brendanhalpin
brendanhalpin
Follow

Queens and Gene

Posted about 4 years ago
I've been catching up on season 2 of the Henry Rollins show on Fuse lately. It's better on IFC because it's uncensored, but it's still a decent half hour on Fuse. Season 1 was mostly about movies, but Season 2 seems to be covering more ground. I'm not sure which I like better. I kind of liked hearing Henry Rollins' talk about how crappy Hollywood movies are whilst I giggled, pointed at the TV, and said, "you were in Johnny Mnemonic!"But Season 2 has longer interviews and less Jeanine Garafolo, whom I like as an actor and whose political views I mostly agree with and who I find incredibly annoying when she's being herself.There are also really interesting musical guests. In the last week, I've seen Billy Bragg completely butchering "Waiting for the Great Leap Forward" and Bob Mould slightly butchering "If I Can't Change Your Mind" while bearing a really uncanny resemblance to Halloween-era Donald Pleasance. Also Shane McGowan butchering both his liver and the English language but doing a rock-solid version of "Dirty Old Town." Anyway, the other day I caught two very interesting things on the same episode. One was the performance of "Misfit Love" by Queens of the Stone Age. This is a band I never thought much about one way or the other, but this performance completely knocked my socks off. It rocked so hard coming out of my tinny little TV speakers that I am actually afraid of seeing this band live lest I be slain by the mighty power of their heavy riffs. Here's the video: prepare to rock.The other thing on this episode was an interview with Gene Simmons. Shockingly, nobody's youtubed it yet. Anyway, it's pretty funny to watch Rollins struggle not to crack up at some of the ridiculous stuff Gene says. And then, after discussing all the different ways in which Gene Simmons has managed to make money, Rollins asks him if he's still involved in the music industry. Gene says, basically, no, because the industry is dead and the fans killed it. The fans wanted something for nothing, they stole music, the industry was stupid not to go after college kids stealing music before it got out of control, and now the industry is dead because fans showed they don't value music enough to pay for it. Now, obviously you have to take everything Gene Simmons says with an entire shaker of salt, but I thought this was a provocative argument. I'm not really sure how I stand on it. I certainly shopped in used record stores, I certainly made and received many a cassette back in the day, I've really enjoyed trading music with fellow Moggers, and I don't really see too much wrong with it. And yet my living now depends on copyright and on people's willingness to pay for the art I produce. (Well, I suppose some might argue my use of the term "art" for my own work. Feel free to substitute the term "crap." ). I can sort of understand how an artist would be resentful of people downloading their stuff for free. Much of the discussion I've seen of this stuff centers on the evils of the record industry--they rip off the artists, they spent years shoveling crap CDs with two good songs at us (though, really, the artists have to shoulder some of the blame on that one), they rip off the artists, and by the way, they rip off the artists. I am sure that's completely true - I seem to remember Michelle Shocked suing her record company for violation of the laws against indentured servitude and winning - but do we as fans have a responsibility not to take for free something we're being asked to pay for?
0

Comments (17)

  1. Misstee
    Misstee says Hey Gene - how about the fact your band stopped making decent music 15 years ago...that might factor into it.
    Permalink posted 01/24/2008
  2. contrabandwidth
    contrabandwidth says Brendan, I can guarantee that QOTSA will undoubtedly melt your face with some of their music live. I've seen them twice and would see them again. You bring up interesting points, but if it was ever actually about "music" and not "money" for Gene, then I would think he had an arguement. He's possibly one of the greediest, self promotional people on the planet. I think he only enjoyed what music offered him in the form of woman. I would point you towards Boing Boing's Cory Doctorow on the aspects of copyright. Doctorow (no relation to E.L. Doctorow) is a published Sci Fi novelist, essayist, and all around expert on issues dealing with copyright and the internet. He has put all his novels up as PDF's under Creative Commons copyright, allowed fan translations of his work, and claims that he never would have been exposed to the audience he now has if it weren't for making his work available online to whoever was interested. I would also point towards the work of illustrators like Adam Koford, another artist working under CC liscensing for his strip (and most everything he does) called "Laugh Out Loud Cats" (yes it plays off that internet meme, but is an amazing, evolving project) who sells individual custom comic strips for a set price, offering them through sites like flickr, to whoever wants to use them, with attribution. These are just two people working in a non traditional aspects of copyright. I feel that copyright law does more to serve those who stand to profit from copyright (usually corporations the creative individuals work for, rather than the individual who created the work), and serves to keep lawyers paid fighting other lawyers over penny's on the dollar said individual must receive every time their work is used or referenced. Even artists like David Byrne and Thome Yorke have cited that they actually make more off their music from licensing their music, then anything else. Not much comes in the form of album sales. So my response is that it is a new era for art and commerce, and the old rules don't apply. The internet is built upon reference, redundancy, and access. It would be impossible to enforce the net through the existing copyright laws regarding attribution. Certainly if a work is picked up by a commercial body and used to make that commercial body money, than compensation is due. If I cite a lyric or post a song from an album in a review on the net, I believe this is fair use. And these rules often due aply, except there is currently no grey area in the law regarding online or the internet. One only has to look at the perils facing internet radio from the RIAA to see how desperately these old laws have to change. So in this new era, maybe a song is worth 88 cents, maybe it's even less. Maybe artists have to tour more to support making the music they enjoy making. I'm not sure what the answer is, but just because things are devalued in one area, doesn't mean they are devalued in others. I may be able to listen to Radiohead everyday of my life, for the rest of my life. But I may only be able to ever see them once.
    Permalink posted 01/24/2008
  3. dachmo
    dachmo says here's an interesting breakdown from an independent artist concerning the money he makes from the sale of his cd's: "Brad Sucks":http://www.bradsucks.net/archives/2007/05/22/where-your-music-money-goes/
    Permalink posted 01/24/2008
  4. brendanhalpin
    brendanhalpin says Misstee-- You're much more charitable to KISS than I am. I'd put "All Hell's Breakin' Loose" as their last listenable song. Not sure what year that was, but I was in high school, so more than 20 years ago. (Not really that great of a song, but I can't help grinning when Gene bellows, "I am cool! I am the breeze!" Quite a change from being Lord of the Wasteland...) Contrabandwidth--I will get me to a QOTSA concert and hope to make it home intact. I may bring earplugs, because I'm just that old. I hear everything you're saying - it is a brave new world, and the old rules will certainly not apply, and those of us who make money through our art will probably have to get creative about selling it as well. But still. Whatever the new paradigm is, whatever the new rules are, I'm still not sure if I'm acting in an ethical fashion when I take for free something I've been asked to pay for.
    Permalink posted 01/24/2008
  5. contrabandwidth
    contrabandwidth says Creative types have certainly always had a long road to traverse in being able to make money doing what they like, but isn't that the price we pay, for doing it our way? It's only been fairly recent that you have the Led Zeppelins or the Stephen Kings (who I guess is the book world equivalent of L.Z.) who make insane amounts of money for doing what they do. It colors ones perception a bit, since they succeed to the nth degree, it puts the value of work into a sort of questionable territory. Would I pay $1000 to see Led Zeppelin, hell no. But lots of people would, and if they want to, I think that's great. I just know from experience I would have a meter going in my head of a sort of dollar to minute enjoyment factor, and it would just ruin it. I would much rather take a chance on a smaller band and have my socks blown off, and therefore be devoted ever after. I don't know where I was going with that, but I guess I was trying to make a point that I think most musicians who make money are more of the working stiffs than cocaine off a groupies stomach, type of people. They are the true working class heroes that are able to eek out a living doing what they like, and in my mind that's success. Unfortunately, we humans get tied up in our "legacies" and impact, and hope to live forever through our work, which is a great thing to dream about, but probably highly unlikely for most of us. So maybe it's about expectations and perceived worth/value, as much as it is about the reality that for the most part, if we are able to make money doing what we love, than that is our success.
    Permalink posted 01/24/2008
  6. Bartleby
    Bartleby says The thing is that nowadays no one can afford art. Back in the days of Lorenzo di Medici or even of the French monarchy, artists could live off their art because they had those wealthy patrons. I do believe in a system whereby every one contributes to making art and music a "public good." Now, I still buy CDs because having intangible mp3 files decoded into music even through the most advanced sound system doesn't cut it for me. I like the covers, I like the liner notes, the credits (producer, musicians etc...), I like the fact an album is a consistent opus with opening and closing tracks... I also like the fluidity of enjoying something in its entirety and not only excerpts. (Gene Simmons is everything but provocative. He's a sad old fart, if you ask me. He's just trying to squeeze as much money as he can out of his franchise. I mean the bloody make-up is trade-marked. I'm sure he's more concerned about copies of his dolls than the morality of music fans)
    Permalink posted 01/24/2008
  7. Iren
    Iren says brendan- I hear where you are coming from, I recall trying to sell the first 7" record that we put out and some kid with $80 bondage pants and $200 worth of tattoos complaining that we were asking to much wanting $4 for a 7". I think that people need to get their heads around the fact that they need to give their money to the people that are entertaining them.... that said, one of the reasons I don't run a record label anymore is that anyone can put 4 songs on myspace and give them away or sell them... and that is the perfect promo tool (in the case of a writer like yourself I think of it more as posting a chapter) to get people hooked, and then you want them to show up and buy the tee-shirt and stickers (you thought about your own line of book marks?) to support you... the music industry is dead true, but it's also been reborn as something new... really when was the last time you heard someone complain that those new fangeled 78s were killing the sheet music racket? It's an evolution and old farts like KISS need to get with the times or fade away... and let's take a moment to realize that KISS fans buy KISS crap hand over fist... really, everything, they collect and spend their money and time on it.....
    Permalink posted 01/24/2008
  8. benjimon
    benjimon says I usually snicker at the things Gene says....(he's just so full of himself) but I do in a way understand his thinking. I got to the point where I was not going to pay $17 for a CD. That is when I started doing some p2p stuff. But then felt some pangs of guilt. I am still torn on the issue. Sometimes I feel justified. Sometimes I feel like a dirtbag...If 80% of the profit went to the artist I would feel better. I just hate thinking that 80% goes to some guys in suits.
    Permalink posted 01/24/2008
  9. ZZTodd
    ZZTodd says favorite Queens song off of Era Vulgaris
    Permalink posted 01/26/2008
  10. Cody B
    Cody B says Who was really the first to devalue the music...Large distributors! Large distributors created the perception that a single (in the cassingle era, early 90's) could sell for as low as .49...Then they completely stopped making singles and people had to jump to 17.99 CD's to get a song that the distributors were recently selling for .49... If the majors had taken a different approach, ie..immediately start giving away all singles free on line...in the INFERIOR MP3 format, things might have been different, and Apple (that doesn't give a rats ass about music) wouldn't be the leading seller of the coveted single. It's funny 'cause they got people to take that leap from .49 to 17.99 by touting the sound quality of the CD, and just a few years later they forgot the strategy that made them rich..
    Permalink posted 01/27/2008
  11. Wade
    Wade says Brendan, great stuff as usual. I can never be a QOTSA fan because I grew up with all those kids. I worked for Nick Oliveri's mom (original bass player and apparently now pretty crazy dude) at the deli in Ralph's grocery store and hung out with his older brother, Dean (we did decidedly not very rocker things together like collect baseball cards, video games and basketball). Josh was in my little brother's classes as was one of the old or current guitarists (Alfredo something), and the drummer for Kyuss (Brant Bjork) played doubles with my little brother on the tennis team. Being this close to where these guys came from it's like I know what they're all about so I figure they can't possibly be that interesting, because Palm Desert CA produces very few interesting people. I know it is probably pretty cheap and unfair sounding. It seems to me that distributors were slow to embrace technology and figure out how to make it work for them and now they are getting bit. If you haven't seen it yet, you should definitely check out the video "American Hardcore"-has some great early Henry clips and a great look back at a American punk from 81-86.
    Permalink posted 01/27/2008
  12. Lizziegreeneyes
    Lizziegreeneyes says I gotta say it's a laugh & a half hearing Gene say the music industry is dead when he's such a big contributor to that end... he's so fing commercial & sold every bit of his soul, how can he actually sit there & pass judgement... & we all know he does. Without his _fans_ he'd be living in squalor for sure - he may have a nice long tongue, but the guy is HIDEOUS !!! ;) He's someone I shake my head & laugh at, can't think of anything better to do when he's on the tube ;) I am also like Bartleby, I love the cover art, the liner notes, listening to the album in its entirety... but the other side of me feels that even most of the artists putting out albums aren't liking all the "filler" songs the companies made them put on the record to help make it more "listener friendly". All that said... by in large, the music I listen to is music I paid for, in blood, sweat, tears & 40 hour weeks. Sometimes I buy used, sometimes I get it from a friend & I don't give myself any shite about it because I know I've always been a loyal consumer so far as music is concerned. With regards to QotSA - GO... get thee to their next pass through your village. I finally got to see them when they were last in Philly (was with Katrina - aka kat3260). I put them way up on the list of bands you must see live & will gladly go see them the next time they hit me up in the city of brotherly love :) (Great post brendan & THANKS for posting that video - it was brilliant) !!!
    Permalink posted 01/28/2008
  13. Anna
    Anna says I think that QOTSA is the most dynamic contemporary band. I saw them live last June, and I experienced massive and violent sound waves and tremendous amounts of raw energy just coming from the stage, hitting me in the face and suffocating my ears {this is supposed to be a compliment to the band}. Thank you for that video. About what what's- his- tongue said, if the fans really killed the industry, it was truly self-defense.
    Permalink posted 01/28/2008
  14. Lizziegreeneyes
    Lizziegreeneyes says _About what what's- his- tongue said, if the fans really killed the industry, it was truly self-defense._, Deasest sis... this is one of the many reasons why I lurve you :*
    Permalink posted 01/28/2008
  15. River Lethe
    River Lethe says Not that I watch the crap, but Gene was fired off of Celebrity Apprentice after 3 or 4 episodes, so even though KISS made lots of money, do we really need to hear his advice on the economy? Another thing to think about with CDs is that they have not dropped in price over the years like any other techology format. They've gone up. Places like Best Buy doesn't count either, because they're basically subtracting advertisement revenue from the labels from their CD "costs" to get around anti-trust law. By the way, in case any of you missed my post last week, I am boycotting all products from the major labels, including their subsidiary labels. I will only buy new product from indie labels and from acts at shows or their personal websites. If it's on a major, I will be buying it used, so no one gets royalties. I'll support the artists I like by seeing them live and buying their merch.
    Permalink posted 01/28/2008
  16. Anna
    Anna says Aww, love you, too, sis :* I think that the lease we can do is organize a funeral for the industry. Kiss coffin is on me ;)
    Permalink posted 01/29/2008
  17. fastnbulbous
    fastnbulbous says I buy CDs from bands at the gigs when I can. They're usually only $10-$12 and they get a far greater percentage of the money. Buy what I can afford, at least hundred a year, and download everything else completely guilt free, because I no longer bother to hound the promotions depts for review copies. I save them money in postage and materials, I don't re-sell them to CD stores like 99% of professional critics do to supplement their meager incomes, and I do a lot to spread the word on the albums I like. Sounds like a win-win to me. Wade, I think most people grow up to be a bit more interesting than when they were 12. Don't you think it would be a bit unfair if someone who last saw you as a tween thought they knew everything about you despite all you went through in the next 25 years? I would have no problem enjoying the music of someone I knew back when. Gene Simmons needs to stop being a crybaby, gather up the geezers, slather on the makeup over their horrendous faces and go on tour. There's no question they'd make buckets of money. I have no sympathy for former megabands like KISS who most likely snorted their royalties up their noses or spent it on their mistress' boob jobs. If they want more income, they need to work. No worky no money.
    Permalink posted 01/31/2008

Comment on this Post

Login using email and password below.

Forgot Password?

OR login using Facebook Connect

Connect

Don't have an account?
Join MOG. It's Free!

 

© 2006-2012 Mog Inc. All Rights Reserved