So, what's wrong with that? Should record companies cater to someone who claims to have the be all end all taste in music...or those screaming 13 year olds with money to burn in their pockets?

the music business has never really been about the music...
for everyone who bitches about the manufactured boy bands, there are 10 who forget the Monkees weren't really a band before they were cast on a TV show...

gene simmons reminds me of the "real sinatra" :)

I have a computer and everything on it should be free. That is the sad boiled down fact behind most downloaders. The effort behind the product is of no monetary value to me, the artist can make money some other way off some other person ..... What percentage of artist's on your playlists have you actually seen live? I'll bet it's pretty low. Be honest, it's real low.

Fuck em' I got it for free. I am entitled to have it for free. :helpme

Oh, I forgot, the record companies are the reason I deserve everything free.



.

ding ding - we have a correct answer. i agree with you.
Hate Gene Simmons or not, he is very smart and has done very well because of it.

sound weird..>>

Internet Downloads bore me.

I agree with some of what you said but I would argue that most top 40 style radio (regardless of genre) is off limits to just about anyone. It takes major money and influence to get on big radio stations unless you get lucky. These stations want ratings so they feed the listeners what the listeners want. that is why established acts dominate radio play. MTV is dead and getting videos played just about anywhere now is almost impossible. MTV plays 10 videos a day during TRL and most of those you only see a few seconds of the video. They have MTV2 but even it is playing less and less videos. There is Much Music and some other options, but they are drying up even to established acts.

that said, there are many acts that get little or no radio play yet still sell really well. A few that come to mind are Radiohead (they do get some play on alternative stations, but not much) Wilco (i've never heard them on the radio) Phish, before they broke up (never played on the radio but would sell out stadiums nationwide) and many others. While these acts don't sell concert tickets and CDs like superstar acts, they still do pretty damn well for themselves.

When I mentioned record/musician promotion companies they are basically like record labels the difference is they won't be signing bands or distributing records. Their sole job will be to get the band press and get the band's name out there.

I feel that as broadband continues to roll out and get cheaper and cheaper soon it won't surprise me to find out that many people don't really listen to regular radio (a reality most radio stations are already facing as they see slowly dropping ratings) and they will turn to other sources to get their music. These other sources could provide some great opportunity for some bands if they are able to figure out how to take advantage of it. A great example, although not in the music world, is Dane Cook. I heard an interview with him recently where he basically said he used Myspace, Facebook, Friendster and Youtube to build his career. He would record his live shows and he would do funny sketches and put them up on these sites. he built an entire audience this way and now has a movie career and is the biggest stand up comic in the nation. I can't see why a band, if they had the right plan, couldn't do the same thing.

you hit that nail on the head

Um because I wouldn't spout an opinion unless I thought I was right. What kind of fucking retard says something and thinks they are wrong?

whoa!! who pissed in your cheerios?

That's all well and nice in theory, just like the theoretical 54 Mbps throughput of 802.11g WiFi, which in reality is barely half that, but in practice there aren't many other free alternatives which span a large geographical area and don't need you to be stationary which can distribute radio as well as the current FM/AM radio system.

It'll be a long time until there's some other wireless distribution system with the coverage, lack of cost to access and wide installed userbase to challenge the current FM/AM system, with the exception of DAB digital radio, and for you Americans, probably that Sirius satellite radio - although I'm aware that Sirius is far from being free to access...

There's 2 key concepts behind all marketing. Selling and branding. People downloading your shit is branding unless it's your whole discography but fortunately torrent clients are too hard for the mass majority to understand.

No. Corporate greed ruined it's the industry years ago.

There was an interesting PBS story on this you can watch, but it's spot on. The biggest point was that the companies crank out tens of thousands of disposable artists. Most with an image or fade, and once it's gone. So are they.

They are worried about the bottom line. Not true music, or creativity.

But my biggest gripe goes two fold. One, artists who have albums with maybe two good tracks, but you have to buy the whole album to get them.

Second, when I bought my first CD back in 1984 (Bobby Brown) it was $20. Now, 20 years later, they still run around the same price point for the most part. Twenty years of better technology and the same price point?!?!?

Take that, and the change in the FCC allowing radio and media power houses to buy all the markets and you have ruined the business. People are tired of it, and they are shamelessly hitting back in the pocket book.

As a webmaster, I can't say I support stealing. I do not even have an MP3 or iPod. But I do have Yahoo Jukebox. I do not even listen to CD's any more. All my music is streaming through messenger, or player online. But when I want a new CD for my truck. I buy the single songs I want on Jukebox, and burn it there.

:2 cents:

Gene is all business

The web is narrowcasting on a grand scale - one song for each person.

Radio (and TV) are broadcasting, sending one signal to millions.

It is the difference between addressing people one at a time on a street, or standing in a stadium full of people talking about your product.

The web will not replace radio directly, no more than mixtapes killed FM radio or sat radio knocked it off either. Broadcasting is a key part to getting a large amount of public opinion to be one way. Without someone to tell them what they should like, most people wouldn't know.

Sad but true.

Bow down to the genius of Gene Simmons, who has turned a mid pack band with a great schtick into a career beyond careers, still going strong 30 plus years later... and banging a few hotties on the way.

i dont get it.......I WANNA ROCK & ROLL ALL NIGHT & PARTY EVERY DAY = makes me wanna drink a beer?

GOLD = best conductor of electricity we have....lol

what a fuck wad

I didn't mean that the net would replace radio. What I meant is that more and more people are no longer listening to the radio. They have Ipods and other MP3 players that they listen to so instead of listening to the radio on their way to work or while they work out they listen to their music. These are people that may, if it were free or very cheap, download new unknown bands and give them a try. I can say that I rarely listen to the radio anymore. I haven't replaced it with another radio alternative, I just listen to my MP3's. I think more and more people are starting to do just that.

I read somewhere that Radiohead distributed 500,000 copies of their new album in rainbows over their website at an average of $6 a copy. That puts this at $3,000,000.00 in the pocket of Radiohead.
Without any advertising, dumbass campaigns, control over their music by a guy in a cubicle, and as well as 75 cents royalty ONLY after the record company recoups its costs.
Which model do you think is better then? Stand there and earn 75 cents or make $3m in the first month with only your own expenses? Khmmmm

Gene Simmons, and a number of other bands are so outdated on the model that will replace the glam and take people back to real music overnight.

Here is a good read from another artist using the newer model of no BS.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...ogID=326514487



V is for Vagina Release

Good news

1 on the Billboard INDIE chart.
25 on the Billboard top 200

No Major label budget.
No Major label $300,000 Bus bench/poster/billboard marketing campaign.
No overpriced full page ad in every silly magazine ever printed
No Promotions Dept Payola hand jobs.
No shove it down your throat anything.

just 100% street level, viral, word of mouth support.

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.

So musicians have to be knowledgeable in internet marketing to make it?
Or do they wait to be discovered by someone that will do this for them?

Radiohead is a poor example they have been around for 20 years and it was their seventh album. If it was their first album attempt today they would all be waiting tables somewhere.

Sysgenix, sorry, but your "example" is playing off the fame and high level awareness of one of it's members. V is for Vagina is from Puscifer:

Puscifer (IPA: [ˈpusəfɚ][1]) is a side project of Maynard James Keenan from the bands Tool and A Perfect Circle.

Considering that Tool is red hot right now, this guy could probably release an album of him passing gas in the shower and get a top 25 on the indy charts. That and they are getting heavy radio play for this stuff (at least in Canada).

They myspace page isn't exactly telling the truth, but they are certainly trying to climb onto a bandwagon, which is pretty much the same jam it down your throat mentality, just using different tools.

I am not trying to say that internet marketing is a way for bands to break through and achieve the level of Tool, Radiohead, Dave Mathews and a lot of other bands.

I am trying to say the way music companies have shoved creativity of an actual group aside in order to make a HIT is changing, because the distribution model is going to change. Bands are able to build up a following through viral marketing and make the same if not more money selling their own music and art. There are already examples out there of this, and it is making the record execs quiver.

Want a record deal description?
A band is signed to a 3 year record deal for $5m

The record company pays a band 25 cents to 75 cents if they are lucky for every disk sold. That is only after the expenses for making videos, promotion, and all the other BS is paid for.

How many records does a band have to sell to make $2m?

Now what if a band has a following of 100k+ people built up over a few years of releasing songs in digital format, selling them cheap, and those ACTUAL fans not the type who were shoved this down their throat go out and pay instead of $17 for a CD but $5 for a download.

You think it will not happen? It already is happening.
Do you think it will not improve the quality of the music being produced?

Gene Simmons in my opinion is outdated and too arrogant to realize that just like online content distribution is changing TV, Video Rentals, Magazines, Newspapers, News Networks, has left him behind the times and his new album would not sell enough for him to justify the time sticking out his tongue the next 365 days.

In a way you basically have one of three choices these days.

You can be knowledgeable about internet marketing and use the stuff that is out there to get exposure which may help you sell more albums/concert tickets and/or get signed by a major label. You could also hire someone that knows this stuff and can help you but that might take some cash up front.

Or you do it the old fashioned way where you play live locally, make a demo record and use it to get signed by a major label.

Or you can go the indie route which is to make your own record, play live anywhere you can, get radio play anywhere you can (college radio, indie stations, internet radio etc) and try to build up an audience on your own.

None of the above is easy for any artist no matter how good you are and signing with a major label these days is certainly doesn't mean you will succeed. There are many bands that get signed, make a record and the record either never comes out or it comes out but they put very little marketing behind it so nobody ever hears about it.

I think, in the modern age and as we head down the road, the best chance any new band would have is to basically do all three at the same time. Record your own album. The stuff to do that is getting cheaper and cheaper these days or you can rent some studio time. Use the internet to promote yourself as much as you can. Play live as often as you can and use any buzz you create for yourself as bait for major labels. Even if you get signed, have a semi-hit song then get dropped the exposure you would get could help you maintain a career on your own afterwards.

I think over the next few years we will see a shift in how bands get discovered and marketed and I think traditional venues like MTV and radio will be pursued less and less. Sure those will still be of huge value to those that can get access to them, but most acts can't so they won't waste the time and money and instead they will put that money and effort somewhere else.

RawAlex, Tool is hot, but it has a quality that has maybe been noticed by you maybe not. There has been no promotion for the new album that is staying in the charts consistantly, there has not been any music video on some pop network, their tours dates have sold out 10-20 minutes after opening box offices. They have and built a following of people.

Its not to say that it cannot be done by a group of individuals who come up with music that is actually listenable and has more then catchy hooks to attract the 9 year olds and establish a following.

I agree with a lot of your points but I will say this about Gene. Kiss can (and probably will) put out a new record and nobody will buy it. They will then go on tour and sell out 5,000-20,000 seat venues around the country. They were around long before the digital age and use their amazing marketing abilities to build up an audience that is willing to drop $40+ a ticket to see them in the make-up and hear them play "rock n roll all night."

I agree with Alex on this one. If the singer from Tool isn't in the band I doubt they would be doing as well as they are. Foo Fighters was selling out venues around the country before they even had a record out. All that was out was a demo they had recorded in one day. But their singer/guitarist was the drummer from Nirvana so all the Nirvana fans turned out to see them. They went on to have hit songs, hit videos and big career because they are a good band, but ultimately they got a really nice kick start piggy backing on the Dave Grohl's fame.

Tool is an acclaimed band that has been around for a long time and has a large fan base. Whatever Maynard does the Tool fans are into. look at A Perfect Circle. They got radio play and video play, but at first they went from unknown to something because of who was in the band.

Thanks, I see your points. Perhaps my negativity stems from the whole "free" concept, overshadowing other points.

Sheesh I agree, as I know people who paid $500+ to have good seats to Kiss. But that is to see a novelty band from the past of nostalgia when you had a lunchbox with Kiss on it in your middle school. Or a Kiss Pencil.

Do you see bands like Pink Floyd putting out keychains, lunchboxes?

And thats the point is that their music is worthless enough for them to not do it anymore, they can do reunion tours in clown suits and it will still sell their arenas.

Agreed 100% I have to say I have seen kiss live. It's a fun show if you've had some drinks and just want to hear some loud music. Rock n Roll all night is a fun song, but most of their songs are just throw away. They were more of a novelty act that made it big and cashed in on everything they could. I wouldn't pay to see them (I got my ticket free the time I did see them) but their marketing has made many people believe they are great. I guess that is the cornerstone of all marketing - convince someone you have something they can't live without.

Pink Floyd on the other hand is one one of the greatest bands ever and they have survived, IMO, on the strength of their music alone.

Maybe a lesson for new bands can be seen in in this. If you have an amazing product eventually it will sell itself. If not, you better market the hell out of it. :)

You are missing the point. Tool is immensely popular and is getting super heavy rotation on most alternate rock stations (including both of the stations I listen to, one from the US and one from Canada). They are a HUGE band.

Puscifer isn't any different from, say, Mick Jagger releasing a solo album. If it was released by "some guy from London" it might do well and it might not. But that it is Mick Jagger, well... it sells without anyone hearing the music.

I am sure that Tool fans snapped up the Puscifer album without hearing a single note. Even if 50% of Tool fans picked it up, it would be a HUGE indy album.

The question isn't how existing artists are able to get great sales, but how some garage band from Hell, Michigan is going to get enough critical mass to make it worth them taking it on the road. The answer is without a record deal and product in the stores (and on the airwaves) they have very, very little chance of ever getting out of beer money gigs. This is why "record companies" or "New Media distribution agents" (same thing, really) are needed to make this work. Aggregation.

Before the horse will drink the water, you have to lead him to it.

I would also guess that a huge percentage of people between 30 and 60 would be able to identify "I want to rock and roll all night" from the first 10 seconds of the song. The music may be simplistic, but it is also classic in it's own right.

tonight, i'am gonna give it all to you...