New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
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. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
old people  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Good OLD Gene. Probably still working out what the ON button on a computer's for. There are three sides to every story. My side, your side, and the truth. And no one is lying. Memories shared serve each one differently | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
KISS was hardly much more than a business effort for him. Once in a while they tried something resembling artistry (uhm "The Elder"?), but seriously, it was a band whose career was funded by an audience that was even a decade or more younger than the freckled face age group he is referring to. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Well Gene knows what he is talking about mainly because he always had the mind for business from day one of starting in music. He is merely saying that most of whats going on is not smart business. The RadioHead thing may have worked for RadioHead "somewhat" but it wouldnt work for about 90% of the artists out there, where if given a choice who would spend anything. Also Gene wasnt part of the Overpriced CD generation, hes a vinyl artist, and Vinyl was priced accordingly. The article points out about people being put out of work and claims that he isnt talking about music store employees, well of course the article would say that since, articles are done by corporations so u got to twist it to make Gene look "clueless", but case in point Last year you lost the Tower Records chain and 90% of the Musicland Chain, in 2008 you will lose 20% of the FYE chain and YES Best Buy and other BIG BOX stores are cutting there music departments 20%, because the music is what causes them to lose money daily, they take a 3 dollar hit at least on every CD they sale and now they are cutting stock back to accomodate those losses. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TonyVanDam said: 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 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lastdecember said: Well Gene knows what he is talking about mainly because he always had the mind for business from day one of starting in music. He is merely saying that most of whats going on is not smart business. The RadioHead thing may have worked for RadioHead "somewhat" but it wouldnt work for about 90% of the artists out there, where if given a choice who would spend anything. Also Gene wasnt part of the Overpriced CD generation, hes a vinyl artist, and Vinyl was priced accordingly. The article points out about people being put out of work and claims that he isnt talking about music store employees, well of course the article would say that since, articles are done by corporations so u got to twist it to make Gene look "clueless", but case in point Last year you lost the Tower Records chain and 90% of the Musicland Chain, in 2008 you will lose 20% of the FYE chain and YES Best Buy and other BIG BOX stores are cutting there music departments 20%, because the music is what causes them to lose money daily, they take a 3 dollar hit at least on every CD they sale and now they are cutting stock back to accomodate those losses.
gene cares more about the business aspect of making music than the expression aspect, which is fine and completely valid, but it's not the only valid approach out there. if an artist has the money to offer initiatives to fans such as what radiohead and NIN have done, why not take a calculated risk and offer an album online at a "name your own price" charge? radiohead beat the unauthorized leaks in a way that makes the band and the fans happy...that in itself is a victory, i'd say. i think what NIN and radiohead are doing are exciting, and i hope it's a hint of what's to come with other artists, where it's more about developing a strong bond between artist and listener and creating more direct ways of getting music. gene needs to stick to licensing KISS's image to pinball machines and coffins. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: old people
I resemble that remark sir... 
tA  Tribal Disorder
http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431 "Ya see, we're not interested in what you know...but what you are willing to learn. C'mon y'all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
theAudience said: Anxiety said: old people
I resemble that remark sir...
tA Tribal Disorder
http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431 no you don't. there's experienced, there's refined and then there's just plain damn-kids-get-outta-my-yard OLD. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: lastdecember said: Well Gene knows what he is talking about mainly because he always had the mind for business from day one of starting in music. He is merely saying that most of whats going on is not smart business. The RadioHead thing may have worked for RadioHead "somewhat" but it wouldnt work for about 90% of the artists out there, where if given a choice who would spend anything. Also Gene wasnt part of the Overpriced CD generation, hes a vinyl artist, and Vinyl was priced accordingly. The article points out about people being put out of work and claims that he isnt talking about music store employees, well of course the article would say that since, articles are done by corporations so u got to twist it to make Gene look "clueless", but case in point Last year you lost the Tower Records chain and 90% of the Musicland Chain, in 2008 you will lose 20% of the FYE chain and YES Best Buy and other BIG BOX stores are cutting there music departments 20%, because the music is what causes them to lose money daily, they take a 3 dollar hit at least on every CD they sale and now they are cutting stock back to accomodate those losses.
gene cares more about the business aspect of making music than the expression aspect, which is fine and completely valid, but it's not the only valid approach out there. if an artist has the money to offer initiatives to fans such as what radiohead and NIN have done, why not take a calculated risk and offer an album online at a "name your own price" charge? radiohead beat the unauthorized leaks in a way that makes the band and the fans happy...that in itself is a victory, i'd say. i think what NIN and radiohead are doing are exciting, and i hope it's a hint of what's to come with other artists, where it's more about developing a strong bond between artist and listener and creating more direct ways of getting music. gene needs to stick to licensing KISS's image to pinball machines and coffins. well true in some respects but that is a new business model is only going to work if you are established and have LOYAL fans, which Radiohead and NIN do and honestly KISS could do this tomorrow and make a quick million. But its funny Gene is spun as being anti-business and trying new things considering he fought for and got every piece of ownership of all their material, while other band members were boozing it up Gene made sure they had a financial future and now can do whatever he wants with that music, at the end of the day its all business and every artist is looking to make their money, but im sure Radiohead and NIN wished that they owned their back catalog, to my knowledge they dont. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
TonyVanDam said: Gene: Are you on f*cking crack? Do you really believe that's a business model that works?  love is a fate resigned memories mar my mind love it is a fate resigned Over futile odds and laughed at by the Gods and now the final frame Love is a losing game |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Anxiety said: and then there's just plain damn-kids-get-outta-my-yard OLD.
 love is a fate resigned memories mar my mind love it is a fate resigned Over futile odds and laughed at by the Gods and now the final frame Love is a losing game |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: gene needs to stick to licensing KISS's image to pinball machines and coffins.
And then there's the infant-wear... 
...Old Gene doesn't miss a trick with his cradle-to-grave merchandising. tA Tribal Disorder
http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431 "Ya see, we're not interested in what you know...but what you are willing to learn. C'mon y'all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Maybe Gene would be happier if the Radiohead price was set? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
theAudience said: Anxiety said: gene needs to stick to licensing KISS's image to pinball machines and coffins.
And then there's the infant-wear...
...Old Gene doesn't miss a trick with his cradle-to-grave merchandising. tA Tribal Disorder
http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431 But why shouldnt he? Didnt Prince jam that damn symbol down our throats for a decade, and put it on shirts, tattoos etc... "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: theAudience said: no you don't. there's experienced, there's refined and then there's just plain damn-kids-get-outta-my-yard OLD. 
Again, I resemble that remark sir...
tA Tribal Disorder
http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431 "Ya see, we're not interested in what you know...but what you are willing to learn. C'mon y'all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lastdecember said: But why shouldnt he? Never said he shouldn't. It's a capitalist society. Simply an observation. tA Tribal Disorder
http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431 "Ya see, we're not interested in what you know...but what you are willing to learn. C'mon y'all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lastdecember said: Anxiety said: gene cares more about the business aspect of making music than the expression aspect, which is fine and completely valid, but it's not the only valid approach out there. if an artist has the money to offer initiatives to fans such as what radiohead and NIN have done, why not take a calculated risk and offer an album online at a "name your own price" charge? radiohead beat the unauthorized leaks in a way that makes the band and the fans happy...that in itself is a victory, i'd say. i think what NIN and radiohead are doing are exciting, and i hope it's a hint of what's to come with other artists, where it's more about developing a strong bond between artist and listener and creating more direct ways of getting music. gene needs to stick to licensing KISS's image to pinball machines and coffins. well true in some respects but that is a new business model is only going to work if you are established and have LOYAL fans, which Radiohead and NIN do and honestly KISS could do this tomorrow and make a quick million. But its funny Gene is spun as being anti-business and trying new things considering he fought for and got every piece of ownership of all their material, while other band members were boozing it up Gene made sure they had a financial future and now can do whatever he wants with that music, at the end of the day its all business and every artist is looking to make their money, but im sure Radiohead and NIN wished that they owned their back catalog, to my knowledge they dont. to the contrary, i think gene is thought of as being very very very PRO-business, sometimes to the detriment of the creative end. but i also think KISS is like the "Star Wars" of rock music. It's not just about the original source content - it's about the action figures, the comic books, the bed sheets, the sippee cups, etc. - there's no point in looking for artistic purity in the KISS franchise, because to judge them that way is missing the whole point of what makes them fun. That said, I really can't take what Gene Simmons has to say about Radiohead at all seriously. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
theAudience said: Anxiety said: no you don't. there's experienced, there's refined and then there's just plain damn-kids-get-outta-my-yard OLD.
Again, I resemble that remark sir...
tA Tribal Disorder
http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431 if that's the case, i'd hate to see what i resemble! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cinnie said: Maybe Gene would be happier if the Radiohead price was set?
He did say people taking the music FOR FREE were pirates, essentially, but maybe if Radiohead had offered a download with a price, Gene would be aight? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: if that's the case, i'd hate to see what i resemble! Unfortunately... 
...I think we all end up there at some point. 
tA Tribal Disorder
http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431 "Ya see, we're not interested in what you know...but what you are willing to learn. C'mon y'all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: lastdecember said: well true in some respects but that is a new business model is only going to work if you are established and have LOYAL fans, which Radiohead and NIN do and honestly KISS could do this tomorrow and make a quick million. But its funny Gene is spun as being anti-business and trying new things considering he fought for and got every piece of ownership of all their material, while other band members were boozing it up Gene made sure they had a financial future and now can do whatever he wants with that music, at the end of the day its all business and every artist is looking to make their money, but im sure Radiohead and NIN wished that they owned their back catalog, to my knowledge they dont. to the contrary, i think gene is thought of as being very very very PRO-business, sometimes to the detriment of the creative end. but i also think KISS is like the "Star Wars" of rock music. It's not just about the original source content - it's about the action figures, the comic books, the bed sheets, the sippee cups, etc. - there's no point in looking for artistic purity in the KISS franchise, because to judge them that way is missing the whole point of what makes them fun. That said, I really can't take what Gene Simmons has to say about Radiohead at all seriously. Well its all business in the end, whether the music is "cheesey" or "creative" is for people to judge, but both are going for the same end result, to make money and have ownership of what you do, and i think Tom and Gene and Trent would all agree on that. I mean i respect Radioheads move, but it only was successful somewhat because they had a fan base to begin with. And its no different than pimping stuff off your own website. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lastdecember said: Anxiety said: to the contrary, i think gene is thought of as being very very very PRO-business, sometimes to the detriment of the creative end. but i also think KISS is like the "Star Wars" of rock music. It's not just about the original source content - it's about the action figures, the comic books, the bed sheets, the sippee cups, etc. - there's no point in looking for artistic purity in the KISS franchise, because to judge them that way is missing the whole point of what makes them fun. That said, I really can't take what Gene Simmons has to say about Radiohead at all seriously. Well its all business in the end, whether the music is "cheesey" or "creative" is for people to judge, but both are going for the same end result, to make money and have ownership of what you do, and i think Tom and Gene and Trent would all agree on that. I mean i respect Radioheads move, but it only was successful somewhat because they had a fan base to begin with. And its no different than pimping stuff off your own website. i'm not really arguing the merits or "cred" of the actual music, with regards to KISS vs. NIN vs. radiohead vs. anyone else. i guess i'm talking more about the image of the band as a product, which, yes, i understand that NIN and radiohead are as much PRODUCTS as they are BANDS...it's just a matter of how you want to create an identity for that product. i guess what i'm trying to say is, the product of "KISS" is very different from the product of "RADIOHEAD". it's like comparing a box of Hamburger Helper with an Amy's Kitchen frozen vegan burrito. They're both on the shelves so we will give them our money, but I'd venture that each of those two products target very different customer bases with maybe a little bit of overlap. I certainly wouldn't care what someone from Craft or Betty Crocker would have to say about vegan or organic grocery items, since they're the last companies on earth I'd equate with vegan or organic items! But whether you're shucking MSG or tofu or schlock rock or experimental prog rock, a product is a product and business is business. I think Radiohead made a smart move. They have a limited edition album for 80 bucks that they promoted with the "pay as you will" download. I'm sure they're making a pretty penny from that. They beat the filesharers with their album download, and they made a few bucks at that. Another victory. And then the "regular" CD release comes out in January, and I'm sure that's going to sell very well. I fail to see the crackhead logic here! I think it's very savvy marketing sense. I also don't think there's a thing wrong with pimping out music on one's own web site, whether you're Radiohead or some obscure garage band nobody's ever heard of. It's what the web is for, ideally speaking. A really kickass band in Utah can be heard by people in Australia. I'm always very happy when a favorite obscure artist of mine shares some free tracks on their web site. I can direct friends there and give them a no-risk intro to someone I really like. Pimp away! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: lastdecember said: Well its all business in the end, whether the music is "cheesey" or "creative" is for people to judge, but both are going for the same end result, to make money and have ownership of what you do, and i think Tom and Gene and Trent would all agree on that. I mean i respect Radioheads move, but it only was successful somewhat because they had a fan base to begin with. And its no different than pimping stuff off your own website. i'm not really arguing the merits or "cred" of the actual music, with regards to KISS vs. NIN vs. radiohead vs. anyone else. i guess i'm talking more about the image of the band as a product, which, yes, i understand that NIN and radiohead are as much PRODUCTS as they are BANDS...it's just a matter of how you want to create an identity for that product. i guess what i'm trying to say is, the product of "KISS" is very different from the product of "RADIOHEAD". it's like comparing a box of Hamburger Helper with an Amy's Kitchen frozen vegan burrito. They're both on the shelves so we will give them our money, but I'd venture that each of those two products target very different customer bases with maybe a little bit of overlap. I certainly wouldn't care what someone from Craft or Betty Crocker would have to say about vegan or organic grocery items, since they're the last companies on earth I'd equate with vegan or organic items! But whether you're shucking MSG or tofu or schlock rock or experimental prog rock, a product is a product and business is business. I think Radiohead made a smart move. They have a limited edition album for 80 bucks that they promoted with the "pay as you will" download. I'm sure they're making a pretty penny from that. They beat the filesharers with their album download, and they made a few bucks at that. Another victory. And then the "regular" CD release comes out in January, and I'm sure that's going to sell very well. I fail to see the crackhead logic here! I think it's very savvy marketing sense. I also don't think there's a thing wrong with pimping out music on one's own web site, whether you're Radiohead or some obscure garage band nobody's ever heard of. It's what the web is for, ideally speaking. A really kickass band in Utah can be heard by people in Australia. I'm always very happy when a favorite obscure artist of mine shares some free tracks on their web site. I can direct friends there and give them a no-risk intro to someone I really like. Pimp away! Which is what im saying, there is no difference in what Gene has done than what Radiohead or Prince or anyone else does, they are all going for the end result, and if any say they arent, they are trying somehting "artistic" that is a lie, its about making money. I dont think theres anything wrong with selling music from an official site, i think those sales should get factored into the Bullshit charts that are now all bought and sold. This would benefit alot of indie acts and also alot of older acts who just dont wanna get lost at a label. A girl i know(candice pillay) out in LA sold her CD via her myspace site, and sold about 100,000 at 10 bucks a pop, now of course 100,000 would get you dropped from a label or called "over" but are we kidding here, that is pure profit and thats what in the end the artists want, which is what they deserve. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Co-Sign from a business point of view the give away is not going to work for all artist or groups and even if you hate KISS. Gene is a smart business man.
In addtion, I miss going to the record store on Saturday. Some of you who just want free music and the stupid industry should sit back and think about how everything has been ruin. ----- lastdecember said: Well Gene knows what he is talking about mainly because he always had the mind for business from day one of starting in music. He is merely saying that most of whats going on is not smart business. The RadioHead thing may have worked for RadioHead "somewhat" but it wouldnt work for about 90% of the artists out there, where if given a choice who would spend anything. Also Gene wasnt part of the Overpriced CD generation, hes a vinyl artist, and Vinyl was priced accordingly. The article points out about people being put out of work and claims that he isnt talking about music store employees, well of course the article would say that since, articles are done by corporations so u got to twist it to make Gene look "clueless", but case in point Last year you lost the Tower Records chain and 90% of the Musicland Chain, in 2008 you will lose 20% of the FYE chain and YES Best Buy and other BIG BOX stores are cutting there music departments 20%, because the music is what causes them to lose money daily, they take a 3 dollar hit at least on every CD they sale and now they are cutting stock back to accomodate those losses. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lastdecember said: Which is what im saying, there is no difference in what Gene has done than what Radiohead or Prince or anyone else does, they are all going for the end result, and if any say they arent, they are trying somehting "artistic" that is a lie, its about making money. I dont think theres anything wrong with selling music from an official site, i think those sales should get factored into the Bullshit charts that are now all bought and sold. This would benefit alot of indie acts and also alot of older acts who just dont wanna get lost at a label. A girl i know(candice pillay) out in LA sold her CD via her myspace site, and sold about 100,000 at 10 bucks a pop, now of course 100,000 would get you dropped from a label or called "over" but are we kidding here, that is pure profit and thats what in the end the artists want, which is what they deserve. i think that's a little overly cynical, but i will also say there is a smidge of truth in there. of course bands want to make money, lots of it. they want the work they love to be something self-sustaining, and they want success and all the fabulous things that come with being a rock star (and any rock musician who says they don't want even just a TASTE of the trappings of fame is full of it). i do think when people who really love making music become hugely popular, they can decide to scale back and take risks for the sake of their art, and also because they can afford to try different models of marketing their music. if what radiohead and NIN did this year makes it easier and more affordable for artists and audiences to connect in the long run, then good for them. it's interesting about your friend - it's almost as if it's more lucrative to be an indie or "DIY" artist than it is to be signed with a label, as long as the product you're selling is hot enough for people to want. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
You can easily judge Gene as being a bit old school. And in a way, he is. But he does have validity. Basically, the only artists raking some money off of CD sales are artists with huge follwings like Madonna and The Eagles, or artists that are BIG and not just your average artist like JT and Kanye West. Everyone else makes very little off of their music. Based on the effort the artist puts on their CDs, that does suck because, in the end, you want your album to get proper recognition and make good profit.
As for Radiohead's stunt with their latest CD, I don't think it was a dumb move. Basically, they're an act that can afford to do that based on the fact that they have a sizable (and dedicated) fanbase who will go out and buy the CD. Same with Nine Inch Nails. I'm not sure if it would be much of a profitable idea for any other act, though. For example, if Rihanna were to do such a stunt, I don't think you'd have many going out and spending money on the physical product. So yea, I think Gene's views are a two way street. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cinnie said: 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
Cheat sheet music is way cooler....and cheaper! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: lastdecember said: Well Gene knows what he is talking about mainly because he always had the mind for business from day one of starting in music. He is merely saying that most of whats going on is not smart business. The RadioHead thing may have worked for RadioHead "somewhat" but it wouldnt work for about 90% of the artists out there, where if given a choice who would spend anything. Also Gene wasnt part of the Overpriced CD generation, hes a vinyl artist, and Vinyl was priced accordingly. The article points out about people being put out of work and claims that he isnt talking about music store employees, well of course the article would say that since, articles are done by corporations so u got to twist it to make Gene look "clueless", but case in point Last year you lost the Tower Records chain and 90% of the Musicland Chain, in 2008 you will lose 20% of the FYE chain and YES Best Buy and other BIG BOX stores are cutting there music departments 20%, because the music is what causes them to lose money daily, they take a 3 dollar hit at least on every CD they sale and now they are cutting stock back to accomodate those losses.
gene cares more about the business aspect of making music than the expression aspect, which is fine and completely valid, but it's not the only valid approach out there. if an artist has the money to offer initiatives to fans such as what radiohead and NIN have done, why not take a calculated risk and offer an album online at a "name your own price" charge? radiohead beat the unauthorized leaks in a way that makes the band and the fans happy...that in itself is a victory, i'd say. i think what NIN and radiohead are doing are exciting, and i hope it's a hint of what's to come with other artists, where it's more about developing a strong bond between artist and listener and creating more direct ways of getting music. gene needs to stick to licensing KISS's image to pinball machines and coffins. Every artist needs to ask them: Are you into music as a art form? OR Are you into music as a business? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lastdecember said: Anxiety said: gene cares more about the business aspect of making music than the expression aspect, which is fine and completely valid, but it's not the only valid approach out there. if an artist has the money to offer initiatives to fans such as what radiohead and NIN have done, why not take a calculated risk and offer an album online at a "name your own price" charge? radiohead beat the unauthorized leaks in a way that makes the band and the fans happy...that in itself is a victory, i'd say. i think what NIN and radiohead are doing are exciting, and i hope it's a hint of what's to come with other artists, where it's more about developing a strong bond between artist and listener and creating more direct ways of getting music. gene needs to stick to licensing KISS's image to pinball machines and coffins. well true in some respects but that is a new business model is only going to work if you are established and have LOYAL fans, which Radiohead and NIN do and honestly KISS could do this tomorrow and make a quick million. But its funny Gene is spun as being anti-business and trying new things considering he fought for and got every piece of ownership of all their material, while other band members were boozing it up Gene made sure they had a financial future and now can do whatever he wants with that music, at the end of the day its all business and every artist is looking to make their money, but im sure Radiohead and NIN wished that they owned their back catalog, to my knowledge they dont. And don't forget about Paul Stanley. [Edited 11/24/07 16:39pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |