Like an abused wife who never learned her lesson, I decided to stay up and watch Jimmy Kimmel last night to see KISS. After all, there was a new album out (first new music in 13 years) which has some decent songs on it, and I wanted to see if they could still cut it live.
Jimmy states that they're live from the Cobo Hall Arena in Detroit, and I'm happy they're not in the TV studio, which would confine them. "Cool" I'm thinking..."KISS in their natural habitat!"
They switch to Cobo and what's the first thing I see? On the HUGE video screen behind the band, the Kimmel show logo and BUD LIGHT logos.
Dear sweet Goddess above...is this what music in America has come down to? CORPORATE rock? Holy flying ****...thank heaven for bands that still have some integrity.
You'll never see a Walmart logo behind Iron Maiden. The American music scene truly is a wasteland. :pity:
Tags:
-
-
-
Pagan......are you actually accusing KISS of selling out ....NOW?
NOW?
I think that ship sailed when Gene started selling Kiss Coffins....credit cards.....toilet paper....baby wipes.....anal lube.....car jacks.....beer cozies......etc...etc...
It is a big screen I believe...so that was an agreement made by the Kimmel people.DonShula84, TheAnswer385, gunn34 and 4 others like this. -
Not only that, I coulda sworn I painted KISS a sellout for having their album drop exclusively at Wal-Mart and Pagan came to their defense :shifty:FinSane, Fin D, SICK and 1 other person like this.
-
Gene Simmons has been riding the cash cow for years. Marketing and promotion of the band are more important than the music is to him now. Gone are the days of 'Destroyer' & 'Love Gun'.
gunn34 likes this. -
In this sense bro yes. They ALWAYS had all the ridiculous merchandise. I'm talking the live concert experience.
There was never any of that crap when you saw them live. It was the four guys (including the Ace & Peter Du Jour), their instruments, and the stage show. There was never any corporate schilling.
As for the big screen, that's not Kimmel. KISS has had that behind them the last few tours. I guess now they're renting advertising space on it. :rolleyes:
I don't recall defending them, but again...this isn't the live venue. Pearl Jam has a similar deal with Target, and I don't see anyone screaming "sellout" at them. The Walmart deal is to move records. That's sound business.
However, when you're up onstage is different. I don't go to a concert to see a huge Bud Light commercial behind the band I paid to see.Section126 likes this. -
-
All things considered, I'm amazed it took this long for KISS to jump the shark. :lol:
-
AC/DC LIVE! brought to you by Energizer.
Pearl Jam LIVE!! brought to you by Gordon's Jewelers.
Metallica LIVE!! brought to you by US Steel Corp.
Nirvana LIVE!! brought to you by Loew Banks funeral homes.
This is is just the tip of the iceberg. Can you imagine Jimmy Page selling advertising on his cape?Pagan, opfinistic and SICK like this. -
In your opinion.
"Destroyer" and "Alive!" are still two of the best hard rock albums ever released.
Besides, the goal of ANY professional musician is to generate income. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Just not to the extreme KISS is doing it.
Are you forgetting the Cadillac commercial that used "Rock & Roll" in the background? :wink2:DevilFin13 and Section126 like this. -
You forgot Bull Sperm. Remember that episode? :lol:
Seriously though, I can see where Pagan is coming from. Talk about an eclipse, it took a while for my eyes to adjust before I noticed there was even a KISS logo behind them.
Ahhh, the good old days before Elecktra and Capitol Records forced Motley Crue and WASP to tone down their acts. -
Nauseating logos aside, how did they sound?
-
Exactly.
It used to be, you went to see KISS, and the biggest thing on the stage was that logo.
Now I guess marketing $$$ are more important. -
I can't lie bro. They didn't sound bad at all.
-
im not into them, but considering the huge screen behind them says jimmy kimmel live, and then has the 2 bud light things, i would guess thats from JK, not KISS
-
Pagan is right. I've been to at least half a dozen KISS shows and I've never seen anything like that, especially not on stage or on a screen. He is also right about Destroyer and Alive! Those two albums are probably why you hear a lot of musicians in the hard rock and metal genres citing KISS as being at least some sort of influence.
-
And the puff daddy remix of "Kashmir"
God I hate the car commercial and that remix :pity: -
I laugh at that. Back in the day how many Cadillac drivers listened to Led Zeppelin? :lol:anlgp likes this.
-
I remember about 10 years ago Ozzy's 'Crazy Train' was used in Mitsubishi car commercials. That was just wrong.
-
Well, not for nothing, but they kicked *** on Letterman. Plus, I dig the new album A LOT, and I am going to see them on the 21st. So eat that, KISS haters!
opfinistic likes this. -
And that's exactly the point. KISS is FAR bigger than Jimmy Kimmel in the scheme of things. They don't need him. Why pander to him?
I'm sure you can go to the Outback and find an Aborigine and ask him who KISS is and he'd probably stick his tongue out like Gene.
Love them, hate them, don't care about them...doesn't matter. EVERYONE knows who they are.
They were good on Letterman. The new album though....eh...
Not a hater at all. i WANT to still love them, but that album is tired. Needs to grow on me.Nappy Roots likes this. -
1. Of course it is in my opinion. We're talking about music. I don't need to preface every statement with that disclaimer.
2. I stated that the #1 goal of Kiss was to generate income. Yes, all bands want to generate income, but its not their #1 goal. I'm not kidding anyone when I say that. I'm fans of plenty of bands who have turned down millions of dollars because they didn't want their music associated with a big corporation.
3. Cadillac originally wanted to use the Doors' "Break on Through", but Robbie Krieger put the kibosh on it. Sometimes money isn't the only thing. You won't hear Tom Petty or Neil Young songs in advertisements. Even bands like Belle & Sebastian turned down $1 million from the Gap. They don't have millions of dollars, but they turned down the money.
4.With Kiss, money is the #1 motivation. That's the distinction. -
That has already happened. "Running Down the Dream" was the theme song for the NBA playoffs in 2006.
-
Good point. Take out Tom Petty and add Bruce Springsteen.
Everybody wants money. Some artists can balance art and money better than others. Even Axl Rose was smart enough to say "no thanks" to the inclusion of "Welcome to the Jungle" in Death to Smoochy. -
-
Bad example.
he sold that song to the Clint Eastwood movie "Dead Pool".
he even allowed somebody else to get credit for the song during the movie.
Bruce Springsteen...I could have swore he did a pepsi commercial.
I do know he used the Super Bowl to sell his "working on a Dream" boondoggle. -
Its one thing to lend your song to someone else's art, like allowing Eastwood to use your songs in a movie. Springteen allowed Stallone to use some songs for that cop movie whose name escapes me right now. That's more like a collaboration. Its another thing to use your song for a 30-second Cadillac commercial.
Springsteen never did a Pepsi ad. "Working on a Dream" may not be a great record, but it aint a "boondoggle". Springsteen's SuperBowl performance was great. So what if it helped promote his record?
None of your nit-picking changes my main point: Kiss is all about $$$, and everything else is secondary. Other musicians/artists walk that line in differently. I don't care what Kiss does, cause they suck...in my opinion. -
Yes, you are.
Just because a band doesn't sell their music to large corporations doesn't mean their #1 goal isn't to generate income.
It's called the music business for a reason. Any artist that tells you they're doing it for their "art" is so full of **** that their eyes are brown.
If you're doing it for art, then you don't release records and sign recording contracts. Plain and simple. I know many musicians who are like that. They play and write their music for the love of it, so they don't market themselves. They play at small venues or coffee houses and play for the sake of playing.
But any, and I mean ANY band that is selling records and touring is doing so for the money. You don't sign record deals, licensing deals, or merchandising deals unless your #1 goal is to make money. Doesn't mean you want to sell out to corporations, but you want to make money. End of story.
Don't fool yourself by false "nobility" of some of them. If it wasn't for the money, they'd break even and just give their "art" to the masses.
It's your choice of words. They don't "suck", you don't like them. They managed to not only survive, but thrive during the 80's when they removed their makeup and stage show and just played. Without good music, that would have been impossible.
Saying "they suck" makes you no better than the moronic Jet fans who used to yell "Marino sucks!"
Believe me, I can say the same thing about a band you mentioned. You brought up the Doors earlier. If you want to talk about an overrated, moronic, one-dimensional band that was marginally talented as musicians and wrote some of the cheesiest crap ever recorded (20th Century Fox anyone?) then look no further.
In your way of thinking, they were the KISS of their time.
And if you didn't care what KISS does, you wouldn't be wasting your time commenting more than your first comment in here, or is it that you just want to appear too cool for the room?
Beats me.PrepDogg and Section126 like this. -
You are over-simplifying. Let me be more clear. I'll even do it in bold like you do:
A musician can have multiple goals. One of those goals is always to make money. I accept that. However, you need to ask: how far will you go to make money? Is making money your #1 goal? There are plenty of bands whose #1 goal is to make great music. If they get paid, great. If not, they can go back to their day jobs between tours. That kind of stuff happens all the time.
It's not an either/or thing. Its a sliding scale. Kiss is on one end of that scale. They only care about the money. And they suck. How dare you make grand statements about all musicians. You say "end of story" with such an obnoxious certainty. Pretty presumptuous. The motivation behind signing a record deal can be as simple as a musician realizing that they are not capable of bringing their music to the people and they need assistance. I have friends in bands that have record deals cause they dont know how to get a record pressed up and distributed.
Not all musicians' #1 goal is making money. It just isn't. Of course they want to get paid, but it ain't the #1 thing.
We agree on one thing though: The Doors suck.
ps- I'm not trying to out-cool anyone here. This ain't high school. -
I agree with the general sentiment here that the doors suck.
I'm going to post my post in italics to be different from all you "bold posters" out there.
I believe that an artists goal first and foremost is the art that they create. Otherwise they would never be able to tour or make money off of it because it would suck. Art without genuine heart put into it means nothing and is able to be seen through by even the most casual observers. Regardless of if they're signed to a record label or not that is still their goal. If they are signed to a record label than a small goal is to make money. If they are not signed to a record label a small goal could still be to make money. If they are signed to a record label it just gives them more money than not being signed to one. I know plenty of musicians who give their albums away for free, yet they still tour and make money (and aren't signed to a record label save for one they made up themselves).
Money is a necessary evil. It is what we all need to get by. If an artist can be genuine to himself and still make a buck I don't know a single artist in this world who would pass that up.
The line is drawn between making an honest buck for your art and selling yourself out.
This is where I think you are displeased, pagan, and where I think it makes sense to be displeased.
As much marketing as KISS has done you say they have never done that live. I don't like them, so I can't comment but I'll take your word for it. Obviously they were able to market their image and stay true to their music. If they didn't stay true to their music their downplayed image in the 80's wouldn't have worked.
But they're selling out now and the new record hasn't grown on you after a few listens?
Time to plug in the older material and let the new **** go my friend.
-
sorry...but...LA Woman is a bad *** song.
The Doors had a few tunes.opfinistic, Pagan and jetssuck like this. -
Uncalled for, and quite childish. I have my reasons for typing in bold.
If your goal is to make great music then you make great music. Once you market that music, then your goal is to make money. That's not over simplifying it, that's just fact. if your goal isn't to make money, then you don't market your music.
ANY musicians priority is to make great music, but it's shared with the priority of getting that music out and getting paid.
Again, you don't like them. They don't suck. They've accomplished more in their first 3 years of existence - BEFORE all the hype - than you or I ever will. If that's "sucking", then sign me up.
Dude, who are you to tell me how dare I? How dare I? Cause I've been doing it since you were 3 years old, that's how dare I. Not being obnoxious OR presumptuous, just stating what I've seen in the last 30 years in the biz.
I'm not saying I'm better because I do it, I'm saying that I'm basing what I say on 30 years of being in bands, working with national acts, working with producers, and working in studios.
Presumptuous and obnoxious is your incessant "KISS sucks" mantra.
First you tell me I'm over simplifying, then you put the reasons for signing a redcord deal in simple terms. Make up your mind.
And as for your reasoning, in a word, bull****. If you don't know how to get a record pressed and distributed, you don't have any business trying to do so.
My band has self financed two albums, with a third on the way. There are distributors EVERYWHERE. You can also now distribute through iTunes and CD Baby yourself. I just did an interview with a Greek metal magazine for a DEMO TAPE of a band I was in in 1985 that we managed to get distributed enough around the world that people are still trading it 24 years later. You don't need a record label to do that.
That's not why you get signed. You get signed in the hopes of getting enough financial backing to tour.
I never said "all" musicians. Don't go putting words in my mouth. I said that if you are SELLING records and touring, your main goal is to make money. Doesn't have to be millions, but you are trying to make money. You're creating a product and marketing it. That's Business 101, my friend.
I never said they suck. I don't care for them. They obviously did SOMETHING right.
Same with KISS. You can say they suck all you like. But they've achieved the pinnacle of success that 90% of bands out there can't even imagine. Be real, you don't last - and remain relevant - for THIRTY SIX YEARS if you suck. If it was all about the money and not about the music, their music wouldn't still be played.
If it isn't high school then why the constant "they suck"? :wink2:
Which is why the whole "KISS is just in it for the money" thing is nonsense. Their songs have lasted over a third of a century.
And this is because in this day and age, there is no money to be made from album sales anymore. The digital age has killed what we once knew record sales to be.
Exactly. Again a reason why KISS has lasted so long. Sellouts disappear after a short while.
You know what it is bro. They don't NEED to be corporate schills. Not at this stage of the game, They're well known all across the planet. There's no need for it anymore.
Oh...and one last thing. To HAMMER home the fact that most bands are in it for money.
Flash back a few years ago...when Pearl Jam were the leaders of the "**** the machine" movement. When Eddie Vedder fought tooth and nail against Ticketmaster, and said they'd never toe any corporate line.
Well well well....their latest tour is sponsored by Target, and anything you see concerning them is now stamped with the Target logo.
I guess everyone has their price, huh? :wink2:PrepDogg, Phins28, Jaydog57 and 1 other person like this. -
true.
i was basically agreeing with you with the exception of artist in it for the money :lol: mainly because i'm not and my life is the only window I can look through, but I see your point about PJ.
Hey I know this is off topic, but could you PM me some tips on recording? -
-
-
Pagan, I didn't put any words in your mouth. Read the above.
You can have the last word on this whole thing, cause my main points remain:
1. A musician who signs a record deal doesn't always do so because money is the #1 goal. What you wrote above is simplistic and overbroad; and
2. Kiss sucks.
That's all I got to say. -
LOL...whatever makes you sleep better at night bro. :wink2:
-
Am I the only one that isn't really bothered by this? So they have Bud Lite logos/signs on a big screen behind them from corporate sponsors, who cares? Does it really take away from someone's enjoyment of their music?