Gene Simmons Attacks Music Downloaders, Radiohead, Trent Reznor
Lawsuits, profanity, and hypocrisy abound as KISS frontman offers his "unique perspective" on the music industry's woes

Chris Peredun - November 16, 2007 11:43 AM
http://www.dailytech.com/Gene+Simmons+A ... le9680.htm

Billboard Magazine recently had a chance to speak with the front man and founding member of KISS, Gene Simmons, about the band and about the music industry as a whole. While the questions about upcoming releases and tours were answered in a fairly standard manner, bringing up new music must have touched on a rather sore point for Mr. Simmons.

While artists are certainly not expected to like the idea of a listener having downloaded their hard work, Gene Simmons evidently would rather not have the listeners at all, saying that "Every little college kid ... 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."

When the interviewer turned the conversation to artists such as Radiohead and Trent Reznor, who are offering free downloads and a "pay if you want to" purchasing model, the abuse continued. "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?"

Evidently the $2.7 million USD grossed by Radiohead on the first day of sales "doesn't work" well enough.

But according to Gene, it's not about the money. "The most important part is the music. Without that, why would you care?"

No doubt a smaller band, playing music for the fun of it, might agree -- but coming from the mouth of a man with a reality show on A&E in its third season, a cartoon on Nickelodeon, his own book publishing company, and a band that has branded merchandise from lighters to condoms to comic books -- it's a little hard to believe that it's still "about the music."

Gene is flip-flopper. It's only "about the music" when he's criticizing someone else.

When he's trying to sell something, he talks about how "KISS is BRAND, not a band."

You're missing the point of that comment - and this article is unforunately a distillation of a more complete version already posted elsewhere on the forum.

When he says, "The most important part is the music. Without that, why would you care?" he's not discounting all the branding/marketing/etc., he's saying that nobody would be interested in any of that if they weren't already a fan of the music. The music is the root of an artist's income, and once that root becomes defined as "free" the secondary assets automatically decrease in value.

And while I think Simmons basically took his philosophy to such an extreme that he's effectively sold his soul, it's hard to refute his view that downloading without consent is nothing more than stealing. And I also tend to agree that the path taken by Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails is infinitely easier because of their high profiles - profiles that, let's not forget, were created through the system they now allegedly despise - but it's not going to work nearly as well for newer artists.

I think newer artists can start to build a following via the web. Is it equal to having the marketing machine of the RIAA behind them? No, but it's a different approach, and that's something that is needed desperately. It's just not completely there yet. I'd submit that once the business model is established, so that people "know" to look online for new music, it will become ever easier for a band to break through.

I agree completely. It's redundant to call Simmons an asshole for the millionth time, and the idiotic strongarm tactics he describes need to be taken with a grain of salt, but I'm really starting to wake up to the overall negative impact that downloading, both legal and otherwise, has had not only on the music business, but ultimately on me as a music consumer and fan.

Musicians sell music, just as McDonalds sells hamburgers and General Electric sells lightbulbs. For every band that is successful enough right now to be able to give away their music, there is an artist such as Simmons who will refuse to make any new music--and another artist somewhere else nwhose music will likely never get the exposure it deserves.

"The most important part is the music." Is he talking about the music itself or a recording of that music?

I would never argue that the music itself is of the utmost importance. If the music doesn't interest me, obviously I won't look into the band any further.

However, knowing how few artists actually make money off their recordings, I view most recordings as a "loss leader" for the rest of a band's ventures. I think that giving the recordings away is a clever way of trying to fix a system that is corrupt and doesn't work that well for many musicians.

No doubt, a major, enduring act like KISS is making money off their catalogue, but I would guess that they are the exception, rather than the rule.

In the case of KISS, isn't it possible that there are people who were first exposed to the merchandise and then discovered they were a band? I can speak from personal experience here... my very first KISS purchase was the Marvel Comics Super Special from 1977.


I'm still waiting for the KISS® urinals.

First of all--I'm not so quick to declare that record companies are more corrupt than Ticketmaster.

Second of all--aren't the rest of a band's ventures designed to sell records? You're not honestly suggesting that a band give away music to promote, say for example, a television show upon which they are making a guest appearance--probably for a token performance fee? Or are they supposed to cover their studio costs (since by the "loss leader" business model, the record companies are suddenly out of business) by selling $100 t-shirts?

Look at the Who. After 40+ years in the business, they've decided to charge $50 a year to subscribe to a website that offers...um...a message board, a bunch of MP3's, and 25% off a totebag with the Who logo. The real prize in the whole shebang, however, is of course the double CD of mostly unreleased live tracks. Ironically, this is the sort of business model that resonates with me. If they gave away this CD for free (and lord knows it will probably hit the bittorrent sites before too long) I certainly wouldn't consider shelling out for the $50 subscription. (And I'm still only considering it!)

It's ALL about the music. Sure, in another hundred years, there will be people still shelling out money for vintage Beatle wigs and KISS comic books and even Britney Spears Viewmasters, but it will be the actual recorded music that still matters the most.

Simmons has long been an entrepreneur first and a rock 'n roller second. His priority is making scads of money.

I can't imagine hearing guys like Keith Richards, Chuck Berry or Little Richard discussing the merits of various business models, myself.

As I posted in the other thread about this - how would the record companies actually police this, anyway? How could they even begin to try?

They called them "Crazy Nights"

My experience exactly, Gary. I didn't know about bands and music in the summer of 1977. I remember hearing songs off of radios, but comics and TV were my primary forms of entertainment at 10 years old.

I thought the KISS comic looked cool, got my Mom to buy it for me and when I read the article inside and realized they were a real live band, I asked for a stereo and two KISS albums for my upcoming birthday.

My music obsession started at age 11 with the albums Destroyer and Love Gun, proof positive that Gene's marketing worked. He tapped into my love of comics and turned me into a KISS and music consumer for life.

Neither am I. However, every interview I've read (and from the conversations I've had) with some moderately popular, but not huge recording artists have given me the impression that bands make most of their money on live performances, NOT on CD sales. With all the recent talk of record companies getting involved in live performance promotion, I wouldn’t be surprised if people stop attending concerts as well.



I’m sure that the RIAA feels that everything a musician does should be with the goal of selling more albums. Bands who regularly sell millions of albums benefit from the current RIAA model. The band selling tens of thousands of albums do not.



No, a TV appearance is a promotional tool also.



Once the RIAA is not involved in the equation, recording costs will be significantly lower. If a musician is remotely competent, there shouldn’t be any need to pay someone to come in and tune guitars and drums at a cost of several thousand dollars. (That’s just one example of the way the recording industry inflates the cost of a recording session.) I highly recommend reading Steve Albini’s essay "The Problem With Music" at http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

To me, it really IS about the music; if a recording isn't state-of-the-art, I really don’t care (as long as the music itself and the performance is good.)



Sounds just like the fan clubs in the pre-internet days. You paid a fee and got a couple newsletters or autographed photos or whatever. I’m pretty sure that some of those fan clubs (ie the Beatles) gave out exclusive recordings with the membership.) Likely, bands like the Who are testing the waters to see if there is still a market for fan clubs. And it sounds like the Who is adding value to their fan club subscription by including a nice 2-cd set.

I’m not in favor of illegal file sharing, but Simmons is not differentiating between illegal downloading and bands voluntarily giving away their recordings as a loss leader. (Obviously, the approach has worked well for Radiohead.) I’ll be curious to hear how well Ray Davies’ new LP sells, after his giving away a 10-track version of the CD. Bands are giving away songs frequently via sites like MySpace. Time will tell whether this helps or harms their incomes. Obviously, many of them feel that it’s worth trying a new business model.



OK, then we are talking about money! I doubt that very many of those musicians will give a damn whether their recordings are given away or sold once they have entered the public domain. Just my gut feeling.

Simmons reveals his real thoughts:



He's not refusing to write new music because of downloading concerns, His album "Asshole" showed that people aren't interested in buying his new material, but there's always a (shrinking) group that is willing to buy recycled KISS material.

If he thought new releases would simply be stolen, he wouldn't bother with the box sets.

No, Keith usually leaves that stuff to Mick!

Chuck Berry's business model is legendary--He accepts upfront cash only.

As for Keith Richards...he called the Stones' disastrous relationship with Allan Klein "the price of an education". After Klein, the Stones hired Prince Rupert Löwenstein as their business manager and proceeded to earn about a billion dollars.

And I have no idea what can be done about this. Online piracy is pandemic, it's costing artists and record companies millions, and as a CD collector, I'm starting to see the impact it is having on the consumer. As independant record stores vanish, places like Best Buy and Borders are slashing inventory and shoving compact discs further and further back into the store, while FYE remains the only national music retailer for much of the country. Fortunately, places like Walmart and K Mart are there to stock...er...greatest hits compilations *YAWN*

I don't have a solution, however. Civil and criminal actions against pirates have been ineffective and unpopular. But I certainly don't think that the answer is to give away free music.

In "Hail! Hail! Rock and Roll," there's a sequence where Chuck shows us all the old cars he has in his garage... how he tried to trade them in to dealers but they wouldn't give him what he thought they were worth... so he just decided to hold onto them... and he says he's held onto the cars for twenty years, and he'll hold onto them for another twenty years if he needs to...

...then he turns to the camera and says, "then I'll sell 'em to you... for $50,000!"

"All downloaders should have their houses and cars confiscated"

It's just common sense. Stealing songs that sell for about .99 on iTunes should result in loss of houses and cars worth hundreds of thousands. A head for an eye and a torso for a tooth.

"It's all about the Music"............my ass!! Look, I don't download any songs at all because the files sound like shit. I'd much rather have the entire CD package. It just SOUNDS better. Screw Gene Simmons........after all, he's got a show on A&E or some other network called "Family Jewels" which obviously he can sell, along with what's left of his soul, and does. I was browsing a copy of Rolling Stone magazine and it had an article about the new business model for recording contracts which suggest that the artiist share merchandising and touring revenue. I find that absurd considering that the recording industry has been ripping off artists for DECADES. If I were an artist and they suggested sharing revenues for ANYTHING, I'd say "fuck you". M.

I understand that point of view and agree with you 100%. On the other hand, imagine you're in a band playing clubs, struggling, trying to get into the big time and Big Evil Conglomerate makes you this offer. With that kind of money and potential fame on the table, I imagine it's a tough call because Big Evil Conglomerate can get your album distributed and push your band into the big time.

Download headliners Kiss: 'Fans have killed the record industry'
Gene Simmonds says band won't release new songs until downloading stops

June 17, 2008
http://www.nme.com/news/kiss/37419



Download festival headliners Kiss, who played the top spot at the festival last Friday (June 13), have declared that the record industry is "dead".

Bassist Gene Simmonds explained that his band were refusing to record new material until illegal downloading ceases, calling the act of downloading "uncivilised".

"The record industry is dead," the Daily Star reported the singer saying. "It's six feet underground and unfortunately the fans have done this.

"They've decided to download and file-share. There is no record industry around so we're going to wait until everybody settles down and becomes civilised. As soon as the record industry pops its head up we'll record new material."

Singer Paul Stanley went on to defend the band's policy of only playing old hits live. "With any classic band that hits the road, the last thing you want to hear is their new songs," he said. "Trends come, fashion comes. But we don't go away. We're like herpes."

Watch the press conference where these quotes came from below now.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK8hD3Hn3-Q[/youtube]

The festival being the "Download Festival" coupled with these comments is priceless.

That irony is the first thing that I noticed!

As far as the Recording Industry's being dead? I think the old-school recording industry IS dead (or is, at least, dying a rapid death.) I think its death opens the door to a new, better way of marketing and selling recorded music. So, to whomever (or whatever) is responsible for the demise, I say, "thank you." I look forward to positive changes in the future.