Gene Simmons hates you downloading bastards

Isn't Kiss' entire livelihood based on their arena shows? I mean, does anyone even listen to their music?

Only when it's on the radio.

BTW, is this him talking or his Label?

Actually, I'm pretty sure that's definitionally an "exception".

Moreover, I don't understand his complaint at all. How did the record companies facilitate the online "theft" of music? If anything, they've made hundreds of borderline asinine moves to try to prevent it.

Moreover, his complaints about the alternative revenue models don't make any sense based on my rudimentary knowledge of the music industry. The point of what Radiohead is doing is that you basically CAN give away your music and still be more profitable than you are through a label.

What a dinosaur.

Get Bent, Simmons.

The interview with him on Henry Rollins' show is hilarious. He says most of this same stupid shit, and you can tell Henry doesn't agree, but I guess he's holding his tongue out of respect, and the look on Henry's face is hilarious. But man, I can't wait to get my hands on that box set of 150 Gene Simmons songs that weren't good enough to put on the albums!

If there's one thing you can always trust, it's an excessively large album. It's like a guarantee of consistent quality.

Incidentally, I think we can all agree that the mark of a true artist is a person who has no desire to create new art because of a lack of financial incentive.

I love how Simmons assumes that if the current system changes there will be chaos and anarchy, as if that's the only alternative to doing things exactly the way they have been done.

What if music songs become promotional and the lost revenues are recouped from ringtones, DVDs and other multimedia products?

The interesting thing is (as partially noted above), in a system where music isn't the desirable item, but the experience of the show or the other by-products of the music are monetized, someone like Simmons would be well-suited to survive. But, given his statement that he only wants to make music if there's money in it, he probably would never have gotten started. If losing hacks like him in favor of people who create music out of a genuine drive to do so is a benefit of leaving the traditional system in the past, I think that's probably a net gain.

I love Gene and Kiss but I'd never take anything he said in regards to business as a GOOD IDEA. He's the most greedy guy there ever was. He lives in his own world in that regard. Still, doesn't make me love God of Thunder any less.

I don't know that Radiohead is actually making any money, though. Last I read, something like 60-70% of the people who downloaded the album didn't pay anything at all and those who did paid like 5 or 6 bucks.

They reported they made slightly over $2 per album on Pitchfork last week. That's more than double their deal with the labels. I don't know if that's exclusive of hosting/bandwidth or not, though.

Exactly. Artists probably make pennies from album sales on major labels. Who's laughing now, Gene?

Well Paul Stanley was asked a few months ago when we would see a new Kiss CD and he said "Never".

His logic was that no one really cares about the new music....He said that no one goes to see the Rolling Stones to hear the new single from their latest album....They go to hear the classic.

And he's right....I can remember the last time I saw Kiss and when they played "Psycho Circus" most people just sat there....Yet the second they started "Detroit Rock City" the place went nuts.

I just find Gene Simmons claiming that "The most important part is the music" to be the most hysterical thing i've heard in years.

Also, I expect that a ton of people who downloaded it for free are going to buy it when it's available officially. Heck, I paid to download it, and I'm still going to pay to buy an actual copy. Their sneak attack release and beyond generous distribution method engendered a lot of good will that many fans are looking to pay back somehow.

What Radiohead made on downloads and advance sales of the $80 package is only part of the equation.

Incidentally, I guess I agree with Simmons that the Radiohead method is not a realistic model for most bands. I disagree with him on virtually everything else (including the ludicrous idea that the world needs 150 unreleased Gene Simmons solo songs and additional unreleased KISS material), but he's right there. What he feels to recognize, though, is that Radiohead's plan will likely prove to be more inspirational than instructional. While copping Radiohead's method perfectly won't work for most, other bands, inspired by Radiohead and others who have bypassed labels in creative, net-savvy ways, will figure out unorthodox distribution and marketing methods that work for them.

That's the type of conservative viewpoint that comes from age, as distinguished from a conservative viewpoint based in ideology. They may look similar but they come from different places.

Conservatives like Gene are basically afraid of being eaten by bears.

Works like this: Civilization is stable. For a thousand years, civilization has protected us from being eaten by bears. We have cities and armies and technology, and with this power, we gather ourselves in centralized enclaves of population where there are no bears. We have a proven bear-proof model. We cannot change anything, because we do not know what changes may potentially result in a destabilization of the system. What we have works, and we know it works, because we are not being eaten by bears. If we change anything, the model will necessarily change, and it's possible that it will change in such a way that it is no longer sustainable. And if that happens, the model will fail, and the bears will come in and eat us.

Hey, I didn't say it made sense. It's just where he's coming from.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I have some serious reservations about Gene's metallurgical expertise, too.

The problem with the Radiohead model is notoriety. Radiohead can use that model because they're famous. But, the gap between Radiohead and say, Grizzly Bear, is closing due to Myspace, The Hype Machine, eMusic, and (if I'm decent at prognosticating) RCRD LBL.

Incidentally, everyone who loves music should check out RCRD LBL. Free, DRM-Free mp3s from artists you love, and all legal. The interface is a nightmare, though.

Back on point...for a band like The Arcade Fire or Ryan Adams or any other group that will never make its living based on albums sales or royalties, something along the lines of what Radiohead is doing can work, although "free" might not be the best model. The real key is to use alternative media to create the hype that will drive ticket sales, etc.

They likely had less overhead expenses on this album plus no costs towards "Label Expenses". Plus they get all the proceeds of the album versus only seventy five cents to a dollar per unit moved. It would take them less time and less units moved to put money in their own pocket.

The Barenaked Ladies last album made more money for them then their most successful previous album because Network created a new system wherein the band incurred the recording expenses and PR themselves. They were then able to take all the profits for themselves minus a percentage for distribution costs that went to Network.

It's off topic, but I wanted to point out that you nailed the difference between a vital artist and a nostalgia act. Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, and Elvis Costello are three artists that have proven that career longevity (with a prestigious back-catalog) doesn't mean new material can't connect. I've seen all three in concert several times and each and every time the new songs were received almost as enthusiastically as the old chestnuts. Better yet, when they played the old songs, they were often new arrangements.

Contrast that with a nostalgia act like KISS or Rolling Stones who play every song exactly as recorded. Then again, it's not like either have recorded anything worthy of playing alongside their "classic" stuff in years.

Just curious, for the Radiohead album did you have to choose to pay or not pay prior to downloading the album, or did you have the opportunity to download and evaluate it before payment (or non-payment if you felt it was worthless)?

You paid or didn't pay beforehand. This is another reason why I think the CD release will play a big factor in evaluating the plan's financial success (for another band, I'd say their take on tour would also factor in, but this is Radiohead - they'll sell out everywhere regardless of who bought the album). There are probably casual Radiohead listeners who didn't want to commit to paying before listening, but ended up liking the album and now want to pay the band back somehow.

Can you explain this to me? I've always gotten pissed because I don't really know anyone who's into Radiohead as much as I am (I mean 'know' literally. I know there are people out there more into them than I am, but I am not friends with them), yet I'm always having trouble getting tickets to huge venue shows because they sell out in 2 hours. They seem to be much bigger attraction than their albums are, but I've also never heard them referred to as one of those bands defined by their live shows. I don't get it.

Amen to that and for those who know how Gene operates to get bent out of shape over his comments should know better by now. Yes he's a fossil and greedy as hell but I still dig him.

On that note

And even though I'm full of sin
In the end you'll let me in
You'll let me through, there's nothin' you can do
You need my lovin', don't you know it's true

lol, love it.

Two hours? Last time, I think it was less than two minutes.

Then again, the last time they toured, I think they were playing relatively small venues for a band with their following, so that might explain it in part. They played the Auditorium Theater (capacity of a little over 3,000) in Chicago last time around, I think. They probably could have filled the United Center (about 23,000) or come close, at least. Springsteen can do it, even when it's a multi-night stop.

I mean, that's kind of an awesome move on their part. No one would rather see Radiohead in a stadium than in a theater. But the downside is that getting tickets is damn near impossible.

I think they're one of those "event" bands that even casual fans will attempt to see so that they can say they did. I've never managed to see them live, but the concert clips I've seen lead me to believe they're a remarkably strong live act, especially for a band that apparently doesn't like to tour.

I understand how a musician like Gene Simmons, who might actually own the rights to some of his music, would be upset at the current downloading phenomenom.

But, I'd say he's the exception rather than the rule (and given his logic, we should therefore ignore him as an abberation). Maybe one in a thousand musicians have been directly hurt by downloading. The other 999 might actually benefit, or have benefitted, from the loosening of the RIAA's borderline unconstitutional, retroactively implemented copyright stranglehold.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I cannot believe that thirty, forty, fifty, sixty year old songs by long dead musicians have had their copyrights retroactively extended to benefit a few record labels. And these ridiculous copyright laws end up affecting the rights to every song, not just the few valuable ones that led to the recording industry's lobbying efforts in the first place. The vast majority of affected music then just sits around collecting dust, unreleased and unusable, to protect the monopoly rights of a few holding companies who really only care about a handful of songs, anyway.

With a system that broken, I understand why people just say "screw the whole thing, I'm downloading whatever I want."

**The argument that CDs are a broken, and therefore deservedly ignored, delivery system is a pragmatic, rather than an ethical, argument.

***I don't mind reasonable retroactive copyright extensions for works of art owned by a living creator.

Just saw this tonight. You can almost look through Hank's forehead and watch all the ways he wanted to strangle the greedy son of a bitch in public. Especially when he mentioned the only ones who care about the music in this day and age are aging punkers.

There are no good KISS songs. It's lazy uninspired dog shit, folks. Simmons is really just a sad individual with no artistic talent. I don't think I'd hate him as much if he weren't such a pompous ass. But combined that with him being a talentless hack and he's repulsive.

Listen to Sabbath or something. At least that's not soulless and boring.