JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Gene Simmons blames college kids for ruining music biz

Gene Simmons blames college kids for ruining music biz

To Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails: Get off my lawn!

By Austin Modine → More by this author

Published Friday 16th November 2007 19:25 GMT

Music pirates have made a powerfully bitter enemy of Gene Simmons, bass guitarist for the 1970s band Kiss.

In a recent interview with Billboard, Simmons curmudgeonly blames "college kids" for the "mess" the record industry is in, and blasted artists like Radiohead and Trent Reznor for seeking a different businesses model to vend their music.

"The record industry doesn't have a f---ing clue how to make money," Simmons told Billboard.

"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."

[Ah, the lucrative college kid housing market. Excellent point, tongue man. - Ed.]

The dream of suing a person completely off the face of the earth has yet to be realized. The RIAA has thus far only been successful in being awarded damages from an individual equal to 2 per cent of the gross national product of South Pacific island of Tokelau.

On the subject of Radiohead and Trent Reznor's unusual business models:

"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?"

Simmons said that he doesn't plan on making a new KISS album because he doesn't know how he'll get paid for it if people can just get it for free.

Still, Simmons continues that the most important part of the business is the music.

"Without that, why would you care?"

Simmons is currently filming the third season of his A&E reality show "Gene Simmons Family Jewels," working on an animated show on kids' network Nickelodeon called "My Dad the Rock Star," and writing his third book, "Ladies of the Night," an expose on prostitution. He's also developing his own publishing company which will open this spring and owns Simmons Comics, which makes three comic series based on characters he created.

So, you know, he's really hurting for cash.

"No one — and that includes the Beatles and Elvis — can touch our merchandising and licensing. Nobody. Outside of the music world, it's only Disney and Lucas. But in the music world, they can't shine our shoes." ®

Gene always makes me feel so smart and well behaved.

Once you have Gene's success, professionally and financially, with huge current contracts in place as well, you can probably call it pretty safe that his opinion won't have much affect on his bottom line. There are viewpoints all over the board on this topic, the one thing there isn't is a viable solution. myself, I'm gonna keep trying to create great music, #1 because I love doing it, and #2 if it is truly great it will create a market for itself if exploited properly. MJ

Kiss were never really taken seriously in the UK. Clown makeup clown music. Yes they made a lot of money. Yes Gene is a genius at merchandising pity about his less than obvious music talent. To the majority of UK citizens they are and have always been naff and tacky. As for spoiling the music scene he should look in the mirror. Hype, mediocracy and overpricing has spoilt the music scene. He is the clown prince when it comes to these things.
There will always be a market for good musicians and songsters unfortunately the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Amen Big Jim

From the article he talks more about money and merchandising than he does music. I think i read somewhere he had plans to be a dentist or some such thing cause her feared kiss would never be anything real. I sure wish he had become a dentist lol. We would all be a lot better off if he had. (with the exception of his potential patients rofl)
Derek

Hi Derek I once tried singing like Gene but I could not quite get my tongue around it.

Hey Jim

Now that's a good one in fact that might make an interesting lyric lol I'll have to see about trying to write that one thanks for the hook!
Derek

So who the hell is Gene Simmons? Never heard of him.

Ok all I know this isn't the lyric feedback forum but here goes with me Big Jim inspired Lyric Thanks Big Jim!

I tried to sing like Gene (couldn’t get my tongue around it)

1st Verse
They said keep it simple stupid
Don’t try bein’ so complex
Follow after the kiss model
You’ll get your needed respect

2nd Verse
I learned to play a lead like Ace
Taught myself to play rhythm like Paul
Thought I had it all mastered
Till one wily bastard spolied it all

Chorus
Tried to sing like Gene couldn’t get my tongue around it
Every time that I tried my tongue ended up gettin’ bit
Well perhaps my mouth is in need of another slit
Tried to sing like Gene couldn’t get my tongue around it

3rd Verse
So when I play shows they often scream
Except when I’m trying to sound like Gene
Actually I’m quite good at playing a bass
To sing like him I need a different face

Chorus
Tried to sing like Gene couldn’t get my tongue around it
Every time that I tried my tongue ended up gettin’ bit
Well perhaps my mouth is in need of another slit
Tried to sing like Gene couldn’t get my tongue around it

Bridge
I guess there are worse things that could happen to a bloke
Like watchin’ as your stupid clown career goes up in smoke

Chorus
Tried to sing like Gene couldn’t get my tongue around it
Every time that I tried my tongue ended up gettin’ bit
Well perhaps my mouth is in need of another slit
Tried to sing like Gene couldn’t get my tongue around it

Copyright November 17, 2007 Derek Hines All Rights Reserved

Well done Derek.... Now where is my royalty cheque. JIM

He's made enough $$$$ in this biz to buy us ALL, so I think he knows from where he speaks.

Gene Simmons speaks his mind, is honest, and is'nt one of these pussy ass conformists looking to appease soccer mom's and to get in the spotlight.
And God Bless him for that.
I am not a pro to argue his point.
Though I am not a politician either, but I always question them.
College radio, if anything, I always thought helped do more to rescue a scene that was dominated by MTV and big hair.
Though I might have to research what Simmons is talking about.
Music piracy is getting clamped down on.
It is not going to ever get rid of completely, just like shoplifting.

Internet music often times gets used as a catalyst for the decline in quality and sales.
But it does'nt really seem any different than anything else over the last 40 years.
The rock scene sprouted up by breaking convention and not doing what the establisment at the time liked.
Including KISS.

I am against illegal downloads, and happen to be glad that Metallica took the unpopular, ballsy route of fighting to call that an act of theft.
Which it is, no matter how you may look at it.

But if bands like Radiohead what to throw themselves in the internet realm, Great!
It has always been the major acts up there and everyone else down here.
Maybe more can be done for the music medium and quality then could ever have been imagined.
Yes, acts like Radiohead and Prince have an advantage to your average member here.
But they still had to be brought down a notch to compete.
I don't know where big acts on the net could be a bad thing.
If anything, that is more to draw attention to everyone else on the net.

Well, a couple of things. First, Gene comes across like a big fat cat greedy millionaire and that's sorta true. Gene is about money. And his reality is not ours.

It's funny, though, that people think that KISS was nothing more than makeup and stage show. They had some really good songs and some really bad songs. Give them their props - a whole lot of people were influenced by them. You don't get to be the number one band in the world (1978 was the year) by just slapping on some makeup.

But yeah, Gene can complain all he wants and we can all rightfully call him a spoiled baby, but a little of what he says is true. There's a huge debate about whether illegal downloading has hurt commercial music, and it obviously has. Anyone who thinks otherwise should actually get out there and talk to some high school or college students - they don't "pay" for music.

But rather than cry about spilled milk, we need to adapt.

Indeed.

Sometimes I wonder why 300 million Americans mostly listen to only a couple hundred recording artists...

Lyle,

That's because that's all the label/radio system could handle in the most profitable way. Less artists means a benefit to economy of scale. More artists costs way more and have even more unpredictable results. I am not sure how many more small artists are making a living wage now, but certainly the mega profits of the few artists at the top have been hurt.

And to Matt.. illegal filestealing hasn't decreased.. it's continued to not only grow but become the socially accepted and expected norm. The people stealing have been successful in painting those fighting it as the bad and evil guys rather than themselves. That was made easy because in truth the people publicly fighting it WERE fairly evil and bad. (RIAA anyone?). But we're in the weird position of being on the same side as Darth Vader in that I still, no matter what the benefits and potential positive outcome, think no artist/writer should be FORCED to give away their music... ever. I think it may be time to mull over lifting the compulsory license for radio and other uses. By doing that, it would become a completely free market, but then those who play and use music would likely be unable to do so because the cost of paying for the rights to major stars to use their music to make a buck would become cost prohibitive and lawsuits would inevitably be flying in every direction. But while writers must allow radio and others to use their music to make a buck in exchange for a non negotiable license fee and while musicians must GIVE AWAY their music to radio and others to make a buck, mandated by federal law, we may need to burn the system down and rebuild it all from scratch.

It may be happening whether people like it or not.

Brian

I hate harping on about the good ol days but lessons can and should be learned. In the early 60s there were many independant record labels producing many different artists and styles of music. Competition was fierce and the listeners were generally more discernable IN THEM DAYS. Unfortunately most if not all of these labels were put out of business or simply bought up by the big boys. Now they have the monopoly and can pick and choose what we hear. Sadly the people who have CONTROL and the last say in what/who is recorded have little or no taste. They refuse to break the mould, will not take any sort of gamble on new talent. They perpetuate mediocracy which is now the accepted norm.
If real original music and quality songs played by real musicians was encouraged the industry might recover. At present I refuse to help millionaires with more ego than talent like Gene Simmons, manufactured poptarts and their ilk any richer than they already are. I simply do not buy their CDs or listen to them on TV if I can help it.
The indie labels should be helped and encouraged. One idea is for the multinational record companies to subsidise an indies operating costs or help with marketing promotion and distribution. In return they could take a cut from the extra profits generated. Indies would still have creative control but be able to tackle the problems of sales and marketing by subcontracting these tasks to the large networks. Am I making SENSE.

Hey Jim, I noticed in a different thread that you stated "A huge percentage of this buisness is about showmanship, performance and presentation, not talent.... Pretty much sums up KISS.

Yeh Bob you are right. I also spoke about mediocracy being the accepted norm. Pretty much sums up Kiss as well.

If KISS is anyone's idea of "mediocre" then sign me up.

Maybe KISS never achieved legitimacy elsewhere, but honestly, who cares? They were extremely relevant to millions of listeners, and I'm not talking about the makeup. I know some musician friends who would rank KISS above Led Zeppelin in terms of personal musical influence.

There is a WORLD of difference between the type of "image" KISS created and the manufactured "pop tarts" we have today. Image was always a big part of the KISS package, but they also wrote CLASSIC songs which people still love TODAY. Let's check back in 20 years and see how today's radio "hits" hold up against "Detroit Rock City" and "Shout It Out Loud."

It's fun to dream of some make-believe world where "real" and "independent" musicians save the music industry, but I'm not holding my breath. Sometimes things are popular simply because they're popular, despite quality or potential for longevity. Is if fair? Nope. Is it rational? Nope.

If you want to blame someone, how about the Beatles? They almost single-handedly destroyed the demand for debonair Rat Pack-style crooners and created the kind of crazed youth marketing we "enjoy" today. Oh, but wait, the Beatles are "real" musicians, right?

Great post Scott. As I was growing up my biggest influences musically were: Aerosmith, Kiss, Ted Nugent, Kansas, ELO, Styx, Boston and my one oldies (i.e. not totally current) favorite was Led Zeppelin. etc. Guess who I didn't have single album from? The Beatles. I didn't hate them.. they just weren't edgy or current either one. It's what my parents generation listened to. And it was pretty sickly sweet.

That's not to say that now, as an adult who has access to a lot of music, I don't have a lot of respect for the Beatles and especially their pop songwriting skills which are still unriveled, but as a kid, I wanted the bombastic style of the bands above (Kansas Leftoverture album was pretty damn bombastic.. in a good way...) more than what I considered at that time to be light pop fluff which was the Beatles. Those bands were Rock and edgy Pop. The Beatles were already oldies and about as pop light as folks in the 60's/70's must have considered The Rat Pack crooners. The cool kids (read: pot heads) loved Led Zeppelin and Eric Clapton and the Who. Still.. the Beatles weren't much in the discussion. My cousin DID love the Beatles and had their posters on his wall. I had Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin posters on my wall. You wouldn't have caught me with a Beatles poster.

Right now the most popular music outside of the US Radio market (and in some cases even INSIDE that) is 1980's music. Yup. I just visited most of Europe and guess what 4 out of 5 stations are playing? US and UK 80's music. When talking to the kids there (i.e. 12-22) they all told me enthusiastically that they listened to it because it was clearly the best music ever made. It seems to be "classic rock" for them much as Zeppelin and Clapton have long been until now. Now, since the 80's represent my late teens and early 20's, and I played a lot of that music in college and in subsequent bands and listened to it and loved it and was told by the Beatles snobs of the time that it sucked and was horrible and I should be ashamed, I think it's pretty funny that kids in Europe love it and apparently so do the adults. And ironically, it sounds more melodic and accessible to me than today's music. But...

In 20 more years.. Rap will be classic rock. And there will be many who LOVE listening to Britney and Ashley and Christina and Lindsey and the other pop tarts. And there will be plenty of ressurection for the Spice Girls (hell.. they're trying it now) and all those generic pop/rock bands that seem to replace each other one after another on the radio charts today. It seems unimaginable now... but when those 6-12 year olds who can't (or couldn't) get enough of it are in their 30's and 40's.. it will come back for them and their kids. It always seems to.

You know who I didn't hear mentioned a single time in Europe for 7 weeks, nor on the radio a single time? The Beatles. I think they've moved into Golden Oldies for most kids today, especially due to their bad decision not to sell their music digitally. Kids may later discover it.. but right now they couldn't care less. But they DO listen to Kiss. Oh yes!

(A side note: Those who like current music over the age of 20 are generally males who listen to Korn. In Europe.. Corn Syrup doesn't exist.. but make no mistake.. among late teen to late 20 year old males.. KORN is clearly KING).

Brian

I was a card carrying member of the "KISS Army"...I wonder what ever happened to that thing.

I like KISS! I never played the Beatles either...

And actually, in the cold hard light of day, Gene is right. If the RIAA had hardcore sued the pants of everybody, that would have put a stop to it. And, they had/have the right to do it. Of course, you have another problem, and that is kids buying one copy and making a zillion for friends...that seems to never get mentioned in what is killing the record industry...

And as another aside, after having read in depth about this, in my opinion, the way the RIAA does the lawsuits now is pretty weak on actual evidence...that is one reason they settle...also, I firmly believe there are parents that don't know exactly what's goin' on with the computer, so they don't get what the kids are doing with it. So losing your house over that seems kinda harsh...But, Gene is right...

Hi Guys

Trying hard to stay out of the Kiss and Beatles & Zeppelin & Rock n Roll opinions
aspect of this thread But it's soooooo hard! lol...And I feel like behaving like a 10 year old again anyway lol....

Kiss - As a child my friends rushed over my house with a Kiss record.
I saw the cover I got excited i wanted soooo bad to LOVE this band Kiss. We put on the record and my friend got all excited.. I just stared at the cover and thought
"Wow! I don't get it! I won't pretend to my friends. This kinda sucks compared to the albums in my house.
I was just listening to "Ten Years Gone" and In My Time Of Dying" by Led Zeppelin
How could I appreciate Kiss and I didn't understand marketing skills yet....

Between my Brothers - Beatles Stones, Who, Cream & Hendrix Records
And my Sisters- Stevie Wonder,Earth Wind & Fire, Curtis Mayfield,& Motown Records
How could I think that Kiss is Great?

All I kept thinking was S-A-T-U-R-D-A-Y Night! and how this Kiss music was like The Bay City Rollers ya know "Saturday Night"
Detroit Rock City was a cool riff but i had to leave "The Doctor Love" Love Gun"God Of Thunder" band behind right then and there.
How about that wonderful 1980's Kiss? Oh brother....

Zeppelin - My favorite band ever...Simple fact Zeppelins bassist alone shows me more talent then all of Kiss put together. You know it would not even be fair to mention Bonzo.. Bonzo's drumming alone has had more influnece to musicains than all of Kiss put together. Even rappers use Bonzo's beats.. Did I leave anyone from that band out Big lol..... uh!

Rap is the new Rock n Roll without question, but will not be the equal of Classic Rock in twenty years or so... With no disrespect to the creativity and talents required to make & produce Rap. It is missing a few ingredients, but the one that will not make it classic the most is... Diversity
What makes The Doors so exceptional is they could be great and be picked out by there sound in 3 seconds. Then the next record played after them is Santana completely different in every regard, Then Pink Floyd completeley different in every regard. And many others And this is with records all in the same year. Rap sounds different in every decade and now it's continuing to do the same thing still.... every 10 years. So maybe there classic era is what "Rappers Delight & Run DMC" or do we jump ahead a decade and say it's NWA & Ice Tea" ?
Classic Rock! is simple it runs from 1966 -1977 basically! Done with Over! Today's Super Sub genre splitting won't allow for that kind of impact besides the freedom in commercial musical creativity.

Anyone-
The Beatles - I had an older brother and 2 older sisters with 14 years on me.
When I was 3 or 4 I was jumping up & down to Meet the Beatles like I was to any other pop song. I used to argue with my brother that The Monkees were better
I used to stare at my brothers Beatles album covers, and be slightly scared of
songs like "A Day In A Life" "She's Leaving Home" I was not ready for all of what the Beatles were. They were not My Band... They were the worlds band. I had to get back into them in my teens, easy thing to do.
The Beatles did not have me sitting with my guitar for 6 hours a day when I was a child. I figured out "And I Love Her" in one hour.. Sabbath's guitar had me practicing 6 hours a day Black Sabbath was my favorite when i was 7 years old I thought they blew Kiss off the planet and now know I was right in thinking so..

For me anyone putting down The Beatles in any regard is a useless attempt at trying to be unique and go against the grain,kinda silly isn't it?I Maybe we can take a stab at some of there film work The only thing I resent the Beatles for now is being the first ones to end the idea of a Sole Songwriters writing songs in Rock. It took some years to finish the job but once the Beatles came it was "your band loses credibilty if you don't write your own songs" Now look at us! You will
starve as songwriter if you write rock & songs taylored for bands.

The Beatles are all by themselves they are Beethoven of our Century no question.

In conclusion I respect Gene Simmons mainly for being a good father to his kids and for being there for them all these years. I respect his marketing genius as well. Simply the best!
His bass playing, songwriting and producing is another story..(See Sting for one thing) lets just say thank God for that makeup & live show.... Can't blame them the competion talent level was fierce back then. You want to compete with just
The Who alone, you better come up with a gimmick. Kiss was the ultimate gimmick.

Hey Jim

As soon as I can figure out how to market this one it's on it's way!
Derek

Great musicianship has never meant great songs.
To many here that have been in band in high school (I was'nt good enough with school attendendence to qualify - I was a brat that is making up for it now!) how much of that has leaked into their own thing?
I think rock acts did more to tell your poor kid that they could bring out their expression and get people interested.
Beats being a criminal.
Maybe Gene Simmons is smarting from the signs of time and that we don't live back in the era of the KISS army.
But it is this notion in this thread that less physical talent is supposed to make Gene Simmons less credible.

Can Sting with all his talent not make a song without some kind of political pronouncement?
I hav'nt found that much with him since his days with The Police.

It has'nt been the talent, but the charisma to make music fun and something to identify with.

That is the biggest thing that I miss with acts from KISS's era.

The scene has become very divisive.
And I know that illegal downloads are still very much common.
I don't believe the whining of the loss of revenue and how hard it is for the record companies any more than I believe it with the oil companies.
But I don't think that people on the net are all looters either.
I think making a cd that could be purchased for $5 that would be purchased in a store for $13 pretty much sums up the animnosity with the RIAA and every other conglomerate on the net.
And with how some recording acts are responding, they are catching on.

Not that this is on topic, but I think the writers strike might boost the IQ of the public with all the malarky.
I am enjoying watching my old videos anyway.

A point I would like to make about marketing is the cultural and political divide between USA and UK. What has to be taken into perspective is the POND. Nowadays with the speed of light bands can be a huge simultaneous success in every part of the world. Back in the sixties and seventies it was different. There were big differences in what was cool what was not and more importantly what was available. Sometimes musical styles did not travel well or would take a few years to travel at all. We in the UK had slightly different tastes cultures and of course record labels. Certain bands of that era who were monster bands in the states hardly got a mention in the UK and vice versa. Sometimes record companies would not send bands to Britain and I know for a fact that a few top British bands did not jump over the pond. This discrepancy in tastes can firmly be put down to marketing strategy. Some bands pleaded to be sent to America but management refused. Jimi Hendrix did not do much in USA and had to be brought to Britain before he made it. We then exported him back. The sad fact is that a lot of mediocre talent made it whilst fantastic bands with original ideas played pubs and clubs. The reason was simple. The decision to sign or not was down to a middle aged out of touch group of people who were god.
Not much has changed. If these gods are on your side you will make it if not you are doomed regardless of how good bad or indifferent you are.

I think it's funny. Back in my day, I thought CDs ruined the music biz. I loved holding that large cardboard cover and looking at all the details while the vinyl crackled and played on my parent's hifi. I didn't want to accept the CD - it was too small and too pristine. All the old school rockers hated digital, but I think eventually they bought in. I waited for CDs to die out.
As a kid, I wanted to have a record. My work on the big licorice pizza - but it never happened. When CDs took over, it seems like a part of that innocence died.

So it wasn't the college kids. It was really the digital world.
Truth is - we'll always find "something/someone" to blame for what we don't personally like.

truth be told - as a kid, I loved the Earl Scruggs Revue. THEY were MY band. I shared a 8x10 bedroom with my brother. HE won every Beatles record (vinyl) from a local radio station, and we both had our own steroe systems in the same room. He was the quintessential Beatles fanatic/I loved bluegrass. Most days after school, you'd hear both bands playing simultaneously in one small room.
When my brother died 10 years ago, I started listening to the Beatles more and appreciating their music. It was not only good music, but a rememberance of my brother, and days gone by. That's why I really like the Beatles.

oh - in my last year of high School, I was in a KISS band. Did the makeup and costume down to a tee. I was Ace. I even built a guitar back then that would light up and smoke.

I like God of Thunder.. it was the only song that Gene sang on that didn't suck! = )

Brian

When I was a sophomore in high school, some of the seniors did "Strutter" for the annual talent show. Full makeup, live band, and all. I'm STILL inspired by that! hahaha. That was my motivation to get up and do Ted Nugent "Stormtroopin" the next year, and "Hot Child In The City" and Thin Lizzy's "Cowboy Song" the next (weird combo huh?)...

Also, if you watch a lot of old video of bands back then, there is NOBODY that holds a candle to KISS as far as showmanship. Most of the bands back then just stood there and played. It is kinda boring...

There were a number of bands back in the seventies who could put on a bit of a show. Some of them could actually play as well. It is a great pity that Kiss could not hold a candle to them when it comes to playing.

Obviously from the standpoint of musical virtuostity, KISS was not in the same league as Zeppeiln or in the same league as The Beatles in songcraft. I got into KISS at an early age, then graduated to the more musically advanced bands. Looking back though, I can still appreciate them for what they were...Pure dumb FUN!

Maybe, but I doubt it. The biggest mistake the RIAA made was ignoring the upcoming shift to digital music. They built a business on selling music coupled to $18 pieces of plastic. They didn't foresee that decoupling, which was bound to drive the asking price down, almost to free in some cases.

The second mistake they made was out-and-out shutting down Napster instead of striking a deal. If you don't believe me, look at what the MPAA is doing with YouTube: simultaneously suing while also cutting rev share deals. They could've done the same thing with Napster: cut a deal or be shut down. But they didn't have that foresight, and I doubt they had the technical expertise to understand how Napster worked under the hood.

Mass distribution == fewer controls. No copy protection or threat of lawsuit can stop the power of "hey, you've gotta hear this song!"

This is some excellent Thread Drift.

I find myself agreeing with almost everyone...sounds impossible, but not if you look at it this way. The Beatles opened the floodgates of diversity in the same market. This is a double-edged sword that makes decisions more difficult for an emerging act. KISS owes a lot to the Beatles in that regard. Sounds like Brian and I are about the same age and I remember being kind of odd for loving the Beatles so much, when my band was playing, that's right, KISS, Aerosmith, Kansas...and most of all, Led Zeppelin. That's what was hot then, just before Punk and New Wave took hold and paved the way into the 80's.

But we can't go around imitating our favorite acts, unless we want to go the way of, say, The Dave Clark Five. I look at the Beatles in the same way a jazz musician looks at Duke Ellington or Louis Armstrong. Accept the influence of a trailblazer, but take it somewhere new. I firmly believe that is what the Beatles did for all the above-named bands: they were trailblazers, opening new pathways to explore. But it doesn't mean we should expect endless covers of "Here, There & Everywhere".

Diversity. The Beatles really cracked that egg wide open. All of our current Sub-Genre madness derives from that earlier explosion that basically destroyed Tin Pan Alley. But if I've learned anything from the Beatles, it is to keep my eyes and heart open to Something New.

I agree - It's been an interesting thread. I find myself agreeing with Scott Andrew.

As far as the KISS bashing... Arguing about how good or bad bands are is 100% pointless. I hate Led Zep. Hate their music. I respect it, but I dislike it. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing. Am I wrong? How can I be wrong? It's my taste in music. We all are entitled to our own tastes. Anyone who'd say I'm wrong for disliking them knows absolutely nothing about how music appeals differently to different people.

The "talent" comments are annoying. Talent has something to do with making good music but it does not equal good music. There are some extremely talented musicians who produce music that I find unlistenable.

More interesting to me is the commonality of the "evolution" of listening tastes in this thread. KISS has been the "starter drug" for a lot of kids into the world of rock, from which they moved on to bands with more key changes in their music.

For me, I went from KISS to Rush (logical) to Genesis (the early art rock stuff) to jazz-influenced music like Basia, to semi-obscure but clever artists like Jonatha Brooke. It's been a strange ride. Along the way I also dug Kansas (how could any musician growing up in the late 70's not like them?) and The Doors, The Cars, The Romantics, Queen, and so on and so forth. So many great bands over the years... but I digress...

The best we can do, as songwriters, is to try like hell to write the best music we can. That's our part. The formula is something like this:
1. Write great music that appeals to people with certain tastes.
2. Get those people likely to enjoy your music to listen to it.
3. Sell those people your music.

Number 3 is the easiest part because of technology. Number 2 is extremely difficult because you're competing with hundreds of thousands of other folks. Number 1 is the hardest of all.

i can remember in 1974 , i was in the 7th grade and this kid stole kiss's first album from a record shop and we listened to it over and over thru the night at a sleepover. i liked them ok but by the 8th grade had moved on to other groups. looking back at it we pirated gene's work at a early age! LOL! some things never change! good thread! barn.

Good Lord, how did one steal a freaking RECORD? Those things were HUGE! I mean, I know that people stole them, but my goodness. You can't exactly put one in your pocket.

"You kids today! You don't KNOW what it means to STEAL MUSIC. Why, in my day, we had to steal RECORDS! They were three feet tall and three feet wide! We had to walk to the record store uphill, both ways!"

Richard you are correct in what you say. Certain styles of music and certain songs attract different audiences. Within that group there are individual likes and dislikes. One man's meat is another man's poison I agree. There is however the matter of technical ability. Regardless of whether you personally like a particular act or not you can pass judgement on their ability. Technically KISS cannot be regarded as great players when compared to other bands from that era. You may not like Led Zeppelin but their technical ability cannot be in dispute.

The only kiss song I can even recall is I wanna rock and roll all night. That said I could play that while drunk enough to pass out hence Kiss popularity nough said!
Derek

yeah they were huge! this kid once put a canoe(sp) over his head and walked out of the store!! last i heard he was killed during a robbery. (round 1990) sad but true, barn.

Kiss was a product of late 60's early 70's "Glam" rock along the lines of Bowie's "Ziggy Stardust", The New York Dolls, Alice Cooper etc. They were a combination of music and showmanship with extra emphisis on the showmanship part with their elaborate stage shows. They appeared as something unreal like cartoon characters, someone you will never meet on the street. In contrast to that era you could watch a band like The Eagles perform and say "Hey, those are regular guys on the stage". You could see yourself having a beer with Glenn Frye but not these comic book characters called Kiss. Would kids still have bought (or stolen) their albums if they didn't know what they looked like? I don't know. I was a music snob in those days and considered Kiss beneath me, more of a childrens band. But what did I know? You grow older and learn. My point is that weather you liked them or not, they were and are a large part of the music industry so I have to agree with BC that Gene Simmons knows what he is talking about. I would consider him an expert on where todays "pop" music is at today. Ben

I agree with the fact that you can somewhat judge a musician's technical ability. I would also argue that for many people it is totally irrelevant. If it mattered, rap would not exist and the number one band would be Dream Theater. Musicians care about technical ability a great deal more than non-musicians. I've seen Joe Satriani two times. Most of the people I work with have never heard of him. Or maybe they have, but they've never heard of, say, Eric Johnson.

Heck, Jimmy Page is a perfect example. My guitar teacher in college could play stuff far more complicated that Page could have ever played. My teacher could literally play anything. But my teacher wasn't in a band that wrote all of those classic rock songs. For that matter my teacher could have outplayed Ace Frehley, but I don't think anyone had posters of my teacher up on his wall. That would have been spooky.

I think what people want is simply music that they like to listen to. And while it takes a certain amount of technical proficiency to play music, there's a point where you go so far, the general public does not want to listen.

Some other interesting things - there have been times in music history when popular music DID have some very technical players. The Big Band Era, for example... look at Charlie Christian. I seriously doubt that Page or Frehley could play one of Charlie's most complicated guitar solos. I think most of the emo band kids today could not play Page or Frehley solos.

In the 80's we saw the rise, due to Van Halen and Randy Rhodes, of the virtuoso lead guitar player. Kids all over the country were practicing scales and arpeggios at top speed so they could become metal lead guitar players. And then the bottom fell out when Nivana and that whole movement killed big hair metal. And so you ended up with thousands of kids who could play leads at blistering speeds and no one cared any more. All that practice, down the drain. What happened?

I very much appreciate technical playing, but gravitate towards good song writing. Back in the day, Rush had both. Gabriel Genesis sort of had both. Certainly artists like Basia and Michael Franks had both. Steely Dan. A "today" example would be Lyle Lovett's new CD, which I just picked up. There are some fantastic musicians on it and without them, his music would be... well, not as good.

Summary - You can judge musicianship, it matters but not a lot, and musicians like technical players more than non-musicians, in general.

Richard you make good points most I agree with. I will not nit pick some of the minor ones I disagree with. My main bone of contention is your dismissal of Led Zeppelin. Perhaps it is an age thing. You obviously did not experience the sixties and seventies bands first time around. By the time the eighties came around most things had been done and only the fashions and electronic synths were a slight innovation. Rush are a very good band you mention them at least twice. So how can you not think much of L Z...... Re your teacher playing great guitar better than Page... so what... many trained guitarists can copy riffs and impro solos. Why did he not record this better stuff in the 60s/70s and make zillions rather than teach.

There's the rub, and there is also where we need to take a closer look at Gene Simmons and say...hey, he DID it, didn't he? Perhaps another bassist could have played better, but it was Gene who did it, wasn't it?

That wasn't a fluke. That was fortitude leading to fame. KISS was KISS, no one else was, and KISS is a fabulous success.

That said, Gene is still mighty annoying...

Big Jim,
Regarding your last couple of sentences - I'm not sure why you posted them. You said pretty much the same thing I said.

As far as dismissing Led Zeppelin, I said I respected them but I hated their music. I am allowed to hate them. Dismissing them, to me, means denying their importance in music history, which I did not do. You can't argue with their place in rock history. You can, however, dislike their music. I'm not alone. Not everyone loves them.

And Rush and Led Zep sound totally different.

No Richard I say that 70s music was an innovation it had not been done before nor much innovation since. Your teacher played little part in any innovation just copying styles from proven innovators that was the point of my last two sentences. To be honest L Z were not one of my fav bands but I acknowledge their contribution and influence. I see where you are coming from on that one. As far as kiss are concerned they are about as musically talented as the av boy band of today they had a gimmick copied from some other acts of the time but they hyped it to the max. As I said before clown make up clown music only appealing to impressionable teenagers. Little substance but great marketing and showmanship. Who did they copy make up wise? try Bowie, the sweet, Marc Bolan (t rex),Crazy world of arthur Brown, Alice Cooper, Alex Harvey Band and numerous other glam rockers. They might have started a cult thing but were not to be taken seriously. I certainly didn't take them seriously along with most other musicians I know.

Except that unlike the average boy band of today, KISS is still around, selling records and packing concerts decades later...

Funny, I didn't realize it until awhile ago, but early Alex Lifeson was a dead-ringer for Ace Frehley (and maybe Tony Iommi?).