Gene Simmons: 'Radiohead's on Crack for Letting Fans Pay What They Want'

Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Gene Simmons: 'Radiohead's on Crack for Letting Fans Pay What They Want'

« Previous topic

Next topic »

Page 1 of 2 12 >

Create new topic

Printable version (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)

Author

Message

Thread started 11/24/07 9:16am

TonyVanDam

avatar

Gene Simmons: 'Radiohead's on Crack for Letting Fans Pay What They Want'

Here another good article for good thought and/or laugh. Enjoy!

http://www.zeropaid.com/n...y+Want%27/

Kiss frontman criticizes them for letting fans pay as little or as much as they please for their latest album "In Rainbows," and says every file-sharer should be sued off the face of the earth.

The always outspoken and always hustling Gene Simmons of Kiss had much to say recently about the state of music, illegal file-sharing, and Radiohead's decision to let fans choose the price of the recently released "In Rainbows."

There's no doubt that Simmons comes from the old school music biz where people had to trek down to the local music store and wait in line to buy an overpriced CD each time their favorite music artist made a new album.

You can tell by a recent interview that he hasn't quite figured out yet that times have changed, that CDs are pretty much finished and that music is slowly becoming a commodity that nobody wants to pay for any longer unless the proceeds go directly to the artist themselves.

"There is nothing in me that wants to go in there and do new music," he says. " How are you going to deliver it? How are you going to get paid for it if people can just get it for free?"

He then goes on to criticize college kids, and every "freshly-scrubbed little kid" who illegally shares music files and they both "...should have been sued off the face of the earth."

Gene: The record industry doesn't have a f*cking clue how to make money. It's only their fault for letting foxes get into the henhouse and then wondering why there's no eggs or chickens. Every little college kid, every freshly-scrubbed little kid's face 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. Those kids are putting 100,000 to a million people out of work. How can you pick on them? They've got freckles. That's a crook. He may as well be wearing a bandit's mask.

I'm not sure about the freckles and the freshly-scrubbed faces, but I do know that it's ironic that he defends an industry that robbed artists and fans alike for decades! Musicians from the earliest days of recorded music through the 1970's were routinely tricked out of the rights to their music and ended up living lives of poverty while record labels bathed themselves in profits. Also, who is the mystery million people who are supposedly unemployed now? Store clerks at Tower Records don't count.

The notion of free music, where artists then make money exclusively through touring and sales of merchandise also rubs him the wrong way.

Gene: Well therein lies the most stupid mistake anybody can make. The most important part is the music. Without that, why would you care? Even the idea that you're considering giving the music away for free makes it easier to give it away for free. The only reason why gold is expensive is because we all agree that it is. There's no real use for it, except we all agree and abide by the idea that gold costs a certain amount per ounce. As soon as you give people the choice to deviate from it, you have chaos and anarchy. And that's what going on.

But, considering that that's how most artists make their money anyways is it really such a wild idea? With CD sales in decline, and artists making only $2 bucks per CD, concerts and merchandising are the real bread and butter of their livelihood. If giving their music away for free meant higher turnout and sales for both the wouldn't be a good thing? Free music could be its best method of advertising. It would show people why you should go seem them play or buy a t-shirt that tells everybody just how good you think they are.

For years fans were also made to pay $20 bucks for a CD that music artists got only $2 bucks for anyways. So who's the real loser here? Is it artists or record labels? I think its the former, but Simmons seems to think its the latter. The internet has taken distribution power from record labels and finally put in the hands of the artists themselves. They can make music and sell it to anybody in the world for whatever price they choose AND all of the money goes to them. How is that not a good thing?

He criticizes artist like Radiohead and Trent Reznor who are trying to find a new business model where fans dictate price.

Gene: That doesn't count. You can't pick on one person as an exception. And that's not a business model that works. I open a store and say "Come on in and pay whatever you want." Are you on f*cking crack? Do you really believe that's a business model that works?

I guess nobody told him how well "In Rainbows" did or that record labels were charging almost $30 bucks for a NIN CD in Australia. Fans are more than willing to support an artist directly and I think Radiohead proved that beyond a doubt.

Simmons also says that he feels sorry for artists trying to make a buck these days and to make it big. "But imagine being a new band with dreams of getting on stage and putting out your own record," he says. "Forget it." I guess nobody's told him that the internet gives everybody and anybody their own stage to succeed on. Just ask the Arctic Monkeys for heavens sake.

Tupac "Makaveli" Shakur (RIP 1971-1996) & Michael Jackson (RIP 1958-2009)

2 men that had their lives taken away the moment they were speaking out AND rebelling against the dark side of the music industry once too often.

Anxiety	old people
	- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator