"Music should be, personal, majestic and otherworldly."

Because in order for music to ascend to its rightful position at the top of popular culture's leader board, it's got to be more about its intrinsic value than the sell. It's got to be more about music than showmanship. It's got to be more about creativity than expediency.

Genes Simmons Responde:

"I know Gene loves that I'm writing this."

SURE. I LOVE ANYONE WHO TALKS ABOUT ME.

"Almost to the point where I considered not writing about his speech at all. But I've got to. Because in order for music to ascend to its rightful position at the top of popular culture's leader board,"

(I CAN'T WAIT FOR THIS LEADER OF POPULAR CULTURE TO TELL ME HOW TO POSITION THINGS).

"it's got to be more about its intrinsic value than the sell."

YES, AND NO. IT "SHOULD" BE ABOUT MUSIC, BUT IT'S ALSO GOT TO BE ABOUT BUSINESS. IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED, IT WAS NEVER JUST CALLED "MUSIC." IT WAS, AND STILL IS CALLED THE "MUSIC BUSINESS."

"It's got to be more about music than showmanship. It's got to be more about creativity than expediency."

NO. HES GOT IT ALMOST RIGHT. IT'S GOT TO BE ABOUT BOTH.


supongo que para unos la combinacion de estas dos es lo mejor, otros se inclinaran mas por la una o por la otra...depende no?
que puedo decir... a las 4:55am estoy recopilando infromacion - mas de Bob...

We're in an era of revolution. Is Gene bearing arms and tearing down doors or fortifying the decrepit castle against the upstarts?

It's a long way to the top if you want to rock and roll. Hell, all those Aussie bands are fantastic because they've had to hone their chops live, playing in shitholes around their island country again and again, needing to impress the limited population to the point where they're such great performers, they kill in the rest of the world. If you put together a cookie-cutter act, aren't you doomed to limited success at best? Can Gene Simmons truly make a star, or does one have to be honed over a decade, too long for the silver-tongued devil to cash in and cash out.

For too long, success in music has been about smoke and mirrors. With the strings pulled by Oz-like figures who don't account accurately and end up with all the money. Now it's about the acts, not the labels. As for the money? You don't get that from a bank, interest is too high, the institutions are run by thieves. You get your cash from the public, people who believe in you and will give you their every last dollar on your road to success. They don't want to rip you off, they only want to revel in your success, bask in your reflected glory.

Then again, your performances have got to kill. And your music has got to be great. Artifice? Isn't that something you do online with Photoshop?

http://site.citynews.ca/video/?bcpid=1640183522&bclid=1896836079&bctid=16513340001

" busquenlo en youtube...les toca a uds..."

But we live in such a vast world that the haters can coexist with the lovers, and never the twain shall meet. In other words, KISS can function privately in its own backwater and the rest of us can ignore the band.

That's how the music business is today. It's narrowcasting. The key is to gain someone's attention and to try to grow from there, fan by fan until you can support yourself playing music and give up your day job.

... everything's got a limited audience. And train-wrecks have a very short shelf life. In other words Gene, a band you sign could have sex on stage tomorrow and it might be big on the Net for 24 hours, but if anybody even remembered the act's name a year later, they certainly wouldn't recall the music.

You can try and generate instant heat and instant sales. There is a business there. But if that paradigm were so damn good, the major labels would be prospering instead of dying. We're in the era of artist development. You've got to develop your craft and your audience. Musicians and fans are bonded, for the long haul. It's not clear where they're going, it's an exciting journey. Pre-fab is becoming marginalized.

So if you tell me you're going to sign a band, change its name, its players, its hairstyles and its music and then ram the result down the throat of the public, I'm gonna tell you very few people are going to care and that you'd better not invest much money, because limited dollars will come in return, and you'd better get out quick, because the act is going to burn out almost instantly.

Build slowly. From the core out. Breaking a band today is more of a whispering campaign than banging the public over the head with a blunt instrument. You lead with your music. Sure, networking/managerial/Internet tools are important, but it all comes down to the music. You can click online and hear it instantly. Is it any good?

The public decides. Gatekeepers? Physical retail is just about dead and radio has been marginalized. It's a direct connection between musician and listener. You'd better be good, baby.


SE APLICARA ESTO A COSTA RICA? PARECE SER QUE POR NO EXISTIR INDUSTRIA DISQUERA EN EL PAIS, DE ALGUNA MANERA ESTO SIEMPRE HA SIDO ASI AQUI... YO CREO QUE AUN NO SE HA VISTO LO ULTIMO DE LOS MAJOR LABELS... O SI ? TAL VEZ LOS DOS MODELOS EL VIEJO Y EL NUEVO PUEDEN COEXISTIR... SI COMO DICE BOB, TODO COEXISTE HOY, ENTONCES POR QUE LAS DISQUERAS NO PUEDEN COMPETIR (COMO YA LO HACEN) CON LOS TALENTOS INDIES?