all these kids will end up in the street, doing whatever they can to survive because no employer would hire them due to the lack of high school diploma, and they can't go to school because their parents won't put in the money to get them to school. This will only increase the crime figures. So yes, education and equalization ARE the most effective ways to reduce crime. You're already enjoying the result of free education. Without a free education, we'd be in a worse situation.


RE: Nice job
By masher2 (blog) on 11/18/2007 12:14:53 PM , Rating: 3
> "Obviously, you're not from the "inner cities." You don't seem to realize the different world in which these people live"

For your use of the phrase "these people", it's certain you didn't grow up in an inner city. Personally, I did-- 6 years of childhood, at least. The problem there is the culture of permissiveness, spread by educators, poor parenting, and society and large-- including people like you.

When you constantly bombard these children with the subtle, derogatory message that "it's not their fault", it has real effect. It not only tells them that success is out of their grasp, but more importantly, it tells them they won't be blamed for mistakes. Make bad grades? Steal a car? Shoot someone? Don't worry boy...its not your fault. It's society's fault for putting you here.

And you wonder why most of them live up to your expectations? Don't make me laugh.

> "When free education is taken away..."

Who said anything about disbanding free education? If you think I've even come close to advocating that, I strongly suggest you reread my postings.


RE: Nice job
By scrapsma54 on 11/19/2007 7:05:20 PM , Rating: 2
So bottom line is guys:
"If you are pirating, Don't get caught."


RE: Nice job
By Oregonian2 on 11/16/2007 3:14:22 PM , Rating: 2
Back in my day, thirty some years ago, we had to hook our reel-to-reel or newfangled cassette recorders to the radio to get our "free downloaded songs". Especially good off of FM stations. Radical, man. Easier to just buy CD's since then, but still will record movies and sports games off of TV.

Not entirely new.

quote:
According to many sources, music and video downloads constitute the bulk of Internet traffic


I suspect it isn't RIAA sort of material though, I'd suspect more Debbie does somewhere kind of material.


RE: Nice job
By Oregonian2 on 11/16/2007 2:31:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For instance, if the punishment for shoplifting a $50 piece of clothing is only $50, why would anyone ever pay? They'd simply steal what they wanted, and, if caught, pay the fine. There'd actually be a disincentive to buy the product.


Two points:

1. As to the $50, having to pay that (and NOT get the clothing) plus having that on one's record (not so important after the first few times) may be appropriate. Not $220,000 or the cost of one's house ($450K? ???).

2. Depends upon the chances of being caught. If it's 95% with RFID tags, then a penalty roughly equal to value might be appropriate. If it's 5%, then a higher penalty is likely appropriate (still not $220,000 or more).

If a kid MURDERS someone around here, and they're underage, they get to stay at a detention center until they're of age, after which they're free as a bird, with no record either, it's wiped clean. Probably the same age group that's downloading songs for free (as a guess). So which is worth more, a COPY of a song or a person's life? It does seem to be something without a clear answer by many.


RE: Nice job
By masher2 (blog) on 11/16/2007 2:47:01 PM , Rating: 4
> "If a kid MURDERS someone around here, and they're underage, they get to stay at a detention center until they're of age, after which they're free as a bird"

Sounds like a great argument for strengthening the penalty for murder. I don't see its relevant to the argument at hand, though.

> "Not $220,000 or the cost of one's house ($450K? ???)."

For stealing a single copy of a single song? No, of course not. But if you're referring the the Jammie Thomas verdict, the woman made hundreds of songs available over a lengthy period to potentially millions of people. That's far different (and far more damaging) than simple grabbing a single $50 pair of jeans from Macys.


RE: Nice job
By Oregonian2 on 11/16/2007 3:21:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For stealing a single copy of a single song? No, of course not. But if you're referring the the Jammie Thomas verdict, the woman made hundreds of songs available over a lengthy period to potentially millions of people. That's far different (and far more damaging) than simple grabbing a single $50 pair of jeans from Macys.


Perhaps true in reality, but the judge's ruling was that the ZERO uploads that were proven in her case was sufficient. They did not have to prove anything was uploaded (and they didn't), only that two dozen songs were made available for uploading/stealing. Like leaving a couple CD's unattended on a park bench, even if nobody touches it.

My mentioning of the underage murdering was to give scale to what was being discussed (particularly to the clothing swiping example), not for any of the details.


RE: Nice job
By masher2 (blog) on 11/16/2007 3:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
> "...only that two dozen songs were made available for uploading/stealing."

No. The RIAA demonstrated she downloaded 22 songs herself. She also made several hundred songs available for uploading (as well as downloading much more than that 22 figure), but the RIAA chose to focus only upon what was easily verifiable.


RE: Nice job
By Oregonian2 on 11/16/2007 9:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No. The RIAA demonstrated she downloaded 22 songs herself. She also made several hundred songs available for uploading (as well as downloading much more than that 22 figure), but the RIAA chose to focus only upon what was easily verifiable.


That's kinda what I said, or intended to say (at least partially). However, I make a strong distinction (why I'd be a bad jury member) between what we think she did and what was demonstrated that she did. I only fault her for doing that which was proved. Only the 22. I assumed the quarter-million of damages were for potentially uploading the songs, seems like that was the focus. If the quarter million was purely for the act of downloading 22 songs, then I stand corrected -- but I would then wonder how that amount of economic damage could then be justified (as opposed to just shoplifting two CD's from a store somewhere). I may not have been paying attention to the news postings close enough.


RE: Nice job
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/17/2007 6:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For stealing a single copy of a single song? No, of course not. But if you're referring the the Jammie Thomas verdict, the woman made hundreds of songs available over a lengthy period to potentially millions of people. That's far different (and far more damaging) than simple grabbing a single $50 pair of jeans from Macys.

She also lied about it and tried to cover it up. Not exactly the poster child I would have used.


RE: Nice job
By Oregonian2 on 11/19/2007 2:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
She also lied about it and tried to cover it up. Not exactly the poster child I would have used.


Although perjury is very bad (even though one recent US President who's wife is running didn't think so) I don't think her trial was about that and I don't recall that was one of the indictments that she was found guilty of. Was it?


RE: Nice job
By Polynikes on 11/19/2007 2:57:04 PM , Rating: 2
Although I agree with you that crimes deserve severe punishments, downloading an album of 10 songs should not cost me $7,500. (RIAA'S $750/song figure * 10 songs.) There's no freakin' way they lost that much money because I download the album. Now, if I seeded it to 750 people, yeah, but who the hell ever seeds that many copies?


RE: Nice job
By Screwballl on 11/17/2007 3:59:30 PM , Rating: 2
I agree.

quote:
But according to Gene, it's not about the money. "The most important part is the music. Without that, why would you care?"


If it was about the music then all the artists would start releasing the music themselves once their contract ran out with their current RIAA bed-buddy label.

Gene Simmons has been in the industry so long that he is stuck in the old ways of not having to work for himself while the labels and managers and everyone else does all the work so he can just sing (or scream or yell).

So riddle me this Gene, would you rather make $2.8 million from an album released yourself much like Radiohead did or would you rather make $500,000 by letting everyone else do the work for you?
For the music indeed...


RE: Nice job
By noirsoft on 11/18/2007 8:06:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Gene Simmons has been in the industry so long that he is stuck in the old ways of not having to work for himself while the labels and managers and everyone else does all the work so he can just sing (or scream or yell).


I do not believe that is true in Gene's case. It is my understanding (from several Kiss fans I've known) that Gene is a very astute businessman who has developed some moderate musical talent because of his years as a performer. He apparently handles much of the business dealings for KISS, inc. personally.


RE: Nice job
By Christopher1 on 11/18/2007 6:06:50 AM , Rating: 1
I agree totally. The only people today who do not download songs illegally are people like myself, who have a subscription to something like Yahoo's Music Unlimited! service, or people who don't know that p2p apps exist.

Most of the people who are downloading illegally would NEVER have bought the legal thing in question, because it is TOO EXPENSIVE! Have you talked with some of the people who download music illegally, Chris? Most of them are your greatest fans, who feel that you are ripping them off with 10-20 dollars a album, which they are right about.

You are trying to live in a analog age, when everything has gone digital and online, and like the dinosaurs, you are going to die.


RE: Nice job
By Davelo on 11/19/2007 2:09:48 PM , Rating: 2
You must be young. Tape recorders have been around for ages and were certainly very popular back in Gene's day. I used a Nakamichi cassette deck and Pioneer reel to reel to copy all of my albums onto tape. I bought the albums but did not want to wear them down so I would record them while they were brand new.

Just because you can be a crook does not mean you should. Downloading music is immoral and it sounds bad.


Kiss sucks
By nerdboy on 11/16/2007 1:52:20 PM , Rating: 5
I am not a fan of kiss, i do not like them as a band or as people. I am not really under standing why some one who gets all of his fame from his fans would turn around and bash them like that. That is a good way to lose fan base. Most people respect there fans becuase with out them they wouldn't be here.




RE: Kiss sucks
By masher2 (blog) on 11/16/2007 2:13:36 PM , Rating: 1
> "Most people respect there fans becuase with out them they wouldn't be here. "

If you define "here" as "making money from your music", then a fan who doesn't pay for that music isn't putting you anywhere, now are they?


RE: Kiss sucks
By Oregonian2 on 11/16/2007 3:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
Does Notre Dame benefit from being very famous with a LOT of fans around the country even though the vast majority don't or didn't buy anything from them? At very least it gets them great TV contracts and causes other people to want to go there and spend money. Fans provide fame which itself is of financial benefit, even if of lower individual value than direct purchasers.

So I'm agreeing with you on a high level, but not completely.


RE: Kiss sucks
By masher2 (blog) on 11/16/2007 4:05:08 PM , Rating: 2
And I agree with your partial agreement. Fame can have value in of itself...but for that to be true, at some point, someone has to write a check. Charles Manson and Monica Lewinsky both had fame that neither managed to parley into fortune.

So where's the eventual source of the money? Touring? That'll fund a nice lifestyle for a band...but it won't cover the millions needed to promote a band into megastar status. Product endorsements? Possibly...but while I might buy a golf club that Tiger Woods uses, will I drive a car simply because Angus Pinhead and the Dweasels say I should?


RE: Kiss sucks
By Vanilla Thunder on 11/16/2007 4:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That'll fund a nice lifestyle for a band...but it won't cover the millions needed to promote a band into megastar status.


Megastar status is not always required. Some people do actually love making music and would be more than happy to earn a "normal" living supported by their music. There is a huge "blue collar" music scene worldwide.

quote:
but while I might buy a golf club that Tiger Woods uses, will I drive a car simply because Angus Pinhead and the Dweasels say I should?


No. But if you were a young musician who idolized Angus and the Dweasels you might be more apt to save your money for the newest Gibson Angus signature model guitar or amplifier. You might also be more likely to use a lot of the same gear used/endorsed by your rock n roll hero, for the same reason you would buy that golf club.

The music culture/industry is one that, no matter how informed you might feel you are, unless you've experienced it and live it, you really don't have a firm grasp on what matters to musicians.

Vanilla


RE: Kiss sucks
By masher2 (blog) on 11/16/2007 4:51:00 PM , Rating: 2
> "Megastar status is not always required. Some people do actually love making music "

And I don't dispute that. What is irrefutable, however, is that the industry today revolves around Megastars, and that the "artist-direct-to-consumer" model of distributing music without music labels is not one that will support such megastars.

Is that a good thing or bad? I would vote good myself...but I strongly suspect the tens of millions of people who buy pop music will object. They want music that has been heavily promoted. If record labels aren't financing that promotion, who will?


RE: Kiss sucks
By Vanilla Thunder on 11/16/2007 5:09:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What is irrefutable, however, is that the industry today revolves around Megastars, and that the "artist-direct-to-consumer" model of distributing music without music labels is not one that will support such megastars.


The key word here is the "industry". The only people who are concerned with the status of the "industry" are the ones who are in that 0.002% that benefit from the way it operates. If it all fell apart, then maybe people would take the time to listen to things other than what is shoved down their throats on a daily basis by corporate controlled radio and MTV. This, in my opinion, would be a beautiful thing.

quote:
They want music that has been heavily promoted.


No they don't. They want to tap their foot, bob their head, or sing along to a song that makes them feel good. This has nothing to do with promotion. It's human reaction.

V.


RE: Kiss sucks
By masher2 (blog) on 11/16/2007 5:52:58 PM , Rating: 2
> "They want to tap their foot, bob their head, or sing along to a song that makes them feel good. This has nothing to do with promotion"

Utter Nonsense. There is an enormous amount of music from artists which haven't been promoted by a big name label. Normally, you can't give that music away.

Pop fans want pop music. They're buying into status and image and glamour. They want what's popular ....they want to ride the trend. The actual music is secondary.

Listen to any teenager. The groups they liked a year ago are still playing the same music...but they're not "hot" anymore. The trend has shifted.

Do you really think the wild clothes and hairstyles, the makeup, the off-stage antics, the paparazzi brigades and media spotlights have nothing to do with generating the appeal of a pop band? Why female pop stars are nearly all well above average in physical looks...and the few that are not have their photos so heavily airbrushed and retouched as to be almost unrecognizable? Why Maria Carey travels with a three makeup artists, two hairstylists, and one woman whose sole job is to spray on her perfect tan? Do you really think it helps her singing voice?

How about the example of Milli Vanilli? The musicians actually recording that music had been working for years. No one listened. If they gave a concert, only their girlfriends came. But, put a cool face on that music by pretending its from hip set of dreadlocked twins, and suddenly you're selling platinum records.

Seriously, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Ask anyone whose ever worked for a record label. Promotion is everything. Talent helps sure...by proper packaging and marketing is by far the most important factor to success in the pop music world.


RE: Kiss sucks
By Vanilla Thunder on 11/16/2007 5:59:02 PM , Rating: 1
You might know science, but you obviously have no clue about music. It's time to come down from your high horse and swallow the difficult truth. You're wrong. And it's great how you conveniently clipped my quote to suit you. Also, as usual, you pick and choose points that you can twist to suit your views. What you're talking about is not music, it's image. I'm trying to focus on the fact that MAKING MUSIC has nothing to do with image. It's pointless, I'm sure you'll have some clever retort to try and make my opinion sound invalid. Milli Vanilli? Gimme a break, that's not even admissable. And to end my rant..who cares about Pop music in it's current form? NO ONE THAT LIKES REAL MUSIC.

V.


RE: Kiss sucks
By masher2 (blog) on 11/16/2007 10:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
> "who cares about Pop music in it's current form? NO ONE THAT LIKES REAL MUSIC."

You're agreeing with me and you don't seem to realize it. You say pop is about the music, not style or image...then you deride it as being not "real music".

You might want to go back and reread the posts to see what the actual argument is here. I'm not talking about whatever you consider real music. I'm talking about pop music stars.


RE: Kiss sucks
By Oregonian2 on 11/16/2007 9:17:40 PM , Rating: 2
May not work with guys. Michael Lee Aday (Meatloaf) and many others (like all of the Rolling stones) don't look so swift. But sing great songs and/or sing them well. I like Meatloaf singing on the glory of Gershwin album (as well as the others on that one that seem so different from their usual styles of music -- although Robert Palmer managed to strongly assert his style onto "I got Rhythm"). Actually, it was one of my late father's favorite albums, but I liked it a lot too (is it allowed to like something one's parent likes? maybe I shouldn't admit to it. :-).


RE: Kiss sucks
By masher2 (blog) on 11/16/2007 9:47:51 PM , Rating: 1
In male pop stars, its not physical beauty per se, it's charisma, style and image.

And in any case, Meatloaf was never a pop music phenom. His one hit album sold well for what, 10 years? But it wasn't an overnight mega-smash. He's an excellent example of talent succeeding regardless...but he was never really part of the pop scene.


RE: Kiss sucks
By Oregonian2 on 11/19/2007 8:25:33 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree. Meatloaf made it to the top of the charts but a few times that I recall. but he did a lot of work and showed up on TV semi-often and was a "major second tier" active singer/band for a long time. He didn't disappear like most one-hit wonders do. He's done at least a dozen albums and still is touring. Look at all the other artists in the album that I mentioned that he's "elbow to elbow" with (not quite the level of Elton John, but more between Sting and sinead-oconnor). Heck, just being invited to do that album was pretty good. :-)


RE: Kiss sucks
By AzureKevin on 11/17/2007 6:14:46 PM , Rating: 2
And that is exactly why Gene bashes Trent Reznor, a man who respects his fans and even tells them to steal his own music and share it with their friends.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ5iHaV0dP4&feature...


RE: Kiss sucks
By joemoedee on 11/19/2007 3:52:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And that is exactly why Gene bashes Trent Reznor, a man who respects his fans and even tells them to steal his own music and share it with their friends.


The thing is, if Trent Reznor told people to do that before he got big, chances are he would have never been able to create the musical library that he has. Why? Because he would be broke by never making money off of music, and would spend the majority of his life working a 9-5.

Giving away music really isn't going to hurt your big bands; because they've made tons of money. If managed correctly, they would be rich. (Which I suspect is the case with KISS, Trent Reznor/NIN, Radiohead, etc.)

The up and coming bands (of any genre)? Yeah, it will hurt them. And by the large bands promoting free or discounted distribution, all they are really hurting are the little and new bands. People will come to expect free music, and will not explore the smaller, newer bands out there that are charging for their product. Thus, innovation will be lost. Many new bands will not exist. The musical landscape would be ruined in the long-term.


I don't know about the quality of KISS music but...
By petergl on 11/16/2007 1:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
I, too, agree with MrTeal and masher about the problems with this rebellious "business model". And I don't blame the KISS guy or anyone else for being angry about people stealing their music. I'm a college kid and I haven't bought more than 2 CDs in three and a half years. There isn't anything wrong with waiting to buy something until you have the money; the music isn't going to get worse if you wait four years.

In fact, I'm actually angry that people are trying to make these grand statements by throwing away potential revenue. People are starving, diseases need cures, and their biggest concerns are about getting cheaper, DRM-free music to more people? As a sociology student, I'm no fan of capitalism and its consequences, but musicians like Reznor & Radiohead suddenly seem a lot more concerned about changing the world of middle-class Americans (of which I'm one) than changing the world of people who actually need it.

Not to troll but to draw another comparison: I feel the same way about the Linux community. Lashing out against corporate sponsors for music or corporations like Microsoft is all the same to me; all of the work and passion that goes into combating each should be going into movements for real social change. If people were as passionate for helping others (and ourselves) in the world as they are for "freeing" music and beating Microsoft to the release date... well, I can't honestly can't even imagine such a scenario.

Sorry if I offended anyone who has put a lot of work into either of those things. I just can't see how people garner so much passion for breaking and bending the rules of the [capitalism] game while never actually seeking to change them.




By masher2 (blog) on 11/16/2007 2:12:15 PM , Rating: 3
If you actually want to help those people, the best thing you could do is extend the benefits of capitalism to them. Take for instance Africa-- a nation rich in land, natural resources and people...but cursed with corrupt, socialistic governments and a strong anti-capitalist, anti-business mindset. Is it any wonder their standard of living is so low?

As another example, take the capitalistic bastion of Hong Kong, a tiny crowded island with essentially no resources at all. But immediately prior to the Chinese takeover, that speck of land was generating nearly half the foreign revenues of the entire nation of China, an area some 10,000 times larger and 200X the population.

The "social change" needed to enrich and empower people is capitalism. Socialism does equalize people...but it does so simply by ensuring everyone remains poor. If you doubt that, I suggest you examine the booming economies of Cuba, North Korea, or the former Republics of the USSR.


By petergl on 11/16/2007 2:41:14 PM , Rating: 2
Well, ignoring that I never proposed that socialism replace capitalism, I think we can both agree that neither of these systems has been "utilitarianized" on paper or in action. Regardless of which of those systems, if either, could a achieve a better Pareto Optimality, they've both been in sorry states.

So, to refocus on the Reznor/Radiohead rebellion (and ignore the lackluster, obviously doomed-from-the-start Cuban/North Korean/USSR examples), would you disagree that the passions of these artists would be better spent waging a war that will have some future meaning? Obviously, so long as America remains capitalistic and those artists sell works here, any battle they win today or tomorrow will be quickly forgotten by the time they or the next generation of musicians wants some measure of sustainable success.

I'd rather see them doing something (like extending capitalism to poorer countries) that a) won't be forgotten tomorrow and b) will actually do good for people who need good. As it stands now, they're making a totally redundant struggle while (potentially) throwing away thousands of dollars and a whole lot of time and passion - all, of which, just makes me lose a great deal of respect for artists whose music I happen to really appreciate.

And, on a personal note, you're a science buff, aren't you, masher? Wouldn't you rather see the money they're throwing away to help 'liberate' music go to something just a little bit more worthwhile?


By masher2 (blog) on 11/16/2007 2:56:30 PM , Rating: 3
> "would you disagree that the passions of these artists would be better spent waging a war that will have some future meaning?"

People fight the battles that having meaning to them. To you and I this debate may have little meaning, but to a musician, it is of critical importance.

> "Wouldn't you rather see the money they're throwing away to help 'liberate' music go to something just a little bit more worthwhile? "

Sure. I'd give my eyeteeth and my firstborn to see even a tenth of the music industry's proceeds devoted to research instead. However, as silly as I think the entire industry is, I'll fight to the death to defend a person's right to spend their money on it.

You and I may scorn the idolatry of musicians, but its a natural outgrowth of society. Historically, back when staying alive was the most important goal in society, the person who helped you do that -- the warrior/knight/whatever -- was the most revered member of society. A century or two ago, when having enough money was the most important problem, society idolized the banker and the industrialist.

Today, the most severe problem facing most people is how to entertain themselves. And so we find entertainers to be considered the peak of society. We may not like it, but unless we change society itself, we're not going to stop it.


By Aarnando on 11/16/2007 3:31:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd rather see them doing something (like extending capitalism to poorer countries) that a) won't be forgotten tomorrow and b) will actually do good for people who need good.


I'm not sure why you think Trent Reznor or Radiohead would be best for the job of extending capitalism to a poorer country, but maybe you know more about their qualifications than I do.


By petergl on 11/16/2007 3:42:31 PM , Rating: 2
They're obviously not best for the job; from my own moral perspective, besides having probably saved a few people from suicide, the job they have now is mostly meaningless compared to the other things they could be doing with their money.

If you think they could be better qualified to extend capitalism to poorer countries, then maybe you'd agree that they could spend some of their money to go back to school for political science or sociology or whatever to become more qualified. To me, that'd be a lot more worthwhile than their musical liberation campaign.


By Aarnando on 11/16/2007 4:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
I respect that you think helping others is a more noble cause than changing the recording industry, but it's arrogant to judge another's work as meaningless.

I'm glad we have musicians. I'm glad some of them have enough interest in the business aspect of music to try and influence the way their industry operates. Everyone has their own interests and goals. The world would be a strange place if everyone only wanted to study sociology and bring capitalism to poor countries.


By petergl on 11/16/2007 4:58:31 PM , Rating: 2
Haha, it would be a strange place, wouldn't it? I value musicians, too. I just don't think it should be our collective focus right now and my hunch is that these musicians could likely rally a lot more people to their cause than, for instance, a host of humanitarian organizations could to theirs. I don't mean to be arrogant, just focused.


By Aarnando on 11/17/2007 10:27:43 AM , Rating: 2
So what you're suggesting is that they become figureheads for a cause? That might get some quick, short-term support from people who enjoy Radiohead or Trent's music, but what happens later when fans lose interest? I don't think exploiting the celebrity status of a band is the way to bring lasting, positive change to the world.


By RubberJohnny on 11/18/2007 10:49:48 PM , Rating: 2
Where's Bob Geldof? That sounds like a Band-Aid solution to the problem ;)


I think he's right on the business model
By MrTeal on 11/16/2007 12:43:46 PM , Rating: 1
Now, I won't comment on the quality of KISS's music or suing everyone under the sun, but I agree with the guy on Radiohead's business model.

Wait a few years, and several other releases of this nature, and see how well it works. I have a feeling that once the novelty of supporting a band that's sticking it to the man wears off, people are going to realize that they really don't want to pay for 192kps rips.

NIN's policy might work better, but that remains to be seen.




RE: I think he's right on the business model
By masher2 (blog) on 11/16/2007 12:50:34 PM , Rating: 2
> "but I agree with the guy on Radiohead's business model."

The model certainly doesn't work for generating money for record sales. It (semi) worked for Radiohead for two reasons. First, it was new and unique...I suspect that fully half of those who actually paid for the album were making a political statement, rather than voting as to worth. Longterm, if all bands were doing this, you'd find far more people chosing to pay nothing whatsoever.

But second and more importantly, it worked because Radiohead was already a well-known name, due to the millions of dollars record companies had already spent to promote them. The public seems to think labels exist to distribute records, but that's not their primary purpose. Their real job is to promote bands....that's where they spend the lion's share of their revenues.


By InsaneGain on 11/16/2007 6:28:11 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're right, but in general I don't think even well known brands would succeed. In 2000, author Stephen King tried the honor payment per chapter model for his on-line book "The Plant". The payment per download was good at first, but he ceased the test when eventually less than half of people who downloaded the chapters paid for them. To varying degrees, I think everyone is naturally self serving, and it only makes sense if the economy reflects that.


RE: I think he's right on the business model
By GeorgeOrwell on 11/17/2007 5:39:15 AM , Rating: 2
It would be interesting to know how most buyers of Radiohead's latest album originally learned about the band.

In my experience, most fans do not learn about bands that are outside of the mainstream slopwagon through "millions of dollars" of record company promotions, but through word of mouth (and its online equivalents).

After nearly two decades of having slop forced on them, many music fans have realized that supporting "big labels" is what is killing music. So many music fans gravitate to bands that are NOT promoted by the big labels.

In 10 years we will look back and wonder why the "record companies" lasted as long as they did. In a connected world where the cost of high quality music production has become affordable to many and knowledge of available music is widely and readily available, there is no substantive value add for a "record company".


RE: I think he's right on the business model
By masher2 (blog) on 11/17/2007 8:53:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"After nearly two decades of having slop forced on them, many music fans have realized that supporting "big labels" is what is killing music."

Oddly enough, I remember many people saying exactly the same thing in the 1980s....and probably the '70s and '60s too...


RE: I think he's right on the business model
By GeorgeOrwell on 11/18/2007 12:33:39 AM , Rating: 2
And what you remember is true to a certain extent. We have seen a steady decline of musical talent being the prime requisite for a recording contract, talent having being replaced with "marketability".

Today we see the ultimate realization of this decline when many big label "artists" do not make their own music, do not write their own songs, can barely sing, etc.

There are even genres of "music" such as "hip-hop" that are extensively based on sampling the music of others.

Some would consider it to be part of the overall decline of man, the inevitable result of trying to build a world based solely on the love of money.

It will be interesting to see whether or not the big labels kill the music industry rather than let it be more controlled by the artists.


By joemoedee on 11/19/2007 4:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
Marketability and copycating have been a large part of Music for the past 50 years. I don't think things have degraded or changed much at all.

Some examples...

How many Beatles rip-offs were there? Or any other successful band for that matter...

Def Leppard made their name similar to Led Zepplein on purpose...

Elvis made tons of music and money off of re-doing what was considered "black" music at the time...

Did artists have more control in the 50's and 60's? I somehow doubt it. I also would bet that the amount of artist written material is around the same as it always has been.

The problem I see with most of the complaints I read are that what's considered "Pop" music nowadays does not mesh with each person's own personal preferences.


Wow someone is in there own world
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/16/2007 12:36:39 PM , Rating: 5
Okay I know youve been in the magical rockstar land for a while, Mr. Simmons, but how many college students have houses?

Did you get bullied in college or something? Are you mad at your Lit 1500 teacher who gave you a 1.0 on your poetry "I was made for loving you"?

Or maybe you spent so much time making guest appearances on shows like American Idol, you forgot what real artists who actually have creative talent was all about?

Or maybe it was just the fact that your band was no good and were always more show and talk than actual music.

Yep, I think thats what it was.

Go out and write some real music, and then maybe someone will take you seriously. Until then save us the grief of having to hear your trash spread across the media.




RE: Wow someone is in there own world
By PWNettle on 11/16/2007 2:02:09 PM , Rating: 3
I don't agree with his attitude but I definitely agree with the fact that the scumbags that think stealing intellectual property is ok should be punished. I dunno about taking their houses (that they don't) have and such, but zero punishment is equally idiotic.

I used to like Kiss years ago. I'm not gonna say I didn't just to be one of the cool kids. I wouldn't buy their new music and have no desire to revisit their old music and think they jumped the shark ages ago. But you can't deny that the band has left a mark on music history whether you ever liked them or not.

Personally, I wouldn't listen to NIN or Radiohead unless you paid me, and even then I'd hate it, so they can give away all the crap they call music all they want. Don't care.

No clue why this is a discussion about Kiss, Gene Simmons, or music though, because that's not really the point. Oh, oh, I hate Gene Simmons and Kiss so his opinion on how piracy is lame means nothing. That makes sense.

I don't really see how the quality of their music or musical tastes have anything to do with the ideas here.

Piracy is bad.

Giving away your products isn't a typical business model. Artists, no matter how much their into their art, typically make money selling their art, not giving away their art. The high and mighty "we do it for the music/fans/art/film/whatever" sounds great til it's time to pay the bills.

I suppose everyone posting here only does community service work and doesn't work.


By maverick85wd on 11/16/2007 2:29:12 PM , Rating: 2
the point is that if someone creates music and they decide to let you pay whatever you want for it, or not at all, that is their choice and Gene Simmons getting all bent out of shape for it is stupid. It's their property, why does he even care? Who can tell you not to give away what's yours to do with as you choose?


RE: Wow someone is in there own world
By just4U on 11/20/2007 4:11:21 AM , Rating: 2
Ah ... intellectual property..

I think everything is changing rapidly in this age and people are struggling to adapt. The laws that are coming into place and ... also constantly changing are a sign of that. As is the creative distribution of some of these musicians and software companies (shareware ect) as they get their applications out.

As to scumbags and such ... that's a gray area and subject to ones opinion. Especially considering that we are all guilty...


Hah
By sj420 on 11/16/2007 12:36:20 PM , Rating: 1
Again, no offense to anyone that actually likes these losers, but this has GOT to be the worst band of all time.

Bad music, bad setup, bad people.

They are arrogant, money hungry druggies. They just want more cocaine and heroine, and if we won't give them the money to buy it they will SUE us until we don't exist anymore to get their heroine.

I am glad I have always hated bands, they are stupid people that just want money and glory. They aren't important people. They are just like celebrities, sports players, and the like.

Meaningless drones, meant to provide entertainment for other meaningless drones. They don't deserve half of what they make, let alone any of it. Maybe these rich pricks should live the life of one of these people they think shouldn't exist. When your parents tell you they won't be buying groceries for a few weeks so they can pay the bills you don't give a F*CK what some RICH PRICK thinks is right. He can go shove a steak into his fat mouth and shut up. Kiss my ass, how about that.

He is probably just angry because no one even dl's his music at all anyway. What a chump. Go make another cd kiss, losers.




RE: Hah
By Vanilla Thunder on 11/16/2007 3:12:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They are arrogant, money hungry druggies. They just want more cocaine and heroine, and if we won't give them the money to buy it they will SUE us until we don't exist anymore to get their heroine.


Wow. Is that what they told you at church this weekend?

V.


RE: Hah
By sj420 on 11/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: Hah
By Vanilla Thunder on 11/16/2007 5:53:10 PM , Rating: 2
You are a huge fan of stereotyping, aren't you?

V.


RE: Hah
By porkpie on 11/18/2007 12:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
This coming from the chap who first stereotyped him as a religious nut? How hypocritical.


Gene Simmons
By InsaneGain on 11/16/2007 4:50:34 PM , Rating: 2
To be fair, I think the article is misquoting or misunderstanding Gene Simmons intentions. I don’t think that he was suggesting that “Every little college kid” should have been sued. I’m sure he was only referring to the college kids that were distributing the music. Also, I don’t think he was being hypocritical. It appeared to me that when he said “The most important part is the music” his intention was to say that it is the sales of the recorded music that is the most important to the business model, not the live concerts and the merchandise. If you give the recorded music away for free, this devalues the entire perception of the product and will inexorably devalue the perceived value of the concerts and merchandise in turn. This connect is taught in first year marketing classes.

I'm not a Kiss fan or a Kiss hater, but it's obvious to me that Gene Simmons is not a stupid person. Despite any possible illicit drug use, and the frequent use of profanity, the objective fact is that he is extremely creative, an accomplished musician and writer, and apparently has an astute mind for business. He's accomplished much more than most of us ever will. How many successful albums, books or TV shows have you been a part of? The fact is, he has some valid points.
He is right that in general, the 'Pay what you want' business model runs counter to the tendency for human nature to maximize self interest, and will fail. Read up on why the various Utopian societies throughout history have always failed. He is right in that much of the perceived value in a good or service is just perception. It can very easily be permanently devalued. People will start to perceive the product is essentially worthless and will refuse to pay anything for it. If a sports team decided to let fans in for free for a season, the perceived value of the seats would be permanently damaged, and it would be very difficult to charge them at the established rate again.




RE: Gene Simmons
By Vanilla Thunder on 11/16/2007 4:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It appeared to me that when he said “The most important part is the music” his intention was to say that it is the sales of the recorded music that is the most important to the business model, not the live concerts and the merchandise.


Sorry, but that's not how the process works. Bands/artists see a MINIMAL amount of return from the recorded music. The majority of the money that the band sees is from touring and merchandise. Why do you think you can buy anything under the sun with "KISS" slapped onto it? Because Gene Simmons knows that long after the albums stopped selling, the T-shirts, shot glasses, and bumper stickers would continue to make him money. You can buy ANYTHING with that magic logo on it, and that's one of things that keeps Gene Simmons rolling in the dough.

Vanilla


RE: Gene Simmons
By InsaneGain on 11/16/2007 6:05:13 PM , Rating: 3
No need to apologize. The Dailytech article stated that Simmons was being a hypocrite when he implied that creating the music is important, not the money. My point was that this was misconstrued. Regardless of how the music industry works, if you actually read the interview, it looks to me like Simmons is saying that it is the recorded music that is "most important to the business model " which I'm assuming includes the recording companies and all the promotion and marketing they do. It looked to me that he is saying that the perception of value in the recorded music drives the perception of value in the sales of concerts and merchandise, regardless of who actually receives the most revenue from the recordings. If the recorded music becomes a low value commodity, then so will the concerts and merchandise. So Simmons did not seem to be making hypocritical statements to me.


hmmm...
By maverick85wd on 11/16/2007 2:15:53 PM , Rating: 2
how does this
quote:
But according to Gene, it's not about the money. "The most important part is the music. Without that, why would you care?"

make make an assertion in this direction?
quote:
"I open a store and say 'Come on in and pay whatever you want.' Are you on f---ing crack? Do you really believe that's a business model that works?"

If it's not about the money what's all this talk about business models? If it's all about music, why would you want someone who enjoys listening to your music to lose their house, etc. for doing so? I don't understand how he can say Radiohead and those that use a similar business model are NOT about the music when they're the ones who are clearly more interested in having their music enjoyed by their fans... gotta love hypocrisy.

I understand it's frustrating to see your hard work go for nothing, but KISS has made outrageous amounts of money so I fail to see why he is so upset... perhaps living like a rock star has been rough for him...




RE: hmmm...
By Schrag4 on 11/16/2007 10:11:29 PM , Rating: 1
"I understand it's frustrating to see your hard work go for nothing, but KISS has made outrageous amounts of money so I fail to see why he is so upset..."

Excellent point! Once someone's made an outrageous amount of money, it's ok to steal from that person! You get a gold star!

...so goes the chant of all those that are trying to justify their own illegal behavior...


RE: hmmm...
By Christopher1 on 11/18/2007 6:09:39 AM , Rating: 1
Wrong. He is saying that the man has made enough money off the songs and albums, that a few people downloading illegally, WHO WOULD NOT HAVE BOUGHT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO, isn't bleeping well going to hurt KISS at all.

Oh, and can't you start posting under ONE name? I've seen posting like yours under the names Masher, Schrag4 and a couple of others....... why do you keep posting under multiple names?


RE: hmmm...
By Schrag4 on 11/19/2007 4:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
Response to Paragraph 1: Just because one cannot afford music doesn't mean they should be able to download it illegally. I mean, it's wrong to steal food, but I'll feel much more sympathy for the starving food thief than I feel for the person with no money that wants to listen to music. Turn on the radio. It's free.

Response to paragraph 2: I'm not masher. I'm not all those other people you think I am. It may surprise you to know that there are more than one of us that feel the same way about this issue. I've never posted under multiple names (or even considered it). I'm guessing maybe you post under multiple names, since you seem to think that way. Typical attitude of a cheater/thief I guess. Let's get away with whatever we can, law-abiders be damned...

Reminds me of a Simpsons quote. Nelson and his friends were stealing from the big 'Mart' store, and Nelson justifies it like this: "Shoplifting is a victimless crime, like punching someone in the dark!" I used to think of that quote as just a funny/stupid quote. But sadly, a lot of people just don't get that there's no such thing as a victimless crime.

Go ahead, steal music. I'm sure no prices anywhere will be raised to account for your actions (and the actions of thousands, if not millions of others). Make fraudulant insurance claims. I'm sure nobody's rates will go up to compensate. Find a loophole in the ordering system of an online merchant's website to get stuff for free. I'm sure they won't have to cut their workers' pay or raise fees to make back what they lost. Nobody gets hurt, right?


Be mad Gene it doesnt matter...
By Cattman on 11/17/2007 1:15:10 AM , Rating: 2
This issue is decided period. People are going to download copyrighted content. The MPAA RIAA ABCD or whatever can sue, the government can legislate it matters not. The people still have the power and whether they realize it or not they are exercising it. When tens of millions of people world wide are downloading copyrighted content off the internet the question of right or wrong legal or not is irrelevant. It simply is. There is no way to effectively police or deter this volume of activity. The Record labels, artists and studios are being forced to change their business models and profit schedules. They are not too happy with this turn of events and are going to fight it tooth and nail but make no mistake this issue is decided. So be mad be glad embrace it call it a travesty of justice or just plain criminal. The industries and artists will either roll with it and find new ways to make money or they will wither and die.




Gene Simmons is a giant turd
By SavagePotato on 11/17/2007 1:18:58 AM , Rating: 2
I wanna peer to peer all night, and torrent every day.

Wheres my millions. I thought that was better than the average Kiss song.

Seriously though, this guy is just one gigantic rich turd. I saw some interview with him where he was trashing Kurt Cobain to the effect of "I'm glad that loser commited suicide, more fame money and attention for me".

I think i'll find better things to spend my money on than listening to Gene repeat himself 35 times to a beat while sticking a flaming sword up his you know what.




Kiss
By hifistyle on 11/17/2007 10:39:30 AM , Rating: 2
Huh. Never liked his music, myself.




CD prices
By andrinoaa on 11/17/2007 7:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
Well for one, I think Gene is on crack!
How long will record companies be able to rip off consumers?
Example. The beatles stopped being the beatles about 1968. Their records sold for about $10.00 then. I understood that vinyl records took a lot of effort to produce and the musicians needed a return ( slim even by any standard ).
Today, I saw a beatles CD selling for $32. Today it costs a record company sweet FA to manufacture. How much did the record company spend to put this cd out? This consumer is fed spin.
Massher, sorry, but when the majority feels that a law is wrong, the law is doomed to fail. This is a failure caused by pure greed. Most people have purchased blanc cds and know how much a cd costs to manufacture.
I suggest that $5-$10 for a cd would be enough for the majority.
Anything more makes me think I am being ripped off! AND others obviously feel the same !
PS I would rather buy the CD because of its reasonable recording qualities than a trashy MP3. I personally think MP3 sounds ok on crap players but DIABOLICAL on anything reasonable. But $32 for something going on 40yrs old? Its a no brainer sir!
You obviously were asleep during social science class.




Intellectual Property
By lopri on 11/18/2007 2:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
I read the first few comments on this news so I am not sure where the arguments stand now, but let me ask a few imaginary questions to RIAA-proponents.

1. My roommate downstairs purchased Britney Spears new album and started playing the songs. Since there is no door blocking sound to upstairs, I got to enjoy the music that I didn't pay for. My roommate didn't know till later that I was listening to the music that he purchased. Am I guilty for not using ear plugs? Should my roommate call RIAA and let them know about it? If I have to pay, who's getting the money?

2. Next day, Britney's brand new songs stayed in my memory and in a friends gathering I did a little performance - they got to learn about her new songs, too. By singing a song that I have no intellectual right whatsoever, am I breaking a law? My friends, who had no previous knowledge of the song, should call the Police? Sure I'm not Britney Spears but I have no right to use the song in any way as far as I know.

3. Afterwards, one of the party members went out and buy the album, which wouldn't have happened without my performance. I feel like I contributed to Britney's earning. Should I send an invoice?

I know my example is very crude, but the intellectual property in digital age is an extremely complicated matter (of which time/space/object/subject are all mixed together in a traditional sense) and it's kinda silly to look at it from 'capitalism' vs 'socialism'.

But of course that I could see that conservatives are stupid regardless of their education and liberals are, well, under-educated, as usual. ;)




Take one in the eye!
By NullSubroutine on 11/18/2007 3:40:46 PM , Rating: 2
Just to spite Simmons I just downloaded all the KISS music burned it onto a DVD then put it in the toilet and urinated on it.

I am still trying to figure how get it out of the bowl without getting myself all yucky...meh it was worth it.




"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard
Related Articles
















botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki