SMF Slamboard
SMF Slamboard
Search SMF Slamboard | Photo Albums | TwistedSister.com
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )


Posting a reply to: Dee responds to Gene Simmons claim that "Rock 'n' Roll is dead"



Slamboard Home-> SMF Slamboard
Guest name
Subject
Message

Emoticons
HTML: Yes
Anonymous: No
MBBS Code: Yes
Disable HTML
Enable emoticons



You are replying to:
marty
Posted 2014-09-11 6:40 AM (#34247)
Subject: Dee responds to Gene Simmons claim that "Rock 'n' Roll is dead"
Quote Reply


Nearly A Band Member

Posts: 834
500100100100101010
Location: Auchenblae, Scotland

Posted on the TS Facebook page:


"POINT / COUNTER POINT: "ROCK 'N' ROLL AIN'T DEAD" by Dee Snider

Recently, my esteemed colleague, Gene Simmons of Kiss declared that "Rock 'n' Roll is finally dead". Really?

While I have nothing but respect for Gene, he couldn't be further off the mark. Yes, the rock 'n' roll "business model" that helped Kiss (and my band for that matter) achieve fame and fortune is most certainly long dead and buried, but rock 'n' roll is alive and well and thriving on social media, in the streets, and in clubs and concert halls all over the world. And the bands playing it are more genuine and heartfelt than ever because they are in it for one reason: the love of rock 'n' roll.

Spend some time seeing and listening to these incredible young bands and their rabid fans and you will know that rock 'n' roll couldn't be more alive. Yes, it's not the same as it was for the first 50 years of rock’s existence, but the fire definitely still burns.

And it wasn't some 15 year old kid in Saint Paul, Minnesota (to paraphrase Mr. Simmons) who killed the rock 'n' roll goose that laid the platinum egg...it was greedy, big city, record company moguls who made their own velvet noose to hang themselves with. It was they who took advantage of the consumer (and the artist for that matter) and drove them to use an alternative source of music presented to them.

For example, take the bill of goods the record industry sold the mainstream public when introducing the CD format. "We have to charge more for it, because it's a new technology and there's a cost to setting up the infrastructure to produce them." The consumer believed them--it made sense--so they paid a $18.98 list price for a product they had been paying $7.99 list for previously. After all "you can't break a CD with a hammer!" (Remember that?)

But when the infrastructure was in place and paid for in full, and the cost of producing a CD dropped to less than a dollar, did the record companies roll back the list price in kind? Not on your life. They weren't about to do the right thing and cut their increased revenue stream. Those fat cats were enjoying their ill-gotten gains way too much.

So when the general public finally realized they were being had, and the opportunity arose for them to stick it to the man, what did they do? The same thing their Woodstock Nation, baby boomer parents had done when they had their chance...they stuck it and they stuck it good. Does anyone remember Abbey Hoffman's "Steal this Book", the massive selling, early 70’s hippy guide “focused on ways to fight the government, and against corporations in any way possible.” Multiply that by a googolplex.

Is it hard to make it rock 'n' roll? You bet. Always was, always will be. Will rockers make as much money as they did "back in the day"? Probably not. But that won’t stop them, and they'll be motivated by a much more genuine love of the art, and great rock will continue to be produced, played and embraced by rock fans.

So in conclusion: Record company executives killed the old rock 'n' roll business model…and Rock 'n' Roll Ain't Dead!

Dee Snider/ September 10th, 2014"



(Delete all cookies set by this site)
Running MegaBBS ASP Forum Software v2.0
© 2003 PD9 Software