Well it looks like rock has officially died, everyone, or at least Gene Simmons seems to think so: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/culture/gene-simmons-future-of-rock?src=spr_TWITTER&spr_id=1456_85172828.

Do you agree with him? is it impossible now for young artists to "make it big"? Was the scene "murdered"? Or is Gene simply out to lunch.

So the definition of "dead" for a genre is that the musicians can't make millions while playing it?

Pretty much. I guess Gene equivalates being a musician with being rich and famous, although that doesn't come as any kind of a surprise given his outlook on life.

Yeah, the day I take the opinions on rock (or any other form of music) from anyone from KISS seriously is the day I consider Lorde's "Best Rock Video" award legit.

I like Gene Simmons. He's honest about the whole "I'm in it for the money" thing and seems like a pretty cool guy. But he and his kind are to music what Michael Bay is to cinematography.

For the most part I agree with what Gene Simmons is saying here. The same stuff can even be applied to metal to an extent, which is also dying a slow, awkward death. I guess the digital age helps out the average person by giving them access to whatever they want but at the end of the day Gene Simmons knows what he is talking about.

Calling rock 'dead' is far too much. Sure, it isn't a golden age for either rock or metal but I'd call these two sleeping giants. Metal was declared dead in the 70's and look what's happened since then. Besides, as long as rock fans keep the spirit up, it simply can't die. Rock music hasn't lately seen much of a renewal, mainstream exposure or emerging megabands but I'm sure better times will come in these terms as well..,

And that argument - no money = dead genre - that's simply stupid. Can't take anyone making such ridiculous statements too seriously...

Its not like people have all of a sudden stopped making rock or, hell, even good rock. People will still make rock and metal, we have a whole backlog to inspire people to make new music. No music genre can truly die, they just go underground for a time.

There are other ways to make money you know... like prostitution.

And there are other motivations towards forming a band that does not involve money. Some people just want to make music.

Rock is not anywhere near dead, it's still one of the most popular genres in the world. Gene Simmons is just a washed up rockstar. In fact the most downloaded rock song of all time in the US is from this decade. The problem is people are focusing on a very narrow idea of what rock is (not just musically, but thematically), and yes, that idea of rock has been "dead" for decades.

Written by Mattybu on 09.09.2014 at 00:17
The same stuff can even be applied to metal to an extent, which is also dying a slow, awkward death. I guess the digital age helps out the average person by giving them access to whatever they want but at the end of the day Gene Simmons knows what he is talking about.

Rather, this is what is what is keeping metal alive.

Written by deadone on 10.09.2014 at 08:04

Written by Guest on 10.09.2014 at 04:59

And there are other motivations towards forming a band that does not involve money. Some people just want to make music.

I've known plenty of musicians who played for the love of it (I married one and my brother in law is one (though he's sold out his rock roots to play in a country pop band ).

However if you want to play in a band as a career, then the financial rewards have to be there.

The problem with your argument is that you think you need to make millions to make a career of a band and sell albums; if you have a rock band, you get your money for your career off of playing gigs, people still pay for rock gigs.

Yes, in some sense everything nowadays evolves around money but then again - music can be hobby and still musicians can create great music while virtually making no money. For example in Estonia I believe Metsatöll is the only metal band who can actually live off from music and I'm not even completely sure about that, but we still have many fine local bands who give like five to ten gigs in a year but have released plenty and still keep releasing records. Urt, Taak, Realm of Carnivora, Tharaphita, Loits - just some bands examples familiar to... well almost no one around here AND to few even in this country.

Money sure can be a great motivation, but it doesn't go for all the musicians. Small fan base and joy of doing their thing is enough for many. Band making can also be secondary income which may be even reasonable for some of the small bands I'm talking about.

Written by deadone on 11.09.2014 at 04:11

Written by Ganondox on 10.09.2014 at 11:11


The problem with your argument is that you think you need to make millions to make a career of a band and sell albums; if you have a rock band, you get your money for your career off of playing gigs, people still pay for rock gigs.

Sure you do. I used to work local gigs as a roadie or worked the door. I did that for free to support the scene as did the guy behind the mixing desk. The PA was often also often owned by a band member or borrowed. It was never good gear. The venues were not good either cause the bands played at venues that were usually free (publicans would more than make any investments in terms of drink sales).

The original bands would get $100-$150 for a gig on a good night. That was split 3-5 ways depending on number of band members. Very often they played for free. We charged $5 entry on average and that included gigs with bands from Melbourne (they wouldn't cover their airfares and often slept on people's floors). Any more and people wouldn't come. This is the reality of most gigs for small bands.

I knew the guys from Psycroptic - they got into thousands of dollars of debt to be able to tour Europe (this was before they signed to Nuclear Blast).

Albums were recorded mainly at home and sound was often not very good, especially when the best recording gear a band could afford was a 4-track.

I was a co-owner of a small label and it was a money sink. You didn't get much cash flow as most sales were trades for other CDs that you then hoped to sell and it was a lot of hard work for not much reward (we released a compilation, a split album and a couple of glorified demos before I had enough).






Now here are some examples of people supported by bigger labels:

I remember reading an interview with Devin Townsend where he was considering not touring Europe because he'd have to take another mortgage on his house to do the tour. Now he had label support but it still wasn't enough.

In another interview with some of the Dimmu Borgir fellows, they were talking how being with Nuclear Blast was awesome and they could finally afford to give up their day jobs (one was a kindergarden assistant ) and one of them could afford a car.


And in a third case, it is well known Nevermore did not have a decent budget for Enemies of Reality because it was their last album with Century Media and they had not signed up for another contract so Century Media didn't cough up as much cash. Hence the sound was worse than previous albums. And once the label cash started flowing, they got a phenomenal result with The Godless Endeavour.

Now take away labels and bands are back to playing for nothing and getting into heavy debt to do anything. However there is no life at the end of the tunnel as there are no labels to offer any amount of money, to subsidise/fully fund professional albums, to subsidise/fully fund tours, handle marketing and distribution etc etc.

There's no money for managers to handle band affairs (including organising tours) and bands have to do it themselves. This is a lot of work - you have to organise venue (and negotiate contract terms if possible), organise transport for both band, roadies and gear, organise accommodation, organise the roadies/mixers/lighting and for international travel visas.

The professional music industry is dodgy and corrupt but it's an essential cog in getting the music we love.

Are you referring specifically to metal bands? If so, I'm pretty sure it's much easier for a rock band to get a paying gig. Anyway, most bands are done as a hobby, and that works fine. People have a day job, the band at least partially funds itself, and people still do it because the love of rocking is a better motivator than money. Money just let's more time and resources be put into it, but even without much money great stuff can be produced, it just takes dedication and talent. Some just happen to break big.

Jesus. Gene exists in his own little bubble. He's intelligent in the sense that if you value the same things he does, it makes perfect sense. I think he tries to make bold, giant claims like that for attention.

I think the age of "rock stars" is dead. Rock isn't going to be a big decadent thing anymore. That doesn't mean rock is dead. At all. It's definitely downsized, and yeah, it sucks that you might not get to see a band live unless you travel to go see them, but there's good with the bad. I personally enjoy the fact that somebody plugging in and recording an album does so with no expectations of money. Over all I'd say its a good thing in the end.

Written by deadone on 11.09.2014 at 04:11

The professional music industry is dodgy and corrupt but it's an essential cog in getting the music we love.

Ahahahahahahahaha. Good (rock) music can still be made with low-budget studio costs. Gigantic, complex, overblown, over-produced albums may be more difficult to make now (financially speaking), but creating a stripped-down rock album isn't too expensive. I had several friends in high school who were able to fund recording for a couple EPs on part-time jobs. It wasn't the slickest production you've ever heard, but it was still enjoyable.

So no, the professional music industry is not essential at all. Maybe it is if you exclusively listen to slick, overproduced albums you can pick up at Wal-Mart. In fact, I think in a roundabout way the digital age really takes it back to a grassroots movement. Instead of giving the majority cut of the money to labels, how about giving money directly to the artist? Order the CD/Merch/download straight from their website. It's been proven that albums and tours can be put together through crowd funding as well.

All in all I think the music industry is going through a transitional phase. By transitional, I mean that there won't be an "industry" any longer. Most younger bands are either coming to terms with that, or have been established with that fact already being accepted. It's mostly industry types and old geezers (like Gene Simmons) who are having a hard time adjusting and accepting this.

Maybe Gene is just butthurt because the last few Kiss albums bombed commercially.

Written by Guest on 10.09.2014 at 04:59

And there are other motivations towards forming a band that does not involve money.

Groupies?

A guide to becoming a Rock Star for cheaps.


1. Stuff can bought by paying for it with your own job. Buy cheaply off Gumtree and other second hand sites! Better still: borrow your friend's shit!

2. "Touring" can simply consist of playing in venues in your region, county etc. This is mere petrol money at the most!

3. Marketing can also simply consist of making a Facebook group with a few songs on and plugging it on a few other websites. Spread the word: it's free!

4. Can quite easily pirate music software off the internet and record your own music! Shh, don't tell anyone!

5 / 6. Bandcamp! Easy to upload, low-cost mp3s for all! Free the Buddhist in you: don't promote physical media!


You don't have to make it your job to be a Rock Star folks! Women will sleep with you if you're playing in 02 Academy, or the Owe-Too Pub on your road! Who knows though, there's always a chance someone will discover you.


But yeah, a bunch of friends of mine who play in a rather middle-of-the-road doom band and have been doing so for no more than two years, and only a couple of averagely recorded EPs, just played at Bloodstock festival. Only one of them has a decent job (something computery), while the others consist of a student, a bar man and a guy with not-so-successful van hire service. Suffice to say they are not well off in the slightest but with a good amount of promotion and local touring did quite well for themselves.


I don't see "logistics of music" here. I see binary ways of thinking i.e. you ain't a rock star until you appear on national TV. If we're to believe that then many of our favourite bands are not rock stars as they often have to hold down jobs to stay afloat.

^ basically how anyone i know in a punk band over makes it, and they're usually better than some shit rock band on national tv

Rock and Metal can't die...Not as long as there are people out there who are willing to work their asses off and who work day and night offering blood and sweat and time and money to the gods of music, to feed the world with their talent and create great tunes, such as the Spongebob theme song.

Written by deadone on 12.09.2014 at 02:44



Punk is interesting in that there are still a few punk/hardcore bands that believe in punk ideals.

I remember an interview with Dan Liker from the days when he was in Nuclear Assault (crossover thrash). He said hardcore fans were awful in the 1980s: if you sold records, you were a sellout and if you had a day job cause you didn't sell records you were a sellout. Then you had hardcore guys like the Boston Crew (made up of hardcore band members) beating up drunks or the guys from Cro-Mags squatting and brawling.

It all came down to strong and almost fanatical political/ideological ideals.

These ideals don't really hold much water in the most other genres where attitudes are far more flexible. In fact metal for all it's supposed "DIY" attitudes is massively commercial - look at the imagery, the constant flow of merchandise and repackaging, the massive festivals and the push for metal to be accepted in mainstream. It's brilliance is that people think it's anti-mainstream when it's actually a very mainstream product and a marketing exec's wet dream.

Packaged rebellion indeed!

yeah there is still heaps of punk/hardcore bands that still believe by a lot of the punk ideals, from straight edge to squatter street punk. Guys i used to hang with here done there super market shopping from the super market dumpster and squatted and bla bla. It's probably just not so extreme because it's all been done and didn't amount to much (apart from straight edge, but i think everybody's starting to realize how stupid that shit is, it's more extreme but not like when it first started).

the bands that tend to veer away from those ideals are usual off shoots, usually the bands that sart mixing it with metal funnily enough, or pychobilly or pop punk, which hasn't really ever gone by punk ideals anyway

i have to admit though, it's nice buying a nicely packaged gate fold metal record with nice art, lyrics, booklet and so forth, as to supporting the local D.I.Y punk band, buying there scratched cd with a piece of paper for a cover with some shitty pencil drawing of the prime minister doing a shit on new zealand or something

Here's the way I see it. An immense number of bands are emerging day to day to play the same piece of uninspired bullsh*t over and over again. Back in the day, it was easy (at least easier) to create something new. But it doesn't have to be new - it only has to be slightly different. That spice that only those can add to the already existing recipe who has passion for it. Almost all genre had a purpose that those bands who basically created it lived a lifestyle that came with it. Today almost nobody goes to extremes nor really puts all his energy and life into music. If you have it, even if you get broke you'll get support because the crowd sees you're the fun, you're the shit, and will get you the support. What's better is if you can name 1-2 more bands around you who does similar thing that you do, and it has a purpose (eg. love/hating on someone/something/drugs etc.) then there's a chance you'll get following and recognition to a bigger extent. If you look at how today's Black Metal, Punk, Thrash, Death emerged you'll know this is how things happen.

I know from watching countless documentaries that most new genres emerged from small rooms, garages, folks with energy to get rid of getting together and totally crushing it. Somebody heard it, they got them on tape and they distributed among people. Today, this part is entirely different. But you can still take your equipment out in a park and play some crazy shit, some people will stay there and start doing their own thing. And if you persist there will be an occasion when someone with money walks around and will offer you a deal.

Funny enough I'd be ready for all this shit but everyone around me is just so laid back and pleased in their own little world they created around themselves that nobody is willing to step up. Everyone became such a huge excuse creator why not to do something that's out of their comfort zone it makes me puke.

Written by Guest on 11.09.2014 at 11:50

A guide to becoming a Rock Star for cheaps.


1. Stuff can bought by paying for it with your own job. Buy cheaply off Gumtree and other second hand sites! Better still: borrow your friend's shit!

2. "Touring" can simply consist of playing in venues in your region, county etc. This is mere petrol money at the most!

3. Marketing can also simply consist of making a Facebook group with a few songs on and plugging it on a few other websites. Spread the word: it's free!

4. Can quite easily pirate music software off the internet and record your own music! Shh, don't tell anyone!

5 / 6. Bandcamp! Easy to upload, low-cost mp3s for all! Free the Buddhist in you: don't promote physical media!


You don't have to make it your job to be a Rock Star folks! Women will sleep with you if you're playing in 02 Academy, or the Owe-Too Pub on your road! Who knows though, there's always a chance someone will discover you.


But yeah, a bunch of friends of mine who play in a rather middle-of-the-road doom band and have been doing so for no more than two years, and only a couple of averagely recorded EPs, just played at Bloodstock festival. Only one of them has a decent job (something computery), while the others consist of a student, a bar man and a guy with not-so-successful van hire service. Suffice to say they are not well off in the slightest but with a good amount of promotion and local touring did quite well for themselves.


I don't see "logistics of music" here. I see binary ways of thinking i.e. you ain't a rock star until you appear on national TV. If we're to believe that then many of our favourite bands are not rock stars as they often have to hold down jobs to stay afloat.

Excellent points. Technology is coming to the point where not just the programs, but actual recording hardware is getting more affordable. I had to buy a recorder for my time in broadcasting school, it was $300 and the mic quality on it was decent enough that you could theoretically record a live band with surprisingly decent results if you know what you're doing. A million dollar studio isn't 100% necessary. I have a friend who set up his own home studio for less than 5 grand - that was built over the period of 3 years give or take, and since that time he said he's made at least half of that back helping his friends with producing their EPs and whatnot. It's all fairly decent equipment too, just pieced together from whatever used deals he could find on craigslist/kijiji/ebay. 5 grand isn't small beans, but he's not a rich guy, and he can now record as much as he wants until the end of time for the same price it would cost him to rent out a professional studio for 1 recording.

As far as distribution goes - it's all about supply and demand. You only press whatever you need. Obviously you're not going to press 10,000 copies if you're just going to be selling them at the local bar to your friends. If at all. Most bands just do bandcamp downloads now, which eliminates a majority chunk of distribution costs. To press say, 100 CD's for the few folks left interested in hard copies isn't a ridiculous cost for someone with a steady day job.

Marketing? Social media. That's it. There's a reason companies have paid positions for social media liaisons - because social media does wonders. Send MP3's out to every metal/rock publication on the planet - large or small. If you're good at using social media effectively (and yes, believe it or not, there is skill involved) you can do pretty well for $0.

Dee Snider is 100% right. It's the rock n roll business model that is dead. Most of these ridiculous overhead costs which justifies the existence of big labels just represents an outdated business model.

Yeah I think the defining factors, as long as the music is there, are a little self taught expertise and a bit of tenacity with promotion. Probably a bit of luck too. Everything one needs to make a name for themselves is right out there and readily available for relatively affordable prices. This is the Youtube age when any idiot doing a dumb thing can be famous for a bit.

We can deal in false dichotomies if you want: you need to be rich to be able to make marketable music, you need a million fans to be a rock star, you need super-slick, expensive production to make good sounding music, but that's really avoiding the greys of the matter and not really doing the idea of rock fame - especially in metal where things become very relative what with even decent sized bands only filling up small venues and with averagely recorded albums that sell very few units - justice.

It's quite easy to see everything in retrospective and thinking that Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin and Sex Pistols were the shit back then. Now in 2014 we're finally understanding what happened in the '90s...grunge short but powerful life, Radiohead birth, rap and latino invasion and we crossed the 2000 line with boy bands, happy punk (Offspring, Green Day, Blink 182, etc) and Marilyn Manson. We are just beginning to see what happened in the '00 decade.

Time changes, musicians should change too...rock is dead? I think they said the same a looong time ago, when The Beatles broke up or Led Zeppelin died.

Welcome to the XXI Century Warner, EMI & Sony...those are my thoughts.

Written by deadone on 22.09.2014 at 02:33


It's not just the big 3. It's all the small labels too who never had economies of scale and who often struggle for sales in the first place due to dealing with niche markets.

I'm by no means an expert in selling and record industry, but I know the story of two local bands that release their albums online and play in small venues, have a low-scale selling and when they want to tour they don't go to EMI or Warner, they go to Jack Daniels and Redbull. Sponsors and brands are starting to be a huge thing now that international record companies are dying